I know I'm beating a lonely drum on this.  I have been informed that the Pittsburgh Democratic Senators voted in favor of the marriage protection amendment.  I've also been informed that I'm being a bit of whiny bitch for not congratulating them like the mainstream LGBT political groups are doing. 

I get that the groups have to play politics.  But last time I checked, I'm allowed to have my own opinions.  And I opine these are yet another bunch of spineless Democrats who want to have their cake and eat it, too. Its sheer genius really - a vote in favor of the watered down amendment keeps the homos all happy while giving them the ability to say that they voted to uphold traditional marriage. 

It is a political solution designed to keep their social moderate voters happy and keep them in office.  Keeping the constitution of Pennsylvania free from discrimination is ancillary to the overall plan. 

And when I disagree, object, complain, speak out, speak up or speak my mind (NOT A MIND!), I get the brush off b/c I'm not a good little girl who plays nice with the boys. 

Honey, if I wanted to play nice with the boys, I wouldn't need to worry about the definition of marriage. 

So we narrowly avoid the amendment (hopefully).   Now we'll continue to avoid naming the propensity of Pennsylvania Democrats to treat my life, my relationship and my civil rights as political trading cards.

Roll call should be out tomorrow.

Last night, Ledcat and I picked up a Political Junkie and headed down to the Funny Bone for some good ole fashioned political humor at a fundraiser for the Allegheny County Young Democrats.  Now we should be honest -- we went to see the comedians.  The YDAC aren't a very impressive lot from the get go --- check out their "latest issues" webpage for a classic example of what I mean.  And it was somewhat obvious after about oh ten minutes that they come across as the stuffy non-progressive quasi-Republican Democrats. You know what I mean--- white affluent people dressed in power clothes who don't laugh at abortion jokes. 

But I still gave them a donation b/c maybe just maybe they don't hate homos.  Whatever.

Anyway, the talent is why we went and talent is what we got.  Our good friend and staunch supporter John McIntire was there and in really good form -- he was very funny last night.  I think it was that he went beyond political commentary (at which he excels) and did some self-deprecating stuff that came off really well.  And that man can do some wicked ass funny impressions.  Granted we are completely biased on the issue but I the laughter of the other 26 people seemed genuine. (Yes 26 people turned out --- how's that for a base?)

Gene Collier of the Post-Gazette was there.  First time we've seen him and we found him funny as well in a more droll, observational way.  Maybe its because we aren't such Young Democrats and caught most of his cultural references?  Who knows.  I'd go see him again.

And, the true delight of the evening .... comedian Gab Bonesso.   All we've been hearing from McIntire of late has been "Gab this, Gab that, Gab is funny" blah blah blah.  So our expectations were super-high and she did not disappoint.   She is this wicked smart, razor sharp woman who had us in tears about marijuana and babysitting.  Yes, she is the one who told the abortion jokes which went over very well with the Correspondents but not so much the Young Republicans, er Democrats.  They did go over with the older hippie retreads in the crowd come to think of it.  Go to her website and catch her upcoming performances. 

Overall big fun.  Plus, we got to sit with City Councilman Bill Peduto.  I'm just enough of a geek to think that is really cool and be nervous about what to say to him.   After all he is THE progressive man.  And I don't want to look like some fawning sycophant.  Which I totally did, but I'm sure he's used to it. 

And I discovered that some of the people there are reading my blog.  Which made my night.  And mitigated the fact that it cost me $14.00 damn dollars for two pepsis.  No more Funnybone for us.  We'll stick with the Square Cafe.

The Senate stripped the language prohibiting civil unions and passed the legislation 38-12. Now the amended amendment heads back to the House for approval. 

The wingnuts are up in arms about the changes, believing that permitting civil unions is marriage by another name which discredits the entire attempt to preserve the sanctity of marriage from homosexual assault (PG). 

Michael Geer, president of the Pennsylvania Family Institute, said the "weaker" language of the Senate bill "won't give Pennsylvanians an opportunity to effectively defend the institution of marriage."

He claimed that civil unions "are marriages, for all intents and purposes," more often used by same-sex couples, and said both civil unions and gay marriages should be outlawed.

So some folks voted against it b/c it was too weak, while others voted against it b/c it was discrimination.

This is a good thing, don't get me wrong. I know the odds are very much against the two chambers passing the same bill by next Friday.  Which is a win for our side

But the issue still remains that some Democrats voted FOR the amendment in the first place.  Which demonstrates that there are too many spineless legislators who would sell us out -- sell our families out --- sell our civil rights out --- to pander to the right wing nutjobs.   

Still looking for roll call to identify said spineless cowards ... will post as soon as I find it.

