Tag Archives: lgbtqarights

‘Curing’ LGBT people? There’s an app for that.

Apple have in the past supported LGBT rights. In fact they donated to the Prop 8 cause in favour of equality. However, all may not be as it seems just from that one act.

Following the removal of an application by the Manhattan Declaration a few months ago which said quite clearly that same sex couples are ‘sexually immoral’, originally given a 4+ rating by Apple implying it to be entirely family friendly with no objectionable content… an app that was only removed following a campaign and petition against it… Apple have done it again.

Yes, our ‘good friends’ at Exodus International have introduced an application to an app store near you, intended to deliver a dangerous message to tech savvy young adults: ‘You can be “freed from homosexuality” and have your sexual orientation “cured” if you’re LGBT.’ Yes, this is the same Exodus International that promotes the universally condemned snake oil of “ex-gay therapy”, which has been described as causing catastrophic damage to the mental health of it’s victims by the American Psychological Association, American Medical Association, and the American Counseling Association.

Worse yet, Apple have, again, given this app a 4+ rating, once more branding the app as entirely inoffensive and harmless, even though the group tells gay kids that their sexual orientation is “immoral,” “satanic”, and in need of a cure, which we all know to be the very kind of insulting and frankly degrading and oppressive bigotry that¬† contributes to depression, anxiety, isolation, and even suicide.

There is a petition to remove the app from Apple’s app store, though at this point, we have to consider motives here. Yes, they donated against Prop 8, but while a significant amount of money, $100,000 dollars is really a drop in the ocean to Apple – hell, they’re getting good PR just because I’m mentioning it now. On the other hand, not only do Apple make a big deal of banning any app from their store that could possibly be objectionable to anyone in the majority of their userbase, they seem to not only have allowed these bigoted anti-gay applications, but also rated them as being entirely inoffensive, and only removed the last one due to the petition and widespread outcry over it. This one looks likely to follow suit (unless of course Apple really wants to be seen to be anti-LGBT). The fact is, Apple is a company founded on it’s image… it’s why it has the rules it has. Someone at Apple clearly feels that declaring these apps as inoffensive and even allowing them in the first place is not only acceptable, but perfectly OK with the company image.

The choice between Android, Research In Motion and Apple just got political. No… further than that, it just got moral. This, from Apple, is not acceptable, and if LGBT people do not show them how such actions will hurt, in the app store sales, the phone store sales, the music store sales… etc … who will?

Please sign the petition, and please consider sending your own message to Apple… but please don’t ignore what you’re paying to support in buying into it at the moment.

Marriage Equality in the UK – A Rising Issue

I’ve seen it reported in US media from time to time, that same sex marriage exists in the UK. It doesn’t. What exists in the UK is a segregated system of sexuality based apartheid. If you’re straight, you can get married, and if you’re LGBT, you can have a ‘civil partnership’. However, the issue of marriage equality is now emerging into UK public consciousness.

A civil partnership is largely like a marriage in terms of its legal effects, but it is not a marriage. In fact, it was deliberately stripped of any and all emotional or spiritual connotations entirely. A marriage in the UK is binding from the point that vows are spoken, and yet, a civil partnership is created instead from the signatures on a legal contract. A straight couple who hold a religious or spiritual faith may choose to incorporate elements of their beliefs into the ceremony. They have the option of making their marriage special in their way, and to honour their love and commitment in the manner most meaningful to them. LGBT people do not have this option. For married people, adulterous behaviour is grounds for divorce if they so choose -the same is not true of civil partners. Even if these differences did not exist, the law makes clear that a civil partnership is not a marriage. Marriage equality is what was sought, and the UK gave LGBT people something less. They deliberately segregated gay and straight people, and effectively said that gay people should not be afforded the right to get married or celebrate their love and commitment in anything that resembles a personal, spiritual way, and so creating a greater and a lesser form of partnership. In fact, this discrimination is so firmly entrenched that transsexual people, if married, must actually divorce only to then obtain a civil partnership in order to have their personal details officially corrected.

Ever since the Civil Partnerships Act recieved Royal Assent in 2004, there has been a cry for full marriage equality. A cry which is finally beginning to be heared across all three major political parties, with the Liberal Democrats having even gone so far as to make marriage equality a matter of their party policy… and well they might, as marriage equality in the UK is a very popular move to make. Opinion polls show a consistent majority in favour of equal rights and an end to the discrimination. Sadly though, the politicians are slow to practice what they preach.

