Sunday, May 27, 2012

Presidential Debate On LGBT Equality

Meeting LGBT pour l'égalité

Let us have an LGBT Equality Form amongst 2012 U.S. presidential candidates, the way that they had one in France. Let's put forth LGBT equality as the subject of a solely dedicated presidential debate.

After French President Nicholas Sarkozy did nothing to make French LGBT citizens to have equal rights under the law, LGBT activists organised a presidential debate in France. This ''Meeting LGBT pour l'égalité'' took place on March 31.

LGBT activists thought that it was a good idea to put directly before presidential candidates the community's demand for equality. Activists say that voters should be able to select a candidate, who will fight against discrimination and finally deliver equality to all of the country's citizens.

Let's do the same here in the United States : let's organise and invite President Barack Obama and GOP nominee-designate Mitt Ronmey to a presidential debate, so that activists and voters can question these candidates about LGBT civil rights.

Sunday, May 20, 2012

Huey Newton Speech On LGBT Equality

This was a speech given August 15, 1970, by Huey Newton, co-founder of the Black Panther Party. Here, he addresses the issue of LGBT equality.

During the past few years strong movements have developed among women and among homosexuals seeking their liberation. There has been some uncertainty about how to relate to these movements.

Whatever your personal opinions and your insecurities about homosexuality and the various liberation movements among homosexuals and women (and I speak of the homosexuals and women as oppressed groups), we should try to unite with them in a revolutionary fashion. I say ” whatever your insecurities are” because as we very well know, sometimes our first instinct is to want to hit a homosexual in the mouth, and want a woman to be quiet. We want to hit a homosexual in the mouth because we are afraid that we might be homosexual; and we want to hit the women or shut her up because we are afraid that she might castrate us, or take the nuts that we might not have to start with.

We must gain security in ourselves and therefore have respect and feelings for all oppressed people. We must not use the racist attitude that the White racists use against our people because they are Black and poor. Many times the poorest White person is the most racist because he is afraid that he might lose something, or discover something that he does not have. So you’re some kind of a threat to him. This kind of psychology is in operation when we view oppressed people and we are angry with them because of their particular kind of behavior, or their particular kind of deviation from the established norm.

Remember, we have not established a revolutionary value system; we are only in the process of establishing it. I do not remember our ever constituting any value that said that a revolutionary must say offensive things towards homosexuals, or that a revolutionary should make sure that women do not speak out about their own particular kind of oppression. As a matter of fact, it is just the opposite: we say that we recognize the women’s right to be free. We have not said much about the homosexual at all, but we must relate to the homosexual movement because it is a real thing. And I know through reading, and through my life experience and observations that homosexuals are not given freedom and liberty by anyone in the society. They might be the most oppresed people in the society.

And what made them homosexual? Perhaps it’s a phenomenon that I don’t understand entirely. Some people say that it is the decadence of capitalism. I don’t know if that is the case; I rather doubt it. But whatever the case is, we know that homosexuality is a fact that exists, and we must understand it in its purest form: that is, a person should have the freedom to use his body in whatever way he wants.

That is not endorsing things in homosexuality that we wouldn’t view as revolutionary. But there is nothing to say that a homosexual cannot also be a revolutionary. And maybe I’m now injecting some of my prejudice by saying that “even a homosexual can be a revolutionary.” Quite the contrary, maybe a homosexual could be the most revolutionary.

When we have revolutionary conferences, rallies, and demonstrations, there should be full participation of the gay liberation movement and the women’s liberation movement. Some groups might be more revolutionary than others. We should not use the actions of a few to say that they are all reactionary or counterrevolutionary, because they are not.

We should deal with the factions just as we deal with any other group or party that claims to be revolutionary. We should try to judge, somehow, whether they are operating in a sincere revolutionary fashion and from a really oppressed situation. (And we will grant that if they are women they are probably oppressed.) If they do things that are unrevolutionary or counterrevolutionary, then criticize that action. If we feel that the group in spirit means to be revolutionary in practice, but they make mistakes in interpretation of the revolutionary philosophy, or they do not understand the dialectics of the social forces in operation, we should criticize that and not criticize them because they are women trying to be free. And the same is true for homosexuals. We should never say a whole movement is dishonest when in fact they are trying to be honest. They are just making honest mistakes. Friends are allowed to make mistakes. The enemy is not allowed to make mistakes because his whole existence is a mistake, and we suffer from it. But the women’s liberation front and gay liberation front are our friends, they are our potential allies, and we need as many allies as possible.

We should be willing to discuss the insecurities that many people have about homosexuality. When I say “insecurities,” I mean the fear that they are some kind of threat to our manhood. I can understand this fear. Because of the long conditioning process which builds insecurity in the American male, homosexuality might produce certain hang-ups in us. I have hang-ups myself about male homosexuality. But on the other hand, I have no hang-up about female homosexuality. And that is a phenomenon in itself. I think it is probably because male homosexuality is a threat to me and female homosexuality is not.

We should be careful about using those terms that might turn our friends off. The terms “faggot” and “punk” should be deleted from our vocabulary, and especially we should not attach names normally designed for homosexuals to men who are enemies of the people, such as Nixon or Mitchell. Homosexuals are not enemies of the people.

We should try to form a working coalition with the gay liberation and women’s liberation groups. We must always handle social forces in the most appropriate manner.

Large LGBT Groups Have No Grassroots Agenda

LGBT Donors to the Democratic Party

'' The president’s same-sex marriage endorsement has elicited generous donations from the gay and lesbian community, but as The Nation’s Richard Kim explains in this clip, 'prominent gay and lesbian organizations tend to be very top-down, very rich donor–driven, and so you have a grassroots agenda that isn't being reflected in this organization.' '' — Erin Schikowski, from The Nation

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Penny Wong : ''I Know What My Family Is Worth''

Australian Television Debate Provides ‘Watershed Moment’ In Marriage Equality Fight

LGBT advocates in Australia are calling a clip from the debate show Q&A a “watershed moment” in the nation’s struggle over marriage equality. In the short clip, Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey responded to a question about his opposition to same-sex marriage and why he believes he and his wife are better parents than Finance Minister Penny Wong and her female partner. After Hockey’s response, Wong, clearly a bit shaken by the unexpected question, reacted with quiet confidence, “I know what my family is worth.”

Monday, May 14, 2012

LGBT Policy of Appeasement on Obama ?

Tiffany Equality Bishop shared Michael Diviesti's status :

‎In 2009 we were told : "He hasn't been in office long enough, give him some time, ease up, don't pressure him so hard."

In 2010 we were told : "Let's get through the mid terms, he's got a lot on his plate, ease up, don't pressure him so hard."

In 2011 we were told : "Give him a break, he's dealing with an obstructionist Republican run Senate, ease up, don't pressure him so hard."

In 2012 we are now being told : "Wait, he has to be re-elected, ease up, don't pressure him so hard." ~ Michael Diviesti

Is Obama Gay ?

Newsweek to publish a controversial new magazine cover that portrays President Barack Obama as, ''The First Gay President.'' Foolishness.

Sunday, May 13, 2012

Obama Marriage Equality Reaction

Facebook LGBT Reaction To President Barack Obama's Marriage Equality ''Evolution''

Following is the Facebook ''status update'' posted by LGBT civil rights activist Tiffani Equality Bishop, which deftly addresses the commonly-shared disappointment in President Obama's recently announced support for marriage equality :

Am I appreciative of Obama's partial evolution on marriage equality? YES

Am I also incredibly disgusted that he went to NC on April 24 and took millions of LGBT dollars without even mentioning Amendment 1 once? YES

Am I also incredibly disgusted that the DNC and OFA did not send one email, one volunteer, or even one penny to help defeat Amendment 1 in NC all while taking millions of dollars from our community? YES

Am I frustrated that he still thinks it is a states rights issue and not a human rights issue? YES

Am I frustrated that he still believes only section 3 of DOMA and not all of DOMA should be repealed? YES

So has he really evolved like people say? I see this as a partial "evolution"...he still has some "evolving" to do.

So please excuse me for feeling a little slapped in the face when our POTUS chooses to evolve on marriage (partially anyway) the day after the harshest anti-LGBT marriage amendment passed in NC while he and his administration did absolutely NOTHING to help defeat it...not even a pretty speech. Am I glad he came out, yes. But his timing was disrespectful and severely lacked any tact.

What I have a hard time understanding though, is the reaction from our community. He still hasn't completely evolved, and his partial evolution does not make us any more equal. I have a hard time understanding why people were crying and celebrating and throwing money at him over this. Words may make us feel good for a minute, but at the end of the day we're still unequal and his actions aren't backing up his words.

If he means it, he'll put his money where his mouth is. He'll sign the ENDA Executive Order on his desk, and he'll stop the deportations of same-sex binational partners...and he'll do it BEFORE the election.

If his actions don't back it up, then it really doesn't mean anything. It just means he is pandering to our community, throwing us crumbs, and using us as election tokens.

The integrity of Ms. Bishop's response to President Obama's ''partial evolution'' on marriage equality can be affirmed by reading published editorials, like this one, printed by The Philadelphia Inquirer : ''A huge step but no real action : While Obama's support for same-sex marriage is a landmark, he left the question up to each state.'' Ms. Bishop is a leading LGBT civil rights activist in the United States. She is lives in Texas. This post was reprinted in its entirety from a post made on Facebook.

Wednesday, May 9, 2012

Obama Supports Marriage Equality

Obama Affirms Support for Same-Sex Marriage.

President says his position on marriage has evolved.

video platform video management video solutions video player

Pam Spaulding, from Pam's House Blend, made this comment to The Village Voice about the timing of President Obama's announcement : "[North Carolina's Amendment 1] wasn't about marriage equality at all. It was about stopping civil unions and domestic partnerships. This wasn't about extending rights, it was about taking them away. I was very sad that the Obama campaign couldn't even be bothered to email their massive email list and tell them to vote no. Something that would have cost them zero. Today, he's taking something which will have a national impact. But yesterday, the campaign couldn't even take that one, small local step."

The New York Times weighs in about the timing of President Obama's announcement, and how its timing came too late to have an impact on North Carolina's anti-LGBT vote : Too Late for North Carolina ?

Sunday, May 6, 2012

Bill Clinton LGBT Robocall

Bill Clinton Opposes NC Amendment One

On this audio file, which will serve as a robocall for the Coalition to Protect All NC Families, Bill Clinton speaks out against NC Amendment One. He encourages North Carolina citizens to vote against the amendment on May 8.