Kudos to those rockin' young women who in partnership with the Women and Girls Foundation launched the Girlcott against Abercrombie & Fitch.  In acknowledgement of their excellent work, they were named among the 100 Real Hot Women.

This week's 2006 REAL hotties fought Abercrombie & Fitch -- and won! Because of their REALLY hot Girlcott, A&F pulled demeaning t-shirts from their shelves. How hot is that?

So what's all the fuss about?  Read on

We?re tired of the media telling young women how to be "hot"! Maxim Magazine?s annual "Hot 100" list exemplifies how young women are viewed in popular culture.  The women featured in this leading men?s magazine are chosen solely for their appearance.

The REAL hot 100 shows that young women are "hot" for reasons beyond their ability to look cute in a magazine.

REALLY hot women are smart. REALLY hot women work for change. REALLY hot women aren?t afraid to speak their minds. And while some REALLY hot women might look awesome in a bikini, they know that?s not all they have to offer.

Who are the REAL hot 100?
The REAL hot 100 is a list featuring young women from around the country who are breaking barriers, fighting stereotypes, and making a difference in their communities or the nation.

This project will not only combat the popular notion that all young women have to offer is their ability to appeal to men, but it will also highlight the important -- but often overlooked -- work young women are doing.

Congratulations girls!  You make Pittsburgh proud.

This is popping up all over the gay blogosphere.  Its a reflection on the state of gay activism.  Very interesting.

Activism, people power, hunger strikes. angry demonstrations, sit ins; they work.

Part One:  AIDS and the rise of partyism

Part Two:  The Perils of Complacency

Part Three:  You Can Make a Difference

I like the recommendations (paraphrasing):

    * Speak up and speak out

    * Donate to advocacy groups (the other side coughs up the cash)

    * Stay connected - via email lists, websites, etc. Stay informed.

    * Support LGBTQ owned and friendly businesses

Ledcat and I talk about this all the time.  Our community is horribly apathetic, especially here in Pittsburgh where we struggle against the parochial "I can't cross the river" genes from birth.  She focuses on how to mobilize these homos into action to demand the respect of the powers that be.  I'm a bit more on the side right now that we should be getting some respect from the party (and local LGBTQ leaders) if we want to galvanize the queers.  But it is pretty much the same side of the coin. 

Nothing makes me so crazy as a homo who claims s/he is not political. 

Big shout out to Sister Patricia McCann of Oakland who outed her Roman Catholic self as a believer that:

Building family depends on good, loving, generous, mature, self-giving and stable adults who are able and willing to parent. God makes those in a variety of patterns.

Amen, Sister Patricia.  You tell those who are glued to their pulpits in righteous indignation that they should get out in the world and actualy work with families before them jump to their hateful little conclusions. 

The well-being of children and young people is threatened by a family context of violence and dissension, by parental alcohol and drug abuse, by narcissistic behavior in adults, by parental neglect or lack of interest in their activities. I've seen young people, both rich and poor, raised by loving and devoted parents, grandparents, stepparents, foster parents, gay parents, single parents and adoptive parents who thrive and grow into mature adulthood because of loving and stable homes. And I've seen youths raised by adults who, through their own limitations, handicap children psychologically and morally for life.

Another PG luminary, columnist Reg Henry weigh in with his thoughts on how fortunate Pennsylvanias are that legislators are tackling real issues like gay marriage.

But how exactly will gays threaten traditional marriage? That is a good question, but only in the sense that no one has a good answer.

In ignoring the question, we need to heed our most prominent moral leaders, i.e., our politicians. Just because they are shifty characters you wouldn't lend a dollar to unless it was attached to a string, doesn't mean they can't thunder like Old Testament prophets.

Now that's deserves another cup of coffee ...

In response to the Post-Gazette's two-thirds hearted opposition to the so-called Marriage Protection Amendment, two of the amendment's sponsors took the time to whine about the PG's mischaracterization of their bill.  You've heard it all before, but since the PG has been parsimonious in covering this issue of late, I'll take a stab at it.

State Senator Bob Regola (R-Hempfield) and State Senator Scott Boyd (R-Lancaster) have seen a future filled with married homos and it scares the living hell out of them:

No one can legitimately claim that Pennsylvania's Defense of Marriage Act will not be challenged in court. The testimony of gay-marriage advocates in Harrisburg confirms it is not a matter of if, but when. Prominent individuals from the ACLU and other organizations believe same-sex marriage should be legalized. Knowing there is little chance of accomplishing that goal legislatively, using the court to achieve this legislative agenda becomes an attractive tool.

They take to task stout-hearted fellows like Dan Frankel who have been pointing out that this legislation might actually hurt tens of thousands of unmarried heterosexuals, but Bob and Scott assure us that won't happen -- their crusade against homos won't have collateral damage.  Doesn't that sound familiar? 