Currently, the Government is faced with an opportunity and with pressure to end this discrimination as stipulated by legislation passed last year.  The legislation makes very clear that no religious institution opposed to same sex partnerships would be required to perform them or to allow their places of worship to be used for them.

Many Liberal Democrats will no doubt be quick to claim any extention of LGBT rights towards marriage equality as a sign of their success and moral standing in Government. However, it should also be noted that the provisions which call for the change allowing LGBT people to involve their religious beliefs in their civil partnerships comes from an Equality Act, written last year under the leadership of a Labour Government (the self same act that effectively rolled back some of the rights of transsexual people, and decided that LGBT bullying in schools should not be specifically remedied). The implementation of the law allowing for this positive step towards marriage equality has in fact been delayed for a year by the current government. The fact is, when it comes to LGBT rights, none of the political parties have a particularly good record when it comes to actually fighting to do something about it -some worse than others, the worst, sadly, being the party leading the current Government!

Even so, this is a remarkably important step forward, at least in its potential, and it should be considered as such. The consultation undoubtedly will involve many churches vehemently opposed to marriage equality. These churches are worried that with the key difference in the ban on religious components to civil partnerships being removed, there would be no real reason not to call them marriages – and rightly so, because they’re right! However, there is no word from the Government on whether Civil Partnerships will be changed so that they may be referred to as marriages… it’s not really even on the agenda. The Government has simply suggested that it might think about it some time. The question is whether it is right that LGBT people who wish to be able to recognise their beliefs in a ceremony marking their partnership should be able to… and if their beliefs (or those of their church) allow for this, is there any fair reason why they should not be allowed to? No. There isn’t.

The right wing press is predictably spinning and overblowing the comments of church leaders to suggest a fear that they will be forced to perform gay marriages. It’s as predictable as it is tiresome. Left unchecked, extremist churches and right wing mariage equality opponents may well water down any eventual positive step towards marriage equality, or block it altogether. This should not be allowed to happen – at least not without firm opposition to such underhanded and homophobic intentions.

Fellow No More Lost writer Gemma, in her recent piece about France’s failure to ensure mariage equality, notes the way that the energy of the movement was lost following a homophobic court ruling in 2004. Reading her article, and noting the lack of widespread opposition to marriage equality, I have to wonder why. It seems to me that an explanation may be that unless related to an oppositional religious group, most heterosexual people aren’t exceptionally bothered by marriage equality, given that they don’t really have much cause to think about it and it doesn’t effect them.

For that reason, and that reason alone, as the issue of marriage equality enters the UK public consciousness, and as the right wing press spews out it’s typical homophobic propaganda and lies about the reality of what’s going on, it’s more important than ever that we make our case. It is more important than ever that we make ourselves heared. It is now more important than ever that we, LGBT people and our heterosexual allies, ensure that the public at large have more information than just the usual nationally disseminated lies and propaganda, and that the public consciousness of the issue also forms around an understanding of the wrongs and impacts that marriage INequality gives rise to.

What does today mean for the most oppressed minority in Egypt

Lets get straight to the point, we aren’t talking about Copts, Jews, Americans, or even Palestinian refuguees, we are talking about the group that by and large, is generally beaten down by every society that can get away with it, and thats the LGBTQA community.

Now targeting of lesbians has been noted less, but given that Egypt only formally recognized that being gay was a real “thing” rather than something to be exorcised out of someone was in 2001, so give them time to work out what all their women are doing and then i’m sure they’ll start lynching the women as brutally if not more brutally than the men.

Strangely for a country who’s constitution is founded on a bronze age code of laws, there’s nothing directly against being Gay. However that is somewhat understandable, given that certainly during many incarnations of persian, ottoman and arabic civilizations that have existed throughout the middle east there has been a space for LGBTQA people to exist, although those roles were far closer to that of the Hijra of India than the Two Spirit mystics of the first nations people of the americas… So Egypt says nothing about being gay, having anal intercourse, or giving another guy a blowjob in their constitution, however sadly in part due to the influence of a puritanical interpretation of Islam, the politicians, the police and the courts have found ways to “prosecute” being “deviant”.

Generally these along the lines of “violating deceny”, “dishonorable actions”, and almost novelly “consorting with satan”. The case the world is probably most familiar with is of the Cairo 52 a group of 52 gay men who were arrested at a nightclub. In police custody they were brutalized, beaten and bashed, before being run through a show trial accusing them of “Habitual Debauchery” and “Obscene Behavior”, many European countries objected as well as amnesty international. Of course its worth remembering that given the power the US had over Egypt, one call from the white-house could have made the difference, but that was the openly homophobic Bush with the phone, so he ignored it.

