The good word from this week's Pittsburgh City Paper is good for Pittsburgh's Progressive Community ... the Gertrude Stein Political Club of Pittsburgh has found new leaders to keep this legendary institution going strong.
When the Gertrude Stein Political Club of Greater Pittsburgh made its endorsements for the May 18 primary this year, they came with a plea attached:
"This will be the LAST endorsement by the Gertrude Stein Political Club ... unless new members are willing to take on leadership roles and duties."
Swissvale resident Todd Bryner heard the call after it appeared in the April issue of Pittsburgh's Out, a monthly gay publication. Bryner's partner pasted the note to his medicine cabinet, and Bryner decided to step forward -- "So all the work put in doesn't go to waste," he says.
Gertrude Stein has been THE political voice for the LGBT community for 30 years, a role they now share with the Steel City Stonewall Democrats. The prospect of losing that rich history, including a significant level of participation by the heterosexual community, would be a travesty.
You can check the slate cards yourself here, dating back to 1999.
The Club hasn't been afraid to take hard stances when it comes to their endorsements. In 2003, the Pittsburgh Tavern Guild barred the Club materials from their businesses and forbid their entry for the traditional "bar crawl" to promote the endorsed candidates. The Tavern Guild objected to the group's failure to endorse then City Councilman Gene Riccardi. Riccardi is against a woman's right to choose, thus conflicting with the Club's stated values.
There is the obvious problem. It is our understanding that you will not consider an endorsement for a candidate who is not supportive of the Right to Choose. While of interest and concern to many of us, we believe that this is a Feminist Issue. To give it weight over the actual Civil Rights of Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and the Transgender segments is not only wrong headed, but in conflict with what Our Community has come to expect from you. The Community has looked to you for years to know who our friends are. By failing to endorse Gene Ricciardi, you have left the impression that he is not a friend of the Community.
The bar owners were incensed and did not hesitate to flex their considerate political muscle.
For years, many of us in the bar Community have worked for, contributed to and generally lobbied candidates. Your actions are in direct conflict with ours. As such, we can no longer welcome you into our businesses. We believe that your actions are harmful to the relationships we have built over the years with our political friends and in the long run to the LGBT Community. By permitting you and your literature into our businesses we would be complicit in this farce that you actually represent the Community or are qualified to endorse candidates. Your actions in this matter have proven that you are neither.
Sad that otherwise educated men fail to recognize the political connection between LGBT equal rights and choice. This disconnect continues to amaze me, but that's another post.
Gertrude Stein perservered, remaining committed to the member driven priorities. And here we are ... they are still considered a progressive powerhouse in this region.
Kudos to Todd Bryner for stepping up to maintain the credibility and authority of the Gertrude Stein club to Pittsburgh's LGBT community. I encourage you to join the organization and help build up the ranks. I look forward to what the future brings in regard to LGBT politics.
I also want to give a little shout out to the City Paper's Lauren Daley, a relatively recent addition to the City Paper staff. I was very impressed with the time and energy she's invested in getting to know the LGBT community. Sitting through a two hour political meeting to simply get a feel for the local LGBT political scene speaks volumes about the quality of the City Paper and the increasing significance of our community, politically speaking.
The Post-Gazette has another look at the Governor's race with an emphasis on economic issues.
Here's there take on Hoeffel ...
While the perception of Mr. Hoeffel as a more liberal candidate often focuses on social issues such as abortion rights and gay marriage, he also stresses the need for an activist approach to economic issues. He offers what might be the most fundamental change for the state among all of the candidates' proposals with his call for a graduated state income tax. How much new revenue that would generate is uncertain. He has not detailed the tiers and rate levels in the new revenue structure that would replace the state's current flat-rate plan.
"Thirty-four states have a graduated income tax and we should be the 35th," he said. "It would allow the state to give a tax break for lower incomes, [but] I'm not talking about soaking the rich."
