North Carolina's Bigotry... and the book I almost wrote

So, I know I've been a terrible blogger of late, given how rarely I've been writing. One of the chief reasons why is my writing shifted focus; instead of state politics, I've been writing a book.

I'm currently on my third draft of the book -- so this baby's inching closer to completion every day -- but I had to step back tonight, after what's happened in North Carolina, to talk about the book I almost wrote.

Writing a book was always something of a dream of mine, so this isn't my first crack at it. In my life, I've had two serious ideas for books before I settled on my current project.

The second idea was going to be about a high school basketball player named Joshua Kenney, who grew up in North Carolina to a very conservative single mother and was forced out of the closet.

As his mother was about to send him away to a 'pray away the gay' program, he ran instead. The book was going to be about his journey through America, and his family's journey toward acceptance (after a healthy dose of panic and regret over a missing child).

I had the bulk of the book planned out, loved the characters, as difficult as it was writing them, and got a good hundred pages deep.... until I decided to stop.

I went on a family trip to visit North Carolina's tri-city area and was wowed by how much it felt like Massachusetts. At first, it served to give me more ideas, but the more I thought about it... the more my book suddenly felt flat.

North Carolina was changing, did I really want to write about something that would feel so.... 1990s?

Then Obama's victory there cemented it, in my mind, and I never looked back.

I couldn't have been more wrong; the battle for equal rights in NC is much further off than I ever would have thought, even a year ago. What I wrote -- and what I planned to write -- absolutely had merit, was realistic and still happens today.

I guess I should dust off that file and see if I want to take another crack at it, once I finish what I'm working on now.

Today's LeftAhead Podcast: Senator Sonia Chang-Diaz

Mike has the full write-up at LeftAhead, but here's the general gist of today's jam-packed show.

The ever-intense MA Sen. Sonia Chang-Diaz joined us today, centering on redistricting, transgender rights, and education. Not only is she a progressive leader in LGBT issues, she chairs the Joint Committee on education and is vice-chair of the Special Joint Committee on Redistricting.

I was impressed with the Senator's ability to squeeze in a lot of details in such a short amount of time, never mind switching between three unrelated topics at the drop of a hat. Her intellect and energy is why she's quickly become one of the most effective senators out there, never mind one of the leaders in the Commonwealth's small-d movement of progressive politics.

Today's show ended up being more timely than I would have suspected, with Congressman Frank's retirement, but we managed to talk about redistricting at both the local and congressional levels, as well as talk about some of the meta that goes behind it -- such as the goals of the committee and the process behind it. We also have some frank discussion on the Transgender Rights bill, both the importance of getting this done and the fact that there's still a little unfinished business surrounding it, since public accommodation was left outside of the bill. On education, mainly focused on her bill tackling the state's drop out problem, in which 8,000 kids in Massachusetts are dropping out every year.

For people who want to skip to the parts of the show they're most interested in, redistricting was the first topic and then we got to the transgender rights bill at about 14:20. At 24:50, we finally got to education. We didn't have as much time as I would have liked to take on this issue, but even just the five minutes we had was enough to tackle some key aspects of her bill on how she thinks we could be better at getting kids to stay in school.

The truth about adoption services post marriage equality

One of the talking points emanating from Team Homophobia that's been circulating ever since NY passed marriage equality is that religious-based groups that serve the public would be "forced" to shut down if it doesn't recognize marriage equality. That couldn't be further from the truth. These people point to Massachusetts and the fact that the Boston Archdiocese forced the shut down of Catholic Charities adoption services as "proof" of this ridiculous claim, though that's not in fact what happened. Here's what did:

Catholic Charities had, for decades, allowed gay couples to adopt children, predating marriage. The Boston Archdiocese either didn't care about it or didn't know, though given that it went on for twenty years, the latter would be saying a lot.

Meanwhile, while Catholic Charities was a religious charity, it received a tremendous amount of public aid, including from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, to process those adoptions. It is true that it would be illegal for any groups that took public funds to discriminate against same-sex marriages post Goodridge decision, but it's equally true it would have been illegal to discriminate against gays or lesbians beforehand -- and two decades of history of Catholic Charities allowing gays and lesbians to adopt shows they never had much of a problem with it before.