Since the throwing out of the British Empire, Egypt has been led by 3 tyrants, General Nassar, Anwar Sadat, and Hosni Mubarak, all of whom while nominally secular have paid lip service to the puritan muslims who play a part in modern Egypt. However because LGBTQA people are generally by their very nature a challenge to the existing order by being “different”, any open LGBTQA person has paid the price, generally unnoticed for Egypt’s tyrannical order.

Now things are changing, Mubarak is hiding out in the south, hopefully soon to be exiled, the head of the secret police is now handing over power to the military council and hopefully within 6 months free and fair elections will be held, and a new dawn will arise out over Egypt.

With ruthless efficiency, the right wing media has been screaming about the Muslim Brotherhood, ignoring the fact that the militant wing burned out during the early 90s along with the majority of the islamist groups in the muslim world. They also fail to mention that no such complaints were raised about allowing Sinn Fein the political arm of a group who had decidedly militant members under the banner of the IRA. Now I’m under no illusions, were Egypt become an Islamic democracy along the lines laid out by Sayt Qutb, it would be as bad, if not worse than the current situation. But I think thats about as likely as Glenn Beck acting rationally on his TV show.

Egypt when it elects its new parliament will be a new country, it will be a country where at the height of the violence, those of a muslim faith protected the Copts praying in their midst, and where those same Copts formed a human shield to protect their Egyptian comrades while they made their daily prayers. Its a country where a tyrant could not repress the young, the old, the women, the children, or even the donkeys that some people brought to Tahir square.

This new Egypt is one thats connected like never before, where new ideas and concepts can travel, and maybe without the repression of Sulieman’s secret police, the LGBTQA community can flourish, and become an open and proud member of this free re-imagined Egypt.

I’m a brit by birth, and my genetics that relate to England make me the descendent of those who practiced the art of Empire across the globe with exceptional arrogance, so I know what it means to be colonial. I’m not telling the people of the New Egypt what to do because I’m British and they are indigent savages. I’m saying that a new dawn has risen over the Nile valley, why not make it a dawn for all those repressed under the tyrants.

So I think maybe I’m an optimist, but I think today is the best news for the LGBTQA community of Egypt and indeed the entire Arab world in a generation.

Does CPAC show some of the big fractures in the Conservative Movement?

I actually started writing an article about this back when coffee and markets, a conservative podcast, started talking about the end of Fusionism being possible because of the pulling out of several social conservative groups from CPAC after GOProud was accepted as a sponsor of the event.

Audio MP3

Now at issue is a fundamental problem at the core of conservatism, as you can seem from this diagram from those nice people over at Red State, and their ideological purity against libertarians

true conservatives are supposedly the union of fiscal, social and defense conservatives

Now the Fiscal Conservatives are the closest to the libertarian ideal, claimed by many in the Republican party and the Conservative movement. But this is more about the movement than the party, which has its own problems and issues.

The tripod on which conservatism stands, is somewhat strange if you think about the natural enmities. Libertarians are against regulation and top down government, which the Social conservatives crave. Defense focused conservatives are generally a fan of outrageous military spending, which should be an anathema to the fiscally conscious libertarians. The Social conservatives with a strong focus on supporting the needy and the poor woven into their faiths, should be totally opposed to the cutting of welfare demanded by the libertarians, and the libertarians being strong on personal freedoms should be opposed to the Defense focused conservatives agenda of interfering with other peoples round the world.

What you have here is an unholy trinity, of three things that are not alike fused together which rarely line up so tightly in other political systems producing this so called “True Conservative”. The fictional true conservative if following what’s talked about by the Conservative movement would be a libertarian, however that is not the result we get.

The Fiscals generally support the Social agenda, who then support the Defense agenda, who then come back round and support the Fiscals, all the while remaining somewhat united if not in ideals, but the core ideology they present, and many people are fusion of Social, Fiscal and Defense conservatives in their beliefs. We look in from the outside very baffled because we see the contradiction, without understanding the pact formed by these conservative movements, often in the hearts and minds of the members of the greater conservative movements.

Some interesting events have happend recently one being GOProud sponsoring CPAC, which is a group of LGBTQA people who identify with the Defense and Fiscal wings of conservatism, and are tolerant of the Social wing. Now the Social Conservatives derive at great deal of their appeal opposing gay rights and other areas of social progression, and so feel that they cannot present their message at a function sponsored by a group who effectively say “Its okay to be conservative and gay” and so have pulled out. Does this mean that the social conservatives and their key membership the evangelical christians are going to march out of the conservative movement and start out on their own, of course not, but the fracture has been seen, and its not one that will easily heal, even with all the frantic PR thats going on at CPAC at this very moment.