An unabashed liberal, Mr. Hoeffel says his ability to work across party lines is proven by the bipartisan alliance he has formed with Republican Jim Matthews on his county's board of commissioners, freezing out the other GOP member of the board.
Less reticent on spending than some of his rivals, Mr. Hoeffel said that the state should double its spending for transportation, including increases for repair of existing roads and bridges, more funding for transit and high-speed rail development.
All of the Democratic contenders agree with the desirability of taxing the proceeds of Marcellus shale natural gas deposits at some level. Mr. Hoeffel has been particularly outspoken on the issue, calling for rates that would produce at least $300 million in the first year of the new tax, a level his campaign projects as double the proceeds of the levy currently proposed by Mr. Rendell.
Mr. Hoeffel said he would also shift more of the state's school costs away from property taxes and toward income taxes, while raising the proportion of local school costs paid by the state from roughly 37 percent to nearly half.
We don't often talk about progressive economic issues. We also don't talk about the connections between social issues and economic issues. HB 300 which would protect our jobs, housing and public accomodation is grounded in strengthening the economy. It is a jobs bill, for God's sake. The data shows the contributions the LGBT community make to the locals in which they live; improving our access to good jobs, decent housing and opportunities to spend our money in public is good for the economy.
All of the candidates say they support this, but I trust Joe to see its relevance to turning Pennsylvania around and using his office to get the legislation passed instead of waiting for someone else to bring it to his desk.
I want a good budget and I believe Joe Hoeffel is the smart candidate who sees the connections between social and economic issues.
Tobias has given permission for this to be published.
Please read this ...
Friends and colleagues --
I have just finished reading through the text of the law that has been enacted in Arizona targeting undocumented immigrants. I have been studying the laws of the United States and working on civil rights issues for fifteen years, but I have never seen a more appalling and dehumanizing statute in present-day America than this measure.
It is not merely that this statute declares an entire class of human beings to be inherently criminal -- trespassers on all public and private land in Arizona because of their status. It is not merely that the law requires police and other law enforcement agents in Arizona to treat an entire population as presumptively criminal on the basis of their race and appearance. It is not merely that the statute effectively requires lawful immigrants to carry papers wherever they go in order to avoid arrest and detention, as if we were living in apartheid-era South Africa or half-slave / half-free pre-Civil War America.
What is yet more appalling is this: If, tomorrow, every undocumented immigrant in Arizona simply left or disappeared, the economy of that state would collapse. The purpose of this law is not to get rid of all undocumented immigrants. The purpose of this law is to disempower all brown-skinned immigrants in Arizona, turning them into a third-class group who must live in constant fear of government and are subject to arbitrary abuse and exploitation.
LGBT people know what it means to be declared by statute to be inherent criminals -- to be told that we are illegal people. Transgender people know what it means to be told that their very being, dress or appearance makes them inherently suspicious and subject to arrest and detention.
We must stand up against this law, and we must do so loudly and strongly.
No one from the Pennsylvania delegation serves on this committee. Would you participate if they did? Would you risk arrest and/or being cited?
When I think about this, I have to keep in my mind my career as a social worker. I have to maintain my criminal history clearances, both in PA and through the FBI. Given the disparity with which arresting officials and the courts respond to these demonstrations ... it is a tough call.
Or I am just taking the easy way out? We don't have a direct action group in Pittsburgh except for Bash Back and that's not quite what I'm looking for. It would be great to sit down with the old school activists and have that conversation.
Attached is the letter to Senator John McCain from First Class Petty Officer Lonnie Allen.
Update 4:45 PM
The protestors are not from Get Equal or Equality Across America. They belong to an Arizona organization called HERO (Human and Equal Rights Organizers) based on Phoenix.
The protestors are reported to have been arrested, cited and released.
Photo from the event courtesy of Luis Garcia.
Meg Sneed, Jimmy Gruender, Lee Walters, (Lonnie) Allen Howard-Stidham and Luisa Valdez
Five protestors are staging a sit-in at Senator John McCain's office to demand the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Staff is threatening to have them arrested. They are demanding to speak with the Senator.