And they call out those tricky legislators who took the political route to compromise the full degree of hate and fear that was embedded in the original bill.

Opponents are aware of this and have repeatedly tried to dilute the amendment in both the state House and Senate. A vote to weaken the Pennsylvania Marriage Protection Amendment by allowing civil unions is a vote that will kill the effort to protect marriage in this legislative session.

You are either for the original amendment or you hate freedom.   Something like that. 

These guys suck.

Sue beat me to the punch on this one, too. I'm not as dedicated a blogger as she is. Recetnly she wrote an article talking about how a "queer" woman made a comment to the effect that she didn't recognize/acknowledge Sue & I at Steel Queer N' At  because she didn't think I/Sue would be at that type of event. Or words to that affect.

I should have questioned her about what she meant. 'Cause sister, I have the street cred to go anywhere that I want to go. Yes, I'm white. Yes, I'm middle class (barely) and yes, I have a law degree. But I have paid my dues in spades. I toiled as a young female lawyer making $7-8 dollars an hour for a man who made that in a minute. But it was the only job out there and I wanted to practice law. I've been poor. I've had to scrimp to make ends meet--to pay bills, etc. So this notion that if you're not dirt poor you don't qualify as "queer" is bullsh*t. With a capital B.

I also have the street cred because I have been an outlaw and nonconformist my whole life. From the time I can remember, I didn't like dresses, pink, frills or any of the things "normal" little girls liked. To this day, when I pass the woman's section in any store, my reaction to the clothes on display is one of utter disinterest. I have worn short hair for quite awhile along with men's/boy's clothing. Sure, I've worn women's clothing--still do. But I have never fit the image of a woman in this society. And I've been mistaken for a man or a boy countless times. I've been queer before queer was a word.

So don't stereotype me. You haven't earned the right. You haven't paid your dues. And to top it off, this particular person then made a comment about her--boyfriend. What a f**king joke. I've been a lesbian since forever. And I've paid a price for it. So don't look down your nose at me and sneer.

The Senate may vote on the anti-gay marriage amendment on Wednesday.  Here's what the AFA is seeking ... notice that they've not asked for either prayer or fasting ... so much for God's will ... 

ACTION NEEDED: 

1.)  Call your State Senator ASAP and ask him or her to support

 the original language of H.B. 2381 and to reject the Earll

Amendment.  Click here for contact information.   If you do not

know who your State Senator is, please enter your county or

nine-digit zip code in the upper right hand corner of that page

or call Commonwealth Directory Assistance at 717.787.2121. 

Please do not assume that your Senator will support the

Marriage Protection Amendment!  Contact them!

 

2.)  Feel free to forward this alert to other concerned

 Pennsylvanians.  If this alert is being forwarded to you by

a friend, please feel free to sign up by sending an e-mail

 to info@afaofpa.org

 

3.)  Please consider supporting the ongoing work of the

American Family Association of Pennsylvania.  Make

 an online donation.

 

In His service,

 

Diane Gramley

President

American Family Association of PA

From Monday's Post-Gazette comes this rather unimpressive denouncement of the still breathing Pennsylvania legislation on gay marriage (amend the constitution, hurt the homos and the heteros, you remember).

Today is the day we are supposed to see some action in the Senate on the revised bill which would still make gay marriage unconstitutional, but not civil unions.  This bill should reach the floor as early as today.  If it passes, it has to return to the House for passage in its amended form.  The homo-haters and hate-panderers are up in arms at the watered down language of the legislation so what will happen is anyone's guess.

The only solace is that is all has to happen by the end of next week or it goes kapoot (how do you spell kapoot by the way?). 

I'm glad the PG opposes the amendment.  And I'm glad they point out how this could hurt many heterosexual couples b/c frankly that's our best shot at avoiding passage.  Hurting homsexual families doesn't seem to be a concern for our homegrown Democrats so we need to pull out all the possible cards. 

But this editorial reads like a carefully crafted compromise rather than a thoughtful articulation:

This whole amendment is objectionable. That the civil union language was in there at the start proves the lie at the heart of its supporters' claims: This isn't about protecting the sanctity of traditional marriage (if it were, it would ban divorce, the real culprit). It is about writing a note of prejudice into the state constitution.

Objectionable?  A note of prejudice?  Was Tony Norman off this day -- who the heck uses phrases like "note of prejudice" over an amendment that would overtly constitutionalize second class status for an entire group of people?  About the violation of our civil rights?  About the fact that we've been here before and it wasn't so good that time around? 

The PG wimped out on this issue.  You'll note they stopped printing letters to the editor on this issue.  Perhaps readers are getting bored?  But isn't that the damn point ---