The second is that no matter how you feel about the elections, its clear that due in part due to a total failure of messaging by the Democratic party, that a libertarian slant was put on the American citizenry, irrespective of the tea party which still seems to be limited, in part due to their limited actual size which is far smaller than Fox news likes to say. The message sold to the American people, was “less government is good”, which sounded nicely libertarian, then they showed massive government waste by trying to repeal a law they know they cannot repeal, annoying the fiscals and then returned sharply to the social conservatives who have inserted 3 bills to attempt to restrict a woman’s right to choose. Also on the horizon, every single candidate for the RNC chair professed strong social conservative anti-gay rights views, as has the entire crop of probable 2012 candidates. Tim Pawlenty, long thought to be a strong moderate voice within the Republican party, has announced that he plans to try to repeal the repeal of Dont Ask Don’t Tell, because he really cares about…well clearly not moderate viewpoints any more.

Now sadly as much as I’d like to be preparing to dance on the grave of conservative fusion. Being a pro-welfare, pro-choice, queer culture promoting, muff munching, peacenik, pro-taxing the rich socialist I’d like nothing more than seeing an end to the hypocrisy of someone saying “we have to cut Medicaid, because we have to cut spending, but i need a hundred billion for this new fighter plane” or someone who says “I’m for small government, and protecting the traditional family”. However thats not the case yet, but it gives us an in. You probably know some conservatives, I’m friends with a few, but many of them are gonna be leaning a little bit more heavily on 2 of those legs than the other one, so I’m not saying have an argument, but maybe chip away at those fractures a little bit more and maybe we can put an end to this myth of bipolar politics in America.

We need an Anti-Prop 8 in 2012

When California legalized equal marriage in 2008, I really felt uplifted, one of the two homes of equality now recognized equality in law. I then heard rumblings about Proposition 8, and assumed unwisely that it would fail to get on the ballot, let alone pass. I had not reckoned with the forces of hatred and intolerance unleashed by conservative christians.

Prop 8 the musical really did catch the mood of shock and horror we felt, across the USA…

It felt as though at the moment the country was walking forwards into a brighter better future, we were yanked back, it honestly made me feel sick and despondent. However we had to pick ourselves up and start moving forwards.

My understanding of the California constitution, makes it cut and dried, the proposition was unlawful, it was a change to the nature of the constitution, and so should have needed 2/3rds majority. It should have been struck down on principle by every court of the land and i’d cheer that.

However I don’t think for once that’s the right way to go. I think we need to refight the battle we lost and win the war. The numbers ended up at 52 for 48 against, I think we can win, and we can win big.

Throughout the US every time its come up for a public vote, hatred and intolerance has won on the issue of marriage equality. This does not mean our time has not come, it means we have not out fought the religious right yet. While California is not the liberal utopia we’d love it to be, its still the home of San Francisco, our Vatican, our Mecca and our Shangri-la. So its time we take California back for equality.

We need to put marriage equality back on the ballot for 2012, we need it to be our issue, we need to fight the fire of the Mormons, the Baptists and the other haters with the water of the truth. We have the money, we have the power, and we can win.

I’m sure some would talk against this idea as risky, but I think we need an unequivocal victory against intolerance. We need an example to hold up when NOM comes out and says “We always win when it comes to the ballot”, and i think thats worth the risk to start the march towards marriage equality at the federal level.

We can win, we must win, and we have to step up to start the next battle.

A lawsuit with a happyish ending

When a lesbian couple wanted to walk as a couple in their school’s traditional Snowday Parade, they were told that it was not acceptable, because it might make some of their compatriots uncomfortable.

However you look at the response by Mary Olsen official for the schoolboard, she seems to think it was acceptable to try to sanitize these events, and does not seem to have any problem with repressing lgbtqa expression.

As a result, Desiree and Sarah filed a federal discrimination lawsuit. They were shocked that their school would do this. However in a move for sanity and understanding the lawsuit was resolved by mediation, and the couple were able to walk proudly with the other couples.

The reason i call it happyish, is because its clear that figures involved did not realize what harm they were doing by trying to censor this couple. Hopefully these figures will be more understanding next time an issue of LGBTQA rights.

Thank you for this couple who said do not step on me and stood up for their rights.

“Redefining marriage” at issue in England?