Also, new group - Equal Across the US in the spirit of Get Equal.
I saw this a few days ago on Facebook, but lost track of time posting. It was picked up by the Post-Gazette.
We are all confused, meanwhile, about a state legislative race in Philadelphia, where one candidate has "outed" the other as straight.
The incumbent, Rep. Babette Josephs, says her challenger in the Democratic primary, Gregg Kravitz, is falsely touting himself as bisexual in order to gain favor with the many gay voters of the district. She said a woman accompanying Mr. Kravitz to a campaign event introduced herself as -- gasp -- his girlfriend. This after Mr. Kravitz described himself as a "proud member of the LGBT community," which (to inform out-of-it, old-school readers) stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender.
This question of a candidate's possible straightness, as something to hide, is such a political scandal that The Philadelphia Inquirer wrote about it at some length. The spin-your-head-around nature of it is a welcome sign to Mark Segal, publisher of the Philadelphia Gay News.
"We've hit a new high point when candidates are accused of pretending to be gay to win a seat," he told the Inquirer. "I've been doing this for 40 years, and I never have heard of this kind of charge in any race in the nation. ... It shows how far we've come."
It's the kind of reverse controversy we have difficulty imagining taking place here on the other side of the Alleghenies for some years -- or centuries.
The Philly Inquirer:
"I outed him as a straight person," Josephs said during a fund-raiser at the Black Sheep Pub & Restaurant, as some in the audience gasped or laughed, "and now he goes around telling people, quote, 'I swing both ways.' That's quite a respectful way to talk about sexuality. This guy's a gem."
Kravitz, 29, said that he is sexually attracted to both men and women and called Josephs' comments offensive.
"That kind of taunting is going to make it more difficult for closeted members of the LGBT community to be comfortable with themselves," Kravitz said. "It's damaging."
What a twist. The long-time LGBT ally alleges the self-identified bisexual candidate is fraudulently identifying with the LGBT community.
Both candidates' positions feed right into ongoing biphobia pervading the LGBT community. Suggesting someone isn't really part of the gay community because they have an opposite sex relationship is a very common point of view. Using language such as "swing both ways," on the other hand, feeds right into that same mentality and certainly does not convey any sense of dignity or respect for bisexual men and women who don't have the privilege of wealth.
This is particularly interesting given the fact of three bisexual men suing the Gay Softball World Series for saying they didn't count as gay players. The team was disqualified for having too many straight players.
It seems people want some sort of measuring stick to determine if bisexual men and women are "gay enough." The biphobia that pervades Pittsburgh's LGBT community is pretty sad. Women rail against straight women coming into lesbian spaces to "experiment" with very little thought that they might really be struggling to figure out their identity. I agree they should be upfront about their intentions before dating, but sheesh ... do we only want tolerance for people who earn a gay card? How would you do that anyway?
Over a year ago, I was at a community leadership meeting where a respected leader actually said something to the effect that no one bisexual was present because they can't make up their minds, followed by a stupid giggle. It isn't funny and it certainly demonstrates that 1) he thought we'd agree with him and 2) he didn't know much about the folks in the room as there were bisexual persons present. Offensive and damaging to his causes.
Since that was a political meeting, it brings me back to the Josephs/Kravitz race. Babette Josephs is a known quantity who has proven she's qualified and understands the issues. I suspect she's outraged that someone is so blithe about their identity, knowing the struggles many in her district face. Kravitz may be bisexual, but that doesn't qualify him for office. Perhaps this public trial by fire will help him be a little more aware of the discrimination the LGBT community endures.
The Catholic Diocese of Greensburg will no longer participate in the U.S. bishops' anti-poverty program, which some conservative activists say has funded abortion-rights and gay-rights supporters.
Bishop Lawrence Brandt said he intends to create a Diocesan Poverty Relief Fund to receive the money that formerly went to the Catholic Campaign for Human Development.
The Greensburg diocese sent nearly $22,000 to the campaign last year.
