The purveyors of lies, intolerance and inequality have done it. From Equality California:
They claim they did the unconscionable.
Extremist anti-LGBT organizations spent an unprecedented amount of money to pay people to collect signatures and are now saying that they succeeded in buying their way onto the November ballot.
The measure seeks to amend the California Constitution from being a document that protects all people to one that excludes us from equality.
…..
EQCA is a leading partner in the Equality for All Campaign that is made up of leadership from LGBT and allied organizations fighting this dangerous initiative.
We estimate that the opposition spent well over $1.5 million to gather signatures. This means they’re serious about spending millions more to pass the amendment. We need to prepare for what will likely be the most expensive LGBT rights ballot measure in our nation’s history. Here’s what you can do:
* Make a donation to Equality California Issues PAC. We have to match them dollar for dollar. EQCA Issues PAC is committed to fighting this and every attack on our families and our community and every dollar raised will be spent to defeat this measure.
* Tell your friends and family. Tell them why you are giving and ask them to make a donation as well.
In the coming months our community is going to be tested in ways it has not been tested before. So much hangs in the balance.
Granted, Governor Schwarzenegger stated that he is against a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. But we need to fight this hateful initiative tooth and nail nonetheless.
Hat tip to Daniel Gonzales of Box Turtle Bulletin. He has created this wonderful video that lays bare the ugly truth behind the Day of Truth, the RRRW’s “answer” to the Day of Silence. It’s the day they push anti-gay propaganda on LGBT students, their allies, and everyone else. Fortunately the real truth is on our side, and here is just one piece of ammunition.
No doubt by now most of you are aware that the Day of Silence is April 25th (and the “Day of (un)Truth” follows on the 28th). Lance Bass, formerly of *NSYNC, has contributed his time to this wonderful PSA for the DOS.
If you are an LGB and/or T blogger The LGBT Blogroll , a joint effort of Lavender Newswire and The Gaytheist Agenda is just the thing for you. It’s an excellent way to increase your exposure and bring traffic to your blog.
You may have noticed the Atheist Blogroll in my sidebar on The Gaytheist Agenda. Since joining it my readers have had ready access to the more than 500 blogs on the Atheist Blogroll. What’s more, my traffic increased dramatically since I joined the Atheist Blogroll as every member has the blogroll–including my blog–posted on their blog. People see like-minded sites in a handy list and they click because the site name sounds interesting, because they heard about it from a friend or just out of plain curiosity. It’s amazing how many new readers this type of feature can bring in.
Here are the basic requirements:
1. The blog author(s) must be L,G,B and/or T.
2. The blog should be, but doesn’t have to be, written from an LGBT persepective.
3. Please, no pornography be it printed, pictorial or video format.
4. The blog should be fairly active; at least two posts per month.
To apply for membership click “Comment on this story” below this post. When replying :
1. Indicate that your message is about The LGBT Blogroll .
2. Include a valid e-mail address, the title and URL (http address) of your blog.
3. If you wish, include any other information you feel is relevant.
Once we receive about 10-12 submissions we’ll contact members with important details and launch the LGBT Blogroll!
Propaganda and Hate Groups like NARTH and Traditional Values Coalition are fond of throwing out statistics citing the fact that LGBT individuals tend to have a higher predisposition to substance abuse (as well as other mental health issues). What they don’t tell you is the reasons behind those problems, because then they’d be exposing their own guilt. Enter this new study:
The odds of substance use for lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) youth are on average 190 percent higher than for heterosexual youth, according to a study by University of Pittsburgh researchers published in the current issue of Addiction. What’s more, for some sub-populations of LGB youth, the odds were substantially higher, including 340 percent for bisexual youth and 400 percent for lesbians, researchers found.
Ok, nothing new there. But read on. It gets better.
“Homophobia, discrimination and victimization are largely what are responsible for these substance use disparities in young gay people,” said Michael P. Marshal, Ph.D., assistant professor of psychiatry at the Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic of UPMC, who led the study. “History shows that when marginalized groups are oppressed and do not have equal opportunities and equal rights, they suffer. Our results show that gay youth are clearly no exception.”