Gay MarriageIs there an issue of “redefining marriage” in England? Charlie Butts of OneNewsNow appears to believe so. So much so in fact that he elected to write an article about it for the American Family News Network. It begs the question of who this family is – most certainly not a gay one. No, the American Family News Network is an offshoot of the American Family Association founded by the religious right conservative Donald Wildmon, dedicated to purveying “Your Latest News From A Christian Perspective”. Quite why this group feels it has a monopoly on what a Christian perspective is is anybodies guess, but that goes for many such right wing so-called family groups.

It has to be wondered whether LGBTQIA Americans are “letting the side down” at the moment, because quite evidently, this was a slow news day. There must have been very little ammunition against Gay people in America on the day of publishing for this non-story to reach our screens! Why else would the author have written about such an irrelevant story? By the authors assessment, that issue of which he writes is unlikely to amount to anything anyway, so why would the American Family News Network pay such attention to something which is nothing to do with America, and in their belief, would prove inconsequential. That there are people in the UK who would like to see same sex marriage recognised as legitimate is no secret and it’s nothing new. Indeed, if there were a story worth a mention at all, it would be that the Liberal Democrats (a party currently in Coalition Government in the UK) voted to support Same Sex Marriage as a matter of policy -That was some time ago!

Lets cut to the chase here – is same sex marriage a redefinition of marriage? Only so if you define marriage as between a man and a woman… but that is not the definition of marriage itself. Indeed, here in the UK we have civil partnerships which were incorrectly described as marriages in all but name by those that created them! Clearly then, the concept of marriage is not especially perceived as being primarily between one man and one woman, but rather, is perceived as the loving union of two people before the state. It is NOT perceived as being before God by anybody but the religious, which is why in the UK, civil ceremonies exist.

So, perhaps redefining marriage is not the issue in England. Perhaps the possible existence of same sex marriage is an issue and a more accurate way of describing that issue. Indeed, that much is true, but again, Mr. Butts has the wrong end of the stick. In fact, a 2009 Populus opinion poll, as reported by The Times Newspaper, reported that 61% of people agreed that “Gay couples should have an equal right to get married, not just to have civil partnerships”, with just 33% disagreeing. Clearly, that’s a very definite suggestion that the “redefinition” of marriage “at issue” which Mr. Butts perceives is in fact the exact opposite of the issue that actually exists in England. Englanders aren’t “fighting back the horde of ‘gay activists’ trying to advance their ‘homosexual agenda’”. Englanders in fact realise that gay people deserve the same basic opportunities and rights as straight people, and they support gay marriage. The “issue” therefor is that of bigotry on the part of so called “pro-family” groups.

I guess the term “pro-family unless you happen to be gay” is a bit less catchy, but it’s closer to the truth. It is in fact the “pro family” groups that have the issue, not the rest of society. Considering the specifics of the article in question, the case being brought to the courts regarding marriage is not purely a “same sex marriage” issue. It’s an equality issue. It’s a question of why gay people and straight people should be segregated by law. It’s a question of what possible reason there could be for denying straight people the right to a civil partnership, and by comparison, why gay people should be equally be denied the right to marriage. Mr. Butts suggests that the case reeks of judicial activism, but judicial activism is when judges step beyond the realms of their station to make a point. It is quite within their station to make judgements on points of law, and that is exactly the task before them here. The judges are required to look both at whether there is a valid reason for denying civil partnerships to straight people, and if not, whether there is therefor a reason to deny marriage to gay people too.

In any case, regardless of the outcome of the case, public and political opinion is increasingly shifting in favour of same sex marriage, because the public is increasingly realising that there is no good and wholesome reason to deny it. The only unsavoury agents in the arena on this issue are in fact pro-family groups and religious right activists baying for the ability to discriminate and segregate… to oppress and hate.

So why the interest in UK matters from an American Family group? It’s probably the same reason that Fox News recently used footage of the student protests against tuition fee rises instigated by a right wing government as a suggestion that the people of the UK were following in behind the Tea Party movement of the US. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth, and the student movement here has been consistently on the left, not the right. Far right groups and organisations want people to believe that they are not raving, ranting, hateful and regressive – to ensure it, they want people to believe that other major players in the world are in agreement with their views, and are prepared to lie about it and misrepresent the facts. This speaks of just how sinister they can be, and how much they are actually worth listening to.

Lies, deceit, hate, bigotry and intolerance are not pro-family. Perhaps that’s part of why gay people often make better parents.