Here's the past that troubles me.
The Catholic Campaign for Human Development was founded in 1969 to fund efforts to eradicate the causes of poverty. In 2009, it awarded more than $7.7 million to 250 community and church groups. It doesn't give money directly to the poor, but funds self-help groups in which poor people work to fix problems such as poor schools or slum housing. Some conservative groups have long complained that this strategy gives the campaign a liberal bias. But criticism reached new heights last year.
<snip>
But officials in the Greensburg diocese were troubled that the campaign gave no money to alleviate poverty directly and said that the new Diocesan Poverty Relief Fund would do just that.
How is it a liberal bias to empower people to tackle their own challenges? What about "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."?
Apparently, it is better if the folks giving the money get to call the shots on how to solve your problems. Hmmm. Why does that seem familiar?
Anyway, this is a sleight of hand game. Our very own Bishop Zubik is a big kahuna with the Campaign for Human Development and there are clear safeguards in place, including repaying the money if you are in violation of church teaching.
I think it is more wingnut venom from those who are threatened by the empowerment of poor people. I think they toss abortion and gay rights into the mix to terrify the ignorant and gain support for their overarching goal of maintaining control over diocesan resources. They can't find a way to slice the Catholic Church from its mission to serve the poor, so they bring out the big guns of those who don't deserve justice -- pregnant women and gay people.
I ran a faith based ministry project for about 14 months back in the nineties. The piece that REALLY worked was the piece that empowered people. Sure, I had men mowing the grass and painting in exchange for the cash assistance (I had to do that), but I started a program where women in our rural community were able to volunteer in the thrift store and receive credits toward purchasing clothing for their family. It was hugely successful. And it was the idea of a group of women who advised me on how to get the Center growing -- people who lived in the community and understood the local work ethic as well as the harsh impact of poverty. They lived it, they came up with the program and it sustained itself long after I left.
This about controlling the lives of the poor, not justice. If they have to revisit the tired old anti-gay, anti-woman rhetoric to maintain control, so be it. There is no way the powers that be in Greensburg wants poor people with power calling the shots.
Here's the link to the usual transphobic stupidity, although this headline is pretty awful.
First-graders should not be forced into the classrooms of teachers undergoing sex changes. Religious broadcasters and faith-based summer camps should not be forced to hire cross-dressers. Women should not be forced to share bathrooms with people with male body parts who say they want to be females. Yet those are some of the likely results if Congress passes H.R. 3017, the so-called Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which is due for a vote this week by the House Education and Labor Committee.
Do you see the theme ... transpeople are "weirdos" and ENDA is going to protect their dysfunctional identity, rather than simply protect our community's right to our jobs. When the media (such as this past week's episode of Accidentally on Purpose) are saturated with caricatures of the stereotypical crossdressing man (ugly man in dress) for the cheap laugh -- people laugh, but they also clutch their children a little closer because they continue to wallow in fear and misunderstanding.
Similar problems abound in this bill, which treats a conscious decision to choose a new or different sexual identity as if it were an inherent, unavoidable condition. But it's not. It's actually a psychological disorder, officially listed as such by the current American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Our children and our co-workers should not be forced by law to be held hostage to such disorders, nor should employers be forced to have psychologically troubled persons as the public face of their businesses.
Yes, Gender Identity Disorder is still classified in the DSM, including the soon to be published version 5. However, there are very good reasons for this based on meeting the psychological needs of individuals. A very good explanation can be found at the Transgender Workplace Diversity blog.
Those of us who have transgender friends, acquaintances, coworkers and neighbors recognize this as a distraction tactic to get the focus off the economic development aspect of the legislation by tapping into the "bathroom/dressing room" fears of those who do not know any better. This galvanizes them to advocacy and backs down the legislators wavering on a "jobs" bill. Sigh.
Are you disgusted/angered/disappointed? A few things you can do.