As the decision on what to do about marriage equality was cycling through the then-Finneran dominated legislature, the fact that Catholic Charities was already allowing same-sex couples to adopt became a story, embarrassing the Catholic Church and its claims that somehow allowing same-sex couples to raise children would be damaging to those children, so the bishops across Massachusetts forced the board of Catholic Charities to put the kibosh on all their adoptions, despite some pretty vehement resistance from that board.

The Catholic Church then tried to use that decision as a vehicle in the press to curry favor with the public, insisting it was marriage equality's fault that they had to stop the adoptions, but they were, of course, the ones who stopped those adoptions. They were the ones who decided, after allowing gays and lesbians to adopt using Catholic Charities for two decades, they suddenly had to stop.

Furthermore, the Catholic Church still could have banned same-sex couples from adopting children within their Catholic Charities service had it decided to merely stop taking public funds. It would have been difficult for them to make that decision -- Massachusetts practically bankrolled those adoptions to begin with -- but there's no reason for any state to provide public funds to a charity which wants to discriminate against some of those it caters toward.

Far from creating a public rallying cry, the Boston Archdiocese only further embarrassed itself, and alienated the people of this Commonwealth, providing ample evidence to the public that they'd go so far as to put difficult-to-place children at risk for political calculations and/or spite, but it stuck to its guns. It would be a shame today to allow that story to be recycled and reshaped in true Orwellian fashion to fit their meme, now that what happened has been forgotten by most of the public.

If the Catholic Church's charities that use public funds wish to discriminate against same-sex couples (even to this day, most don't), then they have a very simple solution available to them: stop taking public funds. Shutting down shop, trying to score political points, is a very heavy price to pay for the thousands of children across the country who need to find good homes.

---
PS. I wanted to include some links, so I did a little googling and found this blog from GLAD, with this story from the Boston Globe, that confirms most of the facts from above, although there's still some of what was floating around in my head from the way-back machine, coming from a period that predate (most) blogs and links.

Lenk's SJC Appointment and the Governor's Council

Let's all congratulate Justice Barbara Lenk for her freshly appointed status on the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. With two decades of judicial experience, and this having been her third time through the confirmation process, it's clear she's eminently qualified for the position.

Yet, in being confirmed by a 5-3 vote on the Governor's Council, the 3 votes against her confirmation -- votes no doubt motivated by prejudice, for Lenk is now the first known lesbian to have served on the SJC -- is a frustrating reminder of just how far we have to go in this state. Let's take a look at the three Governor's Council members who voted against Lenk.

Mary-Ellen Manning, arch hack, perhaps the most nominal Democrat in the country and unfortunately my own Governor's Councilor, focused her attacks on Lenk around icky sex questions, doing all she could to link the topics of incest and homosexuality together, with cries of The Children thrown in for extra fun.

It's unfortunately the common tactic by bigots on anything to do with preventing gay candidates from winning or glbt civil rights issues from passing. No wonder why she couldn't wait to get on the Howie Carr show to complain about it. Those are her peeps.

Arch conservative Charles Cipollini (R) voted against her because she's a lesbian; well, that's the only possible deduction I can come up with. The fact that she's a lesbian colors her opinion on marriage equality, says he, and apparently anyone who supports the Goodridge decision isn't fit for the SJC. Well, at least if they're a lesbian.

Never mind the fact that issue is dead and buried, long since decided and defended. Never mind the fact that by his logic, everyone would be effected -- gay or straight -- because everyone is effected by marriage. We simply can't allow gay people to serve, according to him.

Add Jen Caissie (R) to that territory. While Caissie and others on this list of names complained Lenk wouldn't support legal precedent, Caissie was upset over Lenk's support of one firmly-established legal precedent in this state: the Goodridge decision. Straight IOKIYAR hypocrisy.

