A few days ago, I wrote a little chastisement of Reverend Burgess' vote for regulating the drilling for natural gas within the City in lieu of standing against it. I received an off the record email from a Burgess supporter explaining the nuances of the law and the Council's ability to defend citizens in this matter. I was amazed that the writer commented that City Council should be putting on a united front instead of inner-squabbling.
Seriously? Reverend Burgess wasn't that concerned about “unity” when it came to LGBTQ equal rights so it is incredible now to try to persuade me that he's the voice of unity. He bitch slapped us by refusing to have his picture in magazine, incredibly sad since he should have familiarity with the challenges LGBTQ people are facing in his district and the African-American community. It was a magazine for God's sake.
I'm waiting for some feedback on the legal arguments from the Councilors who want me to have clean drinking water, not those who do not practice what they preach.
Discover more from Pittsburgh Lesbian Correspondents
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“I'm waiting for some feedback on the legal arguments from the Councilors who want me to have clean drinking water, not those who do not practice what they preach.”
Are those mutually exclusive?
It sounds like what you're saying is, once a lawmaker does anything at all that disappoints you, they're dead to you in every way. Sounds like a rough way to navigate politics. I don't think I'd be able to hold a single conversation in City Hall (or elsewhere in life) if I had those standards.
Let me clarify.
Burgess' person sent me data that I need to verify.
I think his adding the little slam about Council unity was unnecessary, so yes it angered me. Burgess can't be unified about Pridefest, for God's sake. It is one of the most important symbols that Pittsburgh's LGBT community deserves respect and visibility and he can't support it? His decision makes our City look like we are losing ground, ground that was hard fought 20 years ago. His district is home to one of the most insidious ex-gay therapy ministries in the City. He needs to be an advocate for LGBT folks, not another disapproving elder.
That's not okay and it certainly undermines his credibility to call for unity in my book.
It does not necessarily undermine his argument, but I'm not taking it at face value because I doubt his integrity and his support for vulnerable people.
He's not dead to me, but his fence sitting days need to be called out. What he did is not okay and it is a real barrier to the quality of life of people who live in his district, as well as the rest of us.
The furtive email really angered me. You aren't going to win my support behind closed doors. I'm not interested in conversations in City Hall. This is a blog, not a newspaper.
“I'm not interested in conversations in City Hall. This is a blog, not a newspaper.”
Well now let me clarify. I'm not talking about the ability to gain “access” or even to post new news, I'm talking about figuring out the best way to advocate against drilling. I don't have high hopes for you and the Rev coming to any agreements over other matters (though I do have a marked preference in favor of dialogue over cold shoulders, no matter the history) but I don't want to see us adopt an environmental strategy that sounds inspiring, but that gets smacked down in court in a month by drilling companies, and we all say, “Oh, I guess we should have listened to that homophobe who also happens to be serious about his kids' drinking water.”
I AGREE verification is good and called for in this instance!
But how's this for more broad appeal: Elton John shocked the world by appearing with Eminem at the Grammys years ago, and more recently performed at Rush Limbaugh's wedding. Since then Eminem has turned 180 and come out in favor of gay marriage. Will Limbaugh and the rest of the country be far behind? Honey / vinegar / carrot / stick n@.
i don't begin to understand the elton john analogy. eminem made an off the cuff comment that gay people should be miserable in marriage, too. hardly “coming out in favor” where's the connection between tolerance of misery and his grammy performance. elton john has a career and celebrity to maintain. he's done tremendous good for HIV funding and been an advocate for gay marriage, but rich white gay man have been part of the monied circle for years. where's the relevance?
best way to advocate? that's yet to be determined. but burgess' people reached out to me and made a misstep that really angers me. because the gay issue does matter and it matters to a lot of LGBT kids drinking the damn water. and i hold no hope that they'll bother to respond because the homophobia is pervasive.
do you think Elton John performing at Mt. Ararat is going to change any hearts, at least among the donors? is working side by side with Bruce Kraus a reason for Burgess to change his heart — yes1
Limbaugh is perfectly willing to hire the gays and use their talents, then slap us down into second class citizenship. He's an entertainer too. Now he just seems more interesting.
we just don't agree. I'll let you know if Burgess people get back to me, but frankly I won't be dsappointed if they don't.
i don't begin to understand the elton john analogy. eminem made an off the cuff comment that gay people should be miserable in marriage, too. hardly “coming out in favor” where's the connection between tolerance of misery and his grammy performance. elton john has a career and celebrity to maintain. he's done tremendous good for HIV funding and been an advocate for gay marriage, but rich white gay man have been part of the monied circle for years. where's the relevance?
best way to advocate? that's yet to be determined. but burgess' people reached out to me and made a misstep that really angers me. because the gay issue does matter and it matters to a lot of LGBT kids drinking the damn water. and i hold no hope that they'll bother to respond because the homophobia is pervasive.
do you think Elton John performing at Mt. Ararat is going to change any hearts, at least among the donors? is working side by side with Bruce Kraus a reason for Burgess to change his heart — yes1
Limbaugh is perfectly willing to hire the gays and use their talents, then slap us down into second class citizenship. He's an entertainer too. Now he just seems more interesting.
we just don't agree. I'll let you know if Burgess people get back to me, but frankly I won't be dsappointed if they don't.
actually, eminem said gay people deserve to be as miserable as straght people in marriage. and there's no direct connection to a high profile public appearance with another entertainer. rich white gay men, especially entertainers, have had access to the powers that be for decades. i don't see the trickle down effect and you are foolin' yourself if you think Limbaugh is going to change his shtick b/c of a concert — he has never said there's anything wrong with us singing, just doesn't want us to have equal rights. do you see elton john performing at Mt. Ararat anytime soon?
i appreciate you figuring out the best way to advocate. I'm pointing out that a politicians who shows no compassion or empathy for vulnerable people in his district might not be the best person to show us the way to Council unity.
again, if he had let it go with the explanation, that would be fine. but the pious calls for unity went over my line. Doug and Bill happen to be concerned about kids' drinking water, too. they just also think about the LGBT kids, too.
we won't agree on tactics because we are blogging differently.