Call or email Jason Altmire's staff person TODAY. Politely ask him to support the legislation - inclusive ENDA. You can email at this link. Ideally, use your free cell phone long distance to call at 202-225-2565
Bloggers and media can contact Tess Mullen can be reached at 202-225-2565 and tess.mullen@mail.house.gov It would be appropriate to mention the Washington Times article to Tess and explain why we need positive support in the media from our elected officials.
Politely remind Congressman Altmire that workplace protections in Pittsburgh and Erie have not generated any of these situations. It is fear based ammunition not grounded in fact. His district is buffered by these protections so he knows this as do his constituents. This is not risky. This *is* essential for our community.
Remember, Jason has been an ally. He voted for ENDA in 2007. He voted for Hate Crimes Protections in 2009. He's attended LGBTQ events, even before running for office. Yes, there's health care which even more reason we should invite him back to the equal rights table.
Updated: Regarding the Washington Times, Editorial Page Editor Brett Decker, Tel: 202/636-4814; Fax: 202/715-0037, or submit a letter to the editor: yourletters@washingtontimes.com.
My brain is really tired so I'm giving this my best shot.
First, the follow up from the White House DADT protest yesterday. The protestors have been released and preliminary reports on how the transwomen and transmen were treated in the jail system are additional sadness related to this entire issue. Additional reasons for outrage. I encourage you to read Pam's House Blend for updates.
Pam has an interesting post up on the fallout of the Get Equal activists tactics on mainstream LGBT groups, mainly the Human Rights Campaign.
When the White House comes to the defense of HRC and Joe Solmonese in particular, it's pretty clear both parties feel under siege. In an article "HRC head gets praise, flak for Obama's gay-rights initiatives," by Lonnae O'Neal Parker, it's a surreal profile with great attention to detail to fawning, with a couple of dashes of criticism -- classic CYA journalism.
This debate is playing out throughout the LGBTiverse today. The end of my day was filled with dozens of tweets and scores of email messages as folks wrestle with the consequences of the White House protest and related action.
The reality is that the activists are back. Word has is that there will be no White House action on repealing DADT in 2010 in spite of all those promises. Imagine the shakeup in the queeroverse as the go-to-gays begin to lose control?
The second area for debate today has been ENDA. The House is working to pass inclusive legislation out of committee and for a full vote, but debate rages on over the unity of the LGBT community ... do we stand behind our WHOLE community and require an inclusive bill or descend into the madness of 2007 when a non-inclusive version passed. Uggg.
ENDA is about job discrimination. Keep that in mind. It isn't about bathrooms and the mental health of transpeople and the other litany of hateful distractions being lobbied our way.
ENDA is an economic development issue.
OK, I'm done for the evening. The only reason I'm looking forward to plowing through another 100 email messages is the sheer joy of knowing so many bright people are working on these issues each and every single day. They make it a pleasure to be an activist.
Frankel applauds Obama's directive for equal hospital access
for same-sex partners, commends Pa. sponsors of non-discrimination bill
HARRISBURG, April 19 ? State Rep. Dan Frankel, D-Allegheny, applauded President Obama's recent directive to provide same-sex partners access to their loved ones in nearly all U.S. hospitals.
At Obama's direction, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius will issue regulations binding on all hospitals that participate in Medicare or Medicaid. The new policy will give same-sex partners the same visitation rights that blood relatives enjoy.
Frankel said, "This is something for which I have long advocated at the state level and I commend President Obama for using his authority to provide this protection nationwide. One of the reasons I have long opposed tacking a discriminatory 'marriage amendment' onto the state or federal Constitution is that such an amendment could deny many Americans access to their loved ones at critical times in their lives.
"I am also pleased that the federal government appears to be moving forward on another way to guarantee equal treatment for LGBT Americans ? the U.S. House is expected to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act in the near future. I commend Senators Specter and Casey for co-sponsoring the Senate version, and Congressman Doyle and the other seven Pennsylvania members who are co-sponsoring it in the U.S. House. The federal legislation is similar to House Bill 300, which I have introduced in Harrisburg."