Half Way Out of the Dark

The winter solstice, which goes by many names, is represented by a beautiful phrase “Half Way Out of the Dark” as spoken by the Doctor.

Things feel pretty dark right now, the conservative right wing has just practiced a purge on its more moderate types, and now has gotten into the majority of the House of Representatives.

Barack Obama, while being a good centrist leader, is not the progressive president we’d hoped for, were ENDA implementation and DOMA repeal high priorities, you’d hope they would have been pushed through or least brought up during this Congress.

Uganda is still going ahead with their gay genocide bill, and the Christian Right is looking at their situation practically salivating at the possibilities. Look at the Tea Party caucus coalescing around Jim DeMint and his hatred.

The extraordinary thing about the winter solstice is that at the same time as being the shortest, darkest, most miserable day of the year, with a progression of it getting darker and shorter its the first day it starts getting brighter and sunnier.

There is a large grouping of intolerant people on the right, often formed around religious groups, that wants to roll back the progress. They are afraid of us, and out of fear and hatred they bring up voices like Christine O’Donnell, Joe Miller and Sharon Angle.

However our allies are growing, a large majority of Americans recognizing the fact that gay discrimination is wrong, and its only a matter of time before those people realize that they need to support full equality. We help that every day that we are true to ourselves, not ashamed, not in the closet, and not quiet.

If you are hiding in the closet at work, its time to stop, its time to stand up. Maybe in your church you hide yourself for a quiet life, its time to stop, its time to stand up. Thankfully now my gay brothers and lesbian sisters will soon be able to stand up for themselves in the military. We are not a quiet passive minority, we are an army of repressed, brilliant, wonderful, shining people, and now is the time to not wait for the light, but create it.

We shouldn’t be waiting, we have to stand up, today we should have equality, so waiting for tomorrow is too late.

I’m Gemma, I’m a lesbian identified, occasionally guy dating, transgender woman, and I’m standing up for today being the day we get equality.

What does real genuine deep respect mean?

This is a somewhat personal story, in part due to the fact that i’ve faced 3 people who have used knowledge of my gender identity as a basis on which to attack me.

Two of the incidents were ignorant men who honestly I couldn’t give a shit about, but the one that actually upset me was a former friend using transphobic language against me.

We had a friendship ending falling out and the details are not relevant, what is relevant was in a final communique she referred to me as a “He She Freak”. I was shocked, more than I thought possible not because I expected better of her, but simply the fact that me being transgender was so off limits in the same way calling someone of african american descent a *unmentionable racial pejorative*.

When i confronted her about it recently, after refusing to apologize for such vile language she retorted “I said that to you, to hit you where it hurts”.

This isn’t about my qualities as a friend, or our friendship, it isn’t about how bad things get when friendships fall apart. Its about basic respect for what someone is.

If you use such language, its part of a deeper issue that you have a problem with what I am, the same way if you use such offensive terms for other minorities and women.

I’m not naming this person because it would do no good, but she is no better than a white supremacist calling a former friend a *offensive word*

NOM talks to the homophobic RNC chairs

I keep hearing that i shouldn’t paint the republicans with the lgbtqa-phobic brush that i do despite a track record of trying to make my life and the life of everyone different more difficult.

Here is a sample of the opinions on gay equality but the current contenders for RNC chairman.

We have number 1:Reince Priebus

We have number 2:Gentry Collins

We have number 3: Ann Wagner

Aside from the fact that all these candidates have no idea of the thousands of happy successful children of LGBTQA families, and cling to antiquated homophobic talking points. They ignore years of studies showing that there are no inherent disadvantages to having an LGBTQA family.

One of the candidates even talked proudly of the anti-gay rhetoric of 2004. We are facing a political party that is applying a litmus test of hatred for LGBTQA equality, to its candidates, and that is dangerous on 2 large fronts. Firstly it means that when the republicans get in, they will make our lives miserable. Already they are talking about trying to stop DADT repeal from happening. Secondly it means that the Democrats feel like they don’t need to stand up so much for LGBTQA equality. When your other choice is someone who is campaigning on repealing your rights, you have to choose the lesser of two evils.

I am a lefty liberal socialist, so i sit to the left of the left wing of the democratic party, so i’m not in favor of republican policies, however i’d like to see a more sane moderate republican party, with sane voices like Meghan McCain rather than extremists like Sharon Angle because its better for the country, and its better for the cause of equality.

However with voices like Ann Wagner, Reince Priebus and Gentry Collins, I don’t see a sane republican party in future, only more hatred and vitriol against LGBTQA people and other minorities….