Unfortunately, because of the obscurity of the Governor's Council, it's relatively easy for just about anyone to get on the council when a seat opens up -- and to stay there as long as they want, after. Because of that, we get lots of rabid right-wingers on the council, with the non-rabids, moderates and liberals likely to soon move onto bigger and better things. It's the one body in this state where the extreme right almost controls the majority, and some of the five councilors who's votes Lenk received are little saner than Caissie, Ciponni and Manning.

David Kravitz, over at Blue Mass Group, and someone who's worked for several justices on the Supreme Court of the United States, has long called for the end to the Governor's Council -- as has the Boston Globe. They're right.

Meanwhile, Marry-Ellen Manning said that everyone who was going to vote against Lenk was being portrayed as a bigot. Well, Marry-Ellen... if the shoe fits.

The Radical Homosexual Agenda

Barney Frank at his best.

DADT Repeal with Kara Suffredini from MassEquality

Mike and I had Kara Suffredini, MassEquality's still-new (and very savvy) director, on our latest LeftAhead podcast to discuss Don't Ask Don't Tell Repeal and the state of affairs of GLBT civil rights in New England and beyond. Lots of good, frank talk -- this show's not to be missed by anyone who cares about GLBT civil rights. Suffredini knows what she's talking about.

You can listen by clicking the link or using the Blog Talk Radio player to the right. Enjoy!

The President of Argentina gets it

This is just an amazing quote from Argentina's president on marriage equality, both for its simplicity and truth, as her country's legislature prepares to vote on the issue.

“They are portraying this as a religious moral issue and as a threat to ‘the natural order,’ when what we are really doing is looking at a reality that is already there,” the president said from Beijing. “It would be a terrible distortion of democracy if they denied minorities their rights.”

An extended video of her statement, with subtitles:



Hat tip Towleroad.

The anti-gay "Bradley effect."

Interesting blurb over at dkos today.

There is a sort of "Bradley Effect" for gay-rights ballot questions.

The Haas Jr. Foundation hired NYU political scientist Patrick J. Egan to study 167 polls in the 33 states that had a gay marriage ban from 1998-2009 – and compared it with the results on Election Day. And as we already knew – having painfully experienced this in state after state – the results after votes are counted are worse than what polls had said. Moreover, as Dr. Egan reported, poll results throughout the campaign were mostly static.

Did people lie? Yes and no. Egan’s analysis showed that polls accurately predicted the pro-equality vote – i.e., people who voted “no” on Prop 8 – but that they undercounted people who voted to ban gay marriage. So if a pre-election poll would show us winning a plurality of 48-45 (which campaigns find encouraging), it would mean that we lost 52-48.

Unlike a traditional Bradley Effect, in which voters say they'll vote for the black candidate, then vote against it, in this case, a chunk of haters simply were too embarrassed to say they were haters, and claimed they were undecided.

This means that any gay rights group trying to fight off a ballot question -- or fight for one to pass, as it may come in the future -- should just assume "undecided" means no. Don't go into election day without striving to win a majority of support in the polling data ahead of time, not just the plurality.

Brown's Firm "Embarrassed" Over DADT Poll

Apparently, they didn't want to let it get out that Brown's against 77% of Massachusetts on Civil Rights. Interesting stuff here, but let's all be glad that the poll Brown "never intended to see the light of day," was released.

One final point: Why on Earth is HRC associated with DCI? This news does nothing to dissuade critics who have long feared HRC's leadership is far too influenced/controlled by the Log Cabin wing of the GLBT population. Eww...

Even if HRC did right here, this does little to change my mind that the group just needs to go away. It does the GLBT community few favors, and mostly represents a giant sucking sound ($$).

Slap in the Face on Transgender Rights (Et Tu, Rep. Story?)

The State House News Service posted a hit piece today on behalf of some real A-holes in the State House who don't want to see an inclusive Democratic State Committee, picked up by the Boston Globe. Why do I call it a hit piece? Because not one viewpoint or quote was printed in support of the measure the article was about: creating two transgender and two bisexual seats to the Democratic State Committee.

With hundreds and hundreds of people on the state committee, many of them party elites who barely lift a finger when it matters most (don't want to get those fingernails dirty by lifting up a phone or knocking on a door), there are some real jerks on the state committee who don't want to see transgender or bisexual people serve in any minority seat -- of which there are over a hundred.

That these forces weren't present to make a big fuss about this at the sub-committee meeting where it was proposed and passed -- almost unanimously -- as a recommendation to the convention for passage shouldn't be shocking, nor that they declined to appear at the previous state committee meeting where this was up for debate. The forces of intolerance prefer to work behind the scenes, like sending out anonymous press releases to whomever will print it.

The most absurd statement was this one, from Senator Baddour.

“"The fact of the matter is, the leadership of the state Democratic Party has lost sight of what matters to working men and women, and as important as transgender rights are, bisexual rights are, what really matters today are jobs, the economy, and putting people back to work,"” Baddour said. "We shouldn’t be putting stories like this out there."”

Really, Senator? If you don't want this to be a story, why are you and your legislative allies in the House and Senate making it one? No one would be paying attention to this story if the people who are opposed to transgender rights weren't making this an issue. No one ever cares what goes on at State Conventions, very few papers even cover them anymore (and I should know, since I normally go to them with a Press Badge). This isn't about opponents not wanting to create a big issue that could cost votes in November, this is about opponents not wanting transgender people to have equal rights in society. Period.

***

What is particularly frustrating here is that Representative Ellen Story, who lost her spine at some point since Speaker DeLeo made her a part of leadership, has completely lost sight of who she is and what she supposedly believes in. Leadership is what's behind keeping the transgender rights bill in the House from passing -- it has enough co-sponsors in that body this year to actually make a majority all on its lonesome, but leadership doesn't want it passed, so has nixed it.

Certain members of legislative leadership don't want this state committee provision passed, because for whatever absurd reason, they see it as linked to the transgender rights bill buried in the House -- when it's really only about ensuring that the many hard working transgender activists in the Democratic Party are able to have a voice, however small it would be, in the DSC. Now they have their "progressive" puppet out there trying to squash any talk of transgender rights, sending a message to progressives in the party to shut up. Sorry, Ellen Story, you may have forgotten just who you've promised to fight for as an elected leader of this state, but a lot of us haven't.

"“I think this is a good issue. I'’m not sure this is the year for it,”" said Rep. Ellen Story, an Amherst Democrat and social progressive. “"We need to be focusing on jobs and the economy. I’'m not sure this is the year for this push.”"

What utter bullshit -- and what a crappy straw man argument. Who said anything about jobs? What exactly is the state committee supposed to do about jobs in its charter? This is not a state house issue, this is a state party issue -- the state party can do nothing about jobs short of supporting candidates who have ideas on how to create them. And if this year is about jobs, why is the House holding up a bill that would protect transgender people from being fired at their jobs simply for being transgender? Shouldn't the jobs of transgender people count in this economy, too?

Story should be ashamed for continuing to be the Speaker's lap dog, betraying all her principles to do her Master's bidding. It's sickening and repulsive. I really, really hope her constituents are paying attention -- and not blinded by her once-proud history, presently being parodied by herself. For readers from her district, there's still four days to collect signatures in that race...

Baker's Hypocrisy Continues

Lynne beat me to it, but I've been meaning to blog today about Charlie Baker's most brazen form of hypocrisy yet. From a MassEquality email:

At the Massachusetts Republican Convention on Saturday, April 17, gubernatorial candidate Charles D. Baker came out in opposition to H. 1728/S. 1687 “An Act Relative to Gender Identity and Expression,” (also known as the Transgender Civil Rights Bill), which would outlaw employment discrimination against transgender people. As CEO of Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, however, Baker presided over a company that has for many years had a non-discrimination policy that protects applicants and employees on the basis of their gender identity.

In addition to stating his opposition to the Transgender Civil Rights Bill to reporters at the convention, his campaign circulated a flyer to convention delegates stating that Baker opposed “the Bathroom Bill,” -- the misleading name opponents of the bill use -- and would veto it if elected.

The irony is rich, given that Harvard Pilgrim -- to its credit -- has one of the state's strongest anti-discrimination policies, including for transgender people.

“Furthermore, Baker’s use of the term ‘Bathroom Bill’ in the flyer he distributed to convention delegates was a shameful attempt to use this badly-needed legislation to pander for delegate votes,” said Edmondson. “As the head of a company that gave workers a level playing field, Charlie Baker knows full well that protecting transgender people from discrimination has nothing to do with bathrooms and everything to do with attracting a skilled and diverse workforce.”

“This is so disappointing. So many in our community had such high hopes for this candidate,” said Executive Director Scott Gortikov. “I fear this is the Romney-fication of Charlie Baker. It’s stunning to me that he would borrow from the playbook of the radical social conservatives and condone this language of marginalization.”

My questions for Charlie Baker:

1) Who do you think you're kidding? You can try to rabidly flip-flop, appeasing the wingnut base, but you're just not going to be taken seriously by anyone with at least half a brain.

2) More importantly, why did you see fit to institute a policy of protections for transgender people in your workforce, as CEO of Harvard Pilgrim, but you wouldn't be willing to sign those very same protections for the transgender community across the state? Are they somehow less worthy than the transgender people who work at Harvard-Pilgrim?

Expelling kids for the "sins" of the parents

Two young kids in a Colorado Catholic K-8 school were essentially expelled... because their parents are lesbians. My question: How many of the other parents in that school are divorced or had their kids out of wedlock? Those are all sexual 'sins' on the order of being gay, yet I doubt the school would have enough students to stay open if the church universally applied its intolerance to all parents who were sexual "sinners" and their children. Certainly, the sisters who ran my CCD when I was younger never minded the fact that my parents were divorced.

It's very sad, but the hostility the leadership in the Catholic Church has toward gay people borders on open hatred. While the church is being crushed with its own sexual scandal that is magnitudes worse -- allowing thousands of children to be molested by priests across the Globe, then covering it up -- all it can bother to think about is teh gay. I guess it's easier for one to focus on the problems of others than admit they have problems of their own -- problems that are not only morally repugnant, but totally illegal, too.

Homophobia's Gathering South of the Border

"Don't miss this valuable opportunity to learn about the cutting-edge family, life and marriage issues affecting Rhode Island and all New England," the invitation begins, as NOM, the Family Research Council and others invite New Englanders to come and gather around their homophobic circle to discuss all the new, hip, bigoted ideas to beat back the marriage equality clock in New England. Something tells me it'll revolve around pathetic attempts to find new, manipulative and bigoted ways of screaming, 'the children, the children,' as if glbt families didn't have kids of their own, who suffer daily because of the discrimination pitted against them, in large part due to the actions of these groups.

It's fitting that they're doing this in Rhode Island, with the region's most bigoted Governor having his last days in office. Ironicly, while the forces of homophobia cluster in Rhode Island to try to block or repeal marriage equality, Rhode Island could very well be the next New England state to embrace it, once their stalwart ally, Governor Carcieri, is (thankfully) gone.

Here's a list of all of their old, bigoted speakers who will be coming, including the infamous Kris Mineau.

* Cynthia Hill, Senior Director, State and Local Affairs, Family Research Council
* Kris Mineau, Executive Director, Massachusetts Family Institute
* Peter Wolfgang, Executive Director, Family Institute of Connecticut
* Kevin Smith, Executive Director, Cornerstone Action of New Hampshire
* Christopher Plante, Executive Director, National Organization for Marriage, Rhode Island
* Shannon McGinley, Board Chairman, Cornerstone Action of New Hampshire
* Connecticut Youth Wing, Students, Family Institute of Connecticut
* Austin R. Nimocks, Senior Legal Counsel, Alliance Defense Fund
* Dr. Pat Fagan, Family Research Council
* Peter Sprigg, Senior Fellow for Policy Studies, Family Research Council

Somehow, I think this is a meeting I can skip. We can spare them that $15 admission fee. Thankfully, there's professionals out there to put these last gasps of homophobia in perspective. Cue MassEquality's executive director, Scott D. Gortikov, who has it right in his statement about the event, in his Feb. 4th press release:

“If the extremists at the Family Research Council are trying to find an opening in New England to promote their bigoted agenda they are wasting their time. With four out of six New England states granting same-sex couples full equality in marriage, it is clear that the vast majority of New Englanders are fair-minded people who aren’t interested in taking rights away from their GLBT friends, family members, neighbors and co-workers.... If the Family Research Council and those attending its summit truly cared about promoting marriage and the family, they wouldn’t be getting together to dream up ways to undermine the ability of GLBT people to provide for and protect their families.”

Who's Blocking Transgender Rights?

Next week is Transgendered Awareness Week. The Massachusetts Trans Political Coalition is hosting a whole bunch of different events, ranging from advocacy to education to fun. I'm hoping many people will attend. Given next week's events, it's a good time to take a look at where we're at in terms of Civil Rights in Massachusetts. We've gone a long way to improving civil rights for most minority groups in this state, but one group that's lagged far behind is the transgender community. Even in this day and age, it's still legal to fire someone or deny them housing for being transgender in many cities and towns across Massachusetts. This is something we must change.

The MTPC is a group of transgender people and their allies who have fought hard for years to change perception across Massachusetts. They've had a lot of political success, helping get anti-discrimination ordinances passed in many cities and towns in the Commonwealth, including Boston. They've been pushing a transgender-rights bill in Massachusetts for a long time now. It failed last year (buried in committee), when it looked for a while like it had a shot, and the group was told to go out and get more co-sponsors. That was after years of getting a great many co-sponsors for their bill in both chambers.

What did they do for this year, the year after they lost in a nail biter? They got a majority of legislators in each chambers to co-sponsor their bill. Well, where is it? Why hasn't the bill been passed yet? I get that legislators have to deal with a lot of uninformed, ignorant constituents (and bigots) who don't and will probably never get this issue. The Kris-Mineau types will always try to reduce the bill to doses of fear, backed up by no facts.

However, legislators should stand by their words. How many bills in Massachusetts ever get a majority of each chamber to co-sponsor them? How many of those bills get left in the dustbin? There is no reasonable excuse not to get this bill through, this year, before the MTPC has to start everything from scratch, yet again. These are volunteers, fighting for their rights -- who just want the most basic protections society can afford anyone. It's not asking for much, just a little courage. Does Beacon Hill have any of it?

Please call your state legislators and ask them to stand up for civil rights by getting leadership to put An Act Relative to Gender-Based Discrimination and Hate Crimes up for a vote. It's time for this bill to get a full vote, one that will almost certainly result in it being passed.

Legislative Bigotry

Thankfully, this video isn't from Massachusetts, but it still pains me to watch it (along with the news that marriage equality is again delayed in NY, though that's much better than defeated).



Here's a woman who speaks at length about how she can't get legally married in her state demonstratively hurts her everyday life, speaking openly and honestly about a very frank issue, and how is she answered? Her state legislator ignores everything she said, doesn't try to solve any of her problems, and just says he's only for marriage bigotry. It makes me so sad to be in a country where hatred and intolerance is so widespread. No one should have to deal with this crap.

HRC is Useless and SHOULD GO AWAY!

Seriously, it's time to end this money-siphoning, zero-progress, horrible organization. It's worse than useless; it's getting in the way.

A Sign of Progress

An important frontier in the battle for equality and broader understanding is sports, especially male sports. While most women in this country support glbt rights, most men lag far behind. There's numerous reasons for that, but many of them can probably be better understood through the context of sports.

Men are supposed to be tough and macho, an archetype athletes and stereotypical sports fans fit well in, while gay men are viewed by many straight men as 'sissies' and 'fags,' somehow undeserving of equal rights. Equally damaging has been the fact that many athletes (and men in general) are afraid to be welcoming toward their gay counterparts, for fear of being labeled as gay themselves -- especially in locker-room-type environments, where towel-slapping and metaphorical (and otherwise) pissing contests are the norm because, gosh darn it, gay people aren't in there! (Yeah, right!) The word "fag" is thrown around like "the" between teammates, pushing gay players deeper and deeper into the closet, causing many others to feel completely unwelcome.

All those views can develop when teens are in the locker room, all of them are inspired by what is viewed as "macho," and too many men view macho as the opposite of being gay -- even though, as JoeTS likes to point out at Blue Mass Group, some of the most macho guys ever in existence were gay.

It's important for there to be push back against homophobia in professional sports, because that push back can make a difference at all levels. It could help a professional player feel comfortable in coming out, it could help inspire a gay teenager to continue playing, and it could show that real men aren't irrationally afraid of gay players or people. Perhaps most importantly of all, it can set a positive example for fans -- the exposure to glbt issues alone for most male sports fans is important. All of those things are far more likely when professional athletes speak out in favor of gay rights.

On that front, here's some fantastic news coming out of the NFL. Two players, including a defensive captain of the New Orleans Saints, have come out strong in favor of full equality.

"Looking at the former restrictions on human rights in our country starting with slavery, women not being able to vote, blacks being counted as two thirds of a human, segregation, no gays in the military (to list a few) all have gone by the wayside. But now here in 2009 same sex marriages are prohibited. I think we will look back in 10, 20, 30 years and be amazed that gays and lesbians did not have the same rights as every one else. How did this ever happen in the land of the free and the home of the brave? Are we really free?"—Brendon Ayanbadejo, NFL linebacker for the Baltimore Ravens.

"I hope he's right in his prediction, and I hope even more that it doesn't take that long. People could look at this issue without blinders on...the blinders imposed by their church, their parents, their friends or, in our case, their coaches and locker rooms. I wish they would realize that it's not a religion issue. It's not a government issue. It's not even a gay/straight issue or a question of your manhood. It's a human issue. And until more people see that, we're stuck arguing with people who don't have an argument."—Scott Fujita, defensive captain for the New Orleans Saints.

On a personal note, high school sports was probably the biggest reason why I never came out in high school. I enjoyed playing on teams and was afraid it would not at all be a comfortable environment if I came out. Furthermore, I, more than most, had irrational and predefined notions of what it meant to be a successful athlete -- coming from the son of a former professional football player, going to the same high school where my father was a literal legend. The 25 year old version of me would have easily met those obstacles head on, the 16 year old version of me just wanted to fit in. I wonder, given this decade's changes and news like this, if things wouldn't have been different if I were 16 today instead of 25.

My Concern with the Transgender Bill

What about the XX and XY electric field bathroom generators? Does it mandate turning them off, so XX can cross the streams? And vice versa?

And if that should happen, will the Stay Puft Marshmellow Man appear and attack everyone in the bathroom? Or if the Gatekeepers cross the threshold of the Key Masters, will they turn into giant statues or hideous monsters? And vice versa? These all could certainly explain the dangers of this bill.

I think we better make sure the XX and XY electric field generators stay online and plugged in at a bathroom near you, otherwise we could have a sensational, nonsensical issue on our hands.

Barrios becoming New GLAAD President

This is great news. He was a force for gay rights in Massachusetts -- and I'm sure he'll be even more influential heading up GLAAD.

One thing I hate about DailyKos

The anti-gay apologists. They support gay people in name only. I have no need for those kinds of people. Here's the bottom line, folks. If you "support" gay people, that means you support them. You can't vote for people who will strip their rights, or support politicians that would do the same -- at least without vocally appealing to them to change, fast.

Obama made a huge, huge mistake today in condemning the gay community. This is the last straw for most of us. Anyone who supports what Obama did today is an apologist and not a friend to the gay community. There was no need for Obama's DoJ to rise to the Rushian levels of comparing our relationships to incest. I'm appalled today. I don't know if I ever could say I support this President again, at least until he completely repeals DADT, DOMA and passes ENDA -- and it's him pulling his weight, not just signing on the dotted line and claiming credit after the fact. For now, he's getting Team Homophobia tag treatment.