thomascwaters.com

I want to encourage everyone to check out the linked blog post below which is titled “How to Argue Mindfully.” The blog post is by Andy Hoover, writing about a Buddhist retreat and teaching. Personally, I have been working with meditation on and off for a number of years, but about three years ago, I found myself getting more involved in Buddhist practice. I started to sit with a Sangha here in Pittsburgh, but my interest was more directly aligned wih the Interdependence Project, in NYC. The ID Project podcast is a weekly connection to an exploration of Buddhist philosophical practice in relation to activism and daily living in the world around us.

Working on issue advocacy surrounding LGBT issues can be a real stress on serenity and mindfulness! But, at the same time, a space of interaction and effective activism relies upon this notion of interaction. Without it, the only thing that exists is a lose-lose outcome. With the right space created for dialogue and interaction a win-win becomes possible.

via How to argue mindfully « Kinder Gentler Nation.

This is an article first published last year, and written by John Micek of the Morning Call. Published here with permission.

Have attitudes changed here about same-sex marriage?

Explain It to me!

May 06, 2009| By John Micek Of The Morning Call

Q. Are attitudes changing about same-sex marriage? The hot-button issue that was once front and center in the Culture Wars recently has been in the headlines. Iowa and New Hampshire have sanctioned same-sex unions, and legislation is moving in New York and Maine. How do people feel about that now?

A: Pennsylvania law bans same-sex marriage, and foes have made repeated attempts to pass a constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage.

But a recent Morning Call/Muhlenberg College poll shows that public attitudes statewide are softening on the controversial issue.

Fifty one percent of Pennsylvania residents oppose granting same-sex couples who marry the same rights as traditional marriages, down from 54 percent in a 2004 Morning Call/Muhlenberg College poll.

More people today (42 percent) say gay marriage should be recognized, up from 35 percent who said that in 2004.

Similarly, public support for civil unions has increased from 54 percent five years ago to 61 percent in 2009.

“In many ways, gay rights issues remain highly polarizing in Pennsylvania,” Muhlenberg pollster Christopher Borick said. “But, when you look over time, you see a gradual acceptance of both civil unions and gay marriage.”

Residents remain divided on whether to amend the state Constitution to outlaw gay and lesbian marriage. Forty-five percent oppose such an amendment, 44 percent support it, a statistically insignificant difference.

Despite the ambiguity, Pennsylvanians are united on one thing: Same-sex marriage isn’t a campaign issue. Six in 10 respondents said a candidate’s stance on the issue would not determine whether they support the candidate, compared to 34 percent who said it did.

The Morning Call/Muhlenberg canvass of 446 adults was conducted from March 9 to March 31. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 5.5 percentage points.

– John L. Micek, Call Harrisburg Bureau

It appears that the PA Senate Judiciary Committee will be taking up John Eichelberger’s SB 707 which would amend the PA constitution, writing discrimination into it. The bill would essentially change nothing except that the ban on same-sex marriage would be built directly into the constitution. The language of the bill would define marriage as between one man and one woman. Backers of the legislation believe that this will make it harder to overturn in the courts, but this really isn’t the case. There are states that have had a constitutional ban, and it has been found as unconstitutional just as easily as a simple law of the state.

The real motivation however, is simply to make LGBT people feel unwelcome and unwanted in Pennsylvania by pushing a religiously motivated position forward. Twice before conservatives have placed this issue before the Legislature, and twice before it has been defeated. If we are to defeat it again, we will need your help!

Members of the committee:Officers

Greenleaf, Stewart J., Chair

White, Mary Jo, Vice Chair

Leach, Daylin , Minority Chair

Scarnati, Joseph B., III, ex-officio

Majority

Browne, Patrick M.

Earll, Jane M.

Gordner, John R.

Orie, Jane Clare

Piccola, Jeffrey E.

Rafferty, John C., Jr.

Minority

Boscola, Lisa M.

Costa, Jay

Fontana, Wayne D.

At this point, the single most important thing you can do is mail (as in the good old postal mail) a short letter to each member of the Judiciary committee asking them to vote against this bill so that it is not introduced to the full Senate. Links to each member of the committee is below. Because the vote may be next week, it is imperative to do this TODAY!  You may send the same letter to everyone on the committee, but it is important that it isn’t just a form letter that all you did was sign. Take 10 minutes, and draft 250- 500 words explaining why you do not want to see this discrimination added to the state’s constitution. It is useful to say something about how this will impact you and your loved ones.

The time and money invested to write a short letter, get some stamps and mail these today can make the difference between this bill progressing further or being killed in committee. This is worth it!

Senators are much like you. They receive a ton of junk mail and form letters, and even their staff doesn’t have time to read everything. But a personal letter with your real signature on it is something that will definitely be read directly by the senator. I have been told that a senator that receives as few as 4 or 5 handwritten letters sees this as a reason to consider the request, where as receiving a thousand emails won’t.

Ask your friends, neighbors and loved ones to do the same. Have a letter-writing party this evening!