Interesting none of the “Won’t somebody please think of the children?” people can be moved to consider the LGBT children who are suffering as a result of their bigotry and oppression.
In a meta-analysis of 18 previous studies from 1994 to 2006, which tested the association between sexual orientation and teen substance use, Pitt researchers found that gay youth reported higher rates of cigarette, alcohol and marijuana use, as well as other illicit drugs, including cocaine, methamphetamines and injection drugs. Almost all of the studies in their review were cross-sectional, suggesting that very little is known about the long-term patterns or consequences of drug use in this vulnerable population. Furthermore, the authors conducted a systematic review of the prevention and intervention guidelines published by the American Medical Association, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the National Institute on Alcohol and Alcoholism and the Institute of Medicine. They found that none of the institutions mentioned sexual orientation as a potential risk factor for substance use in teens, and did not provide information for researchers and health care professionals on how to prevent such problems.
“It is important to remember that the vast majority of gay youth are happy and healthy, despite the stressors of living in a violent, homophobic society,” noted Dr. Marshal. “More than anything, gay youth need love, support and acceptance from their family members and friends. It also is imperative that health care providers offer a safe, confidential environment to discuss health care needs with gay teens.”…
Though this is a significant study I doubt the people who need to heed it most will do so as it would require them to change their attitudes and behaviors. Accordingly we’ll continue to fight an uphill battle. Nonetheless we have another valuable weapon in our arsenal, for which I am very grateful.
Concerns over living arrangements as one grows older are common. However there are extra challenges faced by the LGBT population due to the lack of equality in our society. A Place to Live highlights those unique obstacles in a thought provoking new documentary.
A Place to Live
Dear Friends & Colleagues,
The explosive growth in our nation’s aging population coupled with the recent housing market crash has set the stage for a major crisis. Until now, no one has addressed how this issue is impacting gay and lesbian seniors, individuals who have long been denied fundamental human rights and often struggle to make ends meet.
Join us in the creation of A Place to Live, a historic documentary that will chronicle the journey of seven brave individuals as they attempt to secure a home in Triangle Square, the nation’s first affordable housing facility for LGBT seniors. Your financial contribution is critical to help us complete the film and ensure that their story is told.
*****
For the seniors featured in the documentary, their future is anything but certain. Each participant faces a number of personal challenges:
· Margo must work two jobs in order to pay her rent, but with her failing health she won’t be able to keep it up.
· Art is lonely and isolated in his Section 8 Housing unit in east L.A. He yearns to live in a community of his peers.
· On the verge of homelessness, Karen’s only option is to move to a rundown trailer park in El Monte. It’s the best her sons can afford for her.
· Don’s house is old and falling apart, but he can’t afford to fix it. The roof is already leaking and the raining season has just begun.
*****
Although each senior applied for an apartment in Triangle Square, they are not guaranteed a unit. Since demand far exceeds the number of available apartments, a lottery system was set up to determine who will be selected. A Place to Live is an exploration of the applicants’ personal stories and the journey that brought them to the lottery. If they are chosen, the building is a dream come true - a beautiful, safe place to grow old, in the company of their peers. If not, many seniors will be forced to remain on the fringe of our community hoping for another lifeline to appear.
We need your support in order to share these intimate, thought provoking stories with our community. Please act now by going to the link below and making an on-line tax-deductible donation to the project. Donations can also be sent to the Center for Independent Documentary at the address below. Any amount of money will make a significant difference in our efforts. If we can raise $36,000 by the end of April, we can finish the offline edit, music score and obtain archival footage.
Together, we can make certain that those who fought for many of the rights we enjoy today are guaranteed a voice in the struggle for non-discriminatory affordable housing. The documentary, A Place to Live is that voice.
“The people living with HIV at my age deserve to have a life, to have dreams –
I do and I’m making the best of this box I live in,
but I also have a dream to live in Triangle Square.” Art Aguirre
We thank you.
To donate online, follow this link and select “A Place To Live” from the drop down menu asking for the purpose of your donation:
Or send your check to:
Center for Independent Documentary
680 South Main Street
Sharon, MA 02067
Please note “A Place To Live” in the memo section of your check.
I couldn’t agree more (probably because I can’t think of any more ways to say it than I already have) with Margaret Cho’s assessment of this CNN article:
Gender or race: Black women voters face tough choices in S.C.
. . .
Recent polls show black women are expected to make up more than a third of all Democratic voters in South Carolina’s primary in five days.
For these women, a unique, and most unexpected dilemma, presents itself: Should they vote their race, or should they vote their gender?
No other voting bloc in the country faces this choice. …
CNN received dozens of e-mails shortly after posting the story, which focuses largely on conversations about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama that a CNN reporter observed at a hair salon in South Carolina whose customers are predominantly African-American.
. . .
An e-mailer named Tiffany responded sarcastically: “Duh, I’m a black woman and here I am at the voting booth. Duh, since I’m illiterate I’ll pull down the lever for someone. Hm… Well, he black so I may vote for him… oh wait she a woman I may vote for her… What Ise gon’ do? Oh lordy!”
I too am insulted at the idea that just because I am a person of color and a woman that I should be expected to automatically vote for Obama or Hillary. Why are white men allowed to look at the issues and judge for themselves and the rest of us are expected to take sides grade school style? That is racist and sexist and dumb.
Amen to that. Detractors can believe it or not as they like, but I wouldn’t vote for a gay candidate just because s/he was gay, either. As I’ve said repeatedly, I don’t want a woman President, or a black President, or even a gay President; I want the best President — and if that President happens to be female, or black, or gay (or all three), then happy day in the morning! But assuming my vote has anything to do with race, gender, or any other incidental is indeed racist and sexist, and insults my intelligence.
Certainly, I will vote for a pro-gay candidate over an anti-gay candidate, but that’s not the same as voting for the woman, or the African-American, or the queer just because s/he’s a woman, or an African-American, or queer. (For the record, again, my ideal candidate this time around was Dennis Kucinich, the most pro-gay candidate of the bunch, who is a white, heterosexual male. Oh, yes, I’m still angry as hell with him, but he is still my ideal candidate.)
So, good on Notorious C.H.O., for reiterating what needs to be hammered into many skulls.
However: What in the world is Cho thinking (or, more accurately, not thinking) when she allows herself to be seduced by the utterly meaningless “hope” mantra of the Obama camp?
Still, I believe Obama and Hillary are the best candidates. …
Why Obama?
You’re right, Margaret: Neither gender nor race should enter into your decision — but I would think that as a bisexual woman yourself, you would take Obama’s repeated and continuous betrayals of the LGBT community into account.
I hate that people are saying that Oprah is some kind of gender traitor because she is backing Obama. Don’t even talk about Oprah unless you want to fight. I got a brick in my purse so watch it (remember, ladies — something heavy inside something light = weapon). I think it is wonderful that Oprah is getting involved in politics. It is brave and exciting and gives me lots of hope for the future.
Oprah? I think it’s a wonderful thing when anyone gets involved in politics — but Oprah’s track record isn’t exactly consistent. Let’s not forget that Bush’s 2000 campaign was languishing, badly, until his milestone appearance on Oprah’s show; the Oprah Effect on Bush was summed up quite accurately by both Kate O’Beirne and Bill Press:
O’Beirne: “[The race between Bush and Gore is] terribly tight. But we might mark George Bush’s boffo performance on ‘Oprah’ this week as the beginning of his comeback. And he certainly had no trouble explaining to that audience of women his tax-cut plan, how a single woman would get a tax cut under his plan, not under Al Gore’s, and it was very well received by those women.”
Press: “If I were the Bush campaign, I’d put George Bush on ‘Oprah’ everyday, I thought he did great today. Al Gore is on ‘Leno’ tonight. So it’s going to be the campaign of the talk shows, and we’ll see what happens. But clearly, Bernie, as we said the last time I was here, it’s a close race now, it’s going to be close, I believe, all the way down to the end.”
(Sure, Oprah had Gore on her show the week before — but talk shows aren’t bound by any “equal time” rules; heck, there isn’t even a Fairness Doctrine anymore — and the Republicans like it that way just fine.)
On the same edition of CNN’s “Inside Politics,” Candy Crowley said: “If you’ve got a gender-gap problem, and George Bush does, ‘The Oprah Winfrey Show,’ with its large and overwhelmingly female audience, is the place to be. … And whatever your dreams, if your quest to be president requires female, suburban, swing voters, then upscale, family-friendly Oprah is the one to, as she puts it, get a sense of politicians as human beings.”
Sure, Oprah smacked down Bush, hard… later, after the damage had been done. But Oprah was just one of a lot of people who woke up only after BushCo had been given free rein to bring this country to its knees. That doesn’t give me a lot of confidence in Oprah’s ability to judge a candidate on his merits, or predict what he’s going to do once he gets in office.
And while Oprah has been tossing a few nickels (to Oprah, $10,000 is just a few nickels) at Democrats since backing Carol Moseley Braun’s Illinois State Senate run in 1992, let’s not forget that she previously backed the Republican leader of the Wisconsin State Senate, Susan S. Engeleiter — who lost her ‘88 race, but who was chosen by George H.W. Bush as the next Administrator of the Small Business Administration.
And let’s not forget that it was Oprah who singlehandedly gave Donnie McClurkin the break he needed to become a gospel superstar: “[The song ‘Stand’] received a critical endorsement from daytime television superstar Oprah Winfrey. McClurkin told Jet, ‘She stood on television, held the CD up and said, “This is my favorite CD in the world. After you’ve done all you can, stand. You all need to buy it.”‘ The popular reception for ‘Stand’ and ‘Speak to my Heart,’ the album’s other standout single, earned McClurkin a certified gold record and a Grammy nomination, positioning him among contemporary gospel’s elite.” [Musician Guide]
I won’t argue that Oprah doesn’t do some good with her show — but she’s best at tasks such as, say, raising awareness about anorexia. Some might says she’s at her worst when letting Tom Cruise bounce around on her couch like a hyperkinetic jumping bean, but in reality, she’s at her worst when she uses her enormous influence indiscriminately. In endorsing Barack Obama — a candidate running on some fluffy cloud of good vibes, with virtually no plan behind his ethereal promises of “hope and change” (hope for what? change what?) — it is impossible to believe that Oprah has made any serious effort to pin down what Obama intends to do. The Big O has, like every other groupie, been seduced by a nice voice and good looks, happily oblivious to the lack of substance under the pretty surface.
Which brings us back to Margaret Cho:
I think that is what I love about Obama — he represents hope.
What kind of change? No matter who gets into the White House, Democrat or (God forbid) Republican, there will be change.
The question — for every Obama supporter, not just Cho and Winfrey — is: Exactly what kind of change are you expecting? That’s a difficult question to answer, because Obama himself has never offered a clue as to what kind of “change” he intends to deliver; at this late date, it’s obvious he doesn’t know the answer to that himself.
So, let’s try an easier question: What kind of change are you even hoping for?
And another hard question: What has Obama said or done that indicates he will deliver the kind of “change” you want? I want specifics. “He’s so inspirational!” just doesn’t cut it. L. Ron Hubbard was inspirational, too. So is the Dalai Lama. So is Suze Orman.
The difference is that I can tell you, specifically, what each of the three aforementioned leaders is all about, in ten words or less. I can’t explain Barack Obama after two full years of listening to him talk. Can you?
His youthful optimism appeals to me and his hope for the future enthralls me and these issues transcend race completely.
Arrrrrgh! Attraction to his “youthful optimism” and being enthralled by “his hope for the future” are not “issues” — they are emotions. An issue is healthcare. An issue is the war in Iraq. An issue is marriage equality.
I don’t care why you like him — I want to know why you support him. Hell, I like Cameron Diaz, but I wouldn’t support her if she ran for President on nothing but her good looks and charm.
On the flip side, I don’t like Hillary Clinton — I don’t find her particularly warm or endearing — but damn it, I know what she stands for. I don’t agree with her on everything (in fact, there’s a whole lot I don’t agree with), but I know what I’m getting, and I know I can live with it.
So my choice really for the next president is going to be very well thought out; I am between Barack and a familiar face.
Margaret, if your choice really “is going to be very well thought out,” then you’ll be voting for Hillary, not Obama.
Put the Kool-Aid down now, and start paying attention to what Obama is really saying — and not saying.