If you write a letter, and feel free sharing it, post it here to the blog as a comment. This can encourage and remind others to write their letters.

The linked story below is actually about the state of Virginia where the current Attorney General is trying to deny LGBT’s rights, and the Governor has come out issuing an order against discrimination. Here is a clip from the story:

One thing having an impact is that Northrup Grumman is looking to relocate its headquarters to the DC metro area.  The company has a clear non-discrimination policy and offers benefits to domestic partners.  People in Maryland were using Cuccinelli’s approach on the issue to try to get the company to disqualify Virginia as a location.

Does Pennsylvania want to be attracting large corporations like Northrup Grumman? Seems like a silly question, yet the reality is that companies make choices based on a number of factors, bit at least a part of it, is selecting states and locations consistent with their internal policies regarding non-discrimination and domestic partnership benefits.

Wake up Pennsylvania! We are already slipping behind and are less competitive than many other states, stop that decline and bring companies and jobs to our state by making Pennsylvania a state free from discrimination in housing, employment, and public accommodations. Pass PA HB 300, and stop discriminatory legislation such as SB 707!

via Daily Kos: BREAKING – Gov. McDonnell separates from AG, issues order against discrimination.

I add new blogs to my blogroll from time to time, as I find blogs that I either like or think my readers ought to check out for one reason or another, but today, I want to be more vocal about a blog I’m adding. Dyssonance is a wonderful read for anyone open to learning more and seeing things through another perspective.

I am what is called an “out trans woman”. That is, I’m a woman, who is a transsexual, and I’m involved in social activities and efforts as well as some political stuff. I write occasional columns at Bilerico under my actual name, and I can be found at various sites around the internet discussing things on behalf of LGBT people.  I give classes on diversity — focusing on ethnicity and LGBT issues — and am available for panels and other engagements both small and large.

Enjoy!

http://www.dyssonance.com

The linked post is from the blog, Open Left, and describes some really good news in the battle for Marriage Equality. While we in Pennsylvania are looking to see what our State Senate is going to do with SB 707, our neighbor to the south, West Virginia has again killed a bill that would have added discrimination into the state constitution. Time will tell if the PA Senate will be as enlightened as our neighbors.

So, who is really winning in the battle over marriage?

• This week, the West Virginia House of Delegates voted to kill a effort to put a statewide constitutional amendment on the ballot by a vote of 68-30.
• The Attorney General of Maryland has determined that Maryland will recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.
• Washington DC permits same-sex marriages within the district, and recognizes marriages performed in other states.

Incidents such as these suggest that we are making real progress when it comes to Marriage Equality. Yet, groups like the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) which should be named, the National Organization against Gays and Lesbians, tell a different story. They point out that in every state where same-sex marriage has been put to a vote by the people, same-sex marriage has been defeated. They suggest this proves that the American people do not support or approve of same-sex marriage. So, which is it- the country is moving forward towards same-sex marriage, or it isn’t?

The Wrong Question

That may be a worthwhile question, but it may also be a hard one to answer. Marriage Equality advocates ignore it, or only point to the wins for our side, or  use any defeats to elevate themselves to victim status. But I think it is the wrong question to get concerned about. Marriage equality is essentially connected to a broader issue: the acceptance of gays and lesbians. When gays and lesbians are more fully accepted, and seen as “just like straight people,” then the right to civil marriage will be a no brainer for everyone. Gay marriage fails at the ballot box, because opponents are still able to paint gays and lesbians as monsters (at the worst of it) or at the very least, evoke high levels of fear among the majority of voters. The questions revolve around some sense of “is homosexuality acceptable,” and when a voter is either not sure, or is negative about homosexuality, we lose, and groups like NOM have accomplished their goal.

Framing the Question

So, on a different question, “who is winning the question of how the issue gets framed in the minds of voters.” it is clear the anti-equality folks are winning, and one reason for that is their focus on “the homosexual” as compared to our focus on being gays and lesbians who deserve equal rights. We are not only losing on this one, we aren’t really even on the board as a player! The GLBTQ community does little to counteract or confront this oppressive tactic of painting us as “homosexuals” and not referring to us as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender. Yes, it is a clear and intentional strategy employed against equality. And it is working!

In a recent survey, when polled asking about homosexuals in the military, the majority of respondents were opposed, but when asked about allowing gays, and lesbians to serve the results were vastly different. This framing of the issue as being about “the homosexuals” as opposed to be about gays and lesbians, is an aspect of the struggle where not enough energy or focus has been placed, and it adds to the inability to move this movement further. As it stands, there are two sides who are speaking past each other. One reason for this is that most of us (gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgenders) don’t think of ourselves as homosexuals, and we treat that as old-fashioned language. But if we continue to fail to recognize how and why that language is so potent, we will continue to fail on this part of the struggle.

In One Word, What Are We?

There is another problem with this language thing. As a collective, we are a set of communities that we label with a various combinations of the pink alphabet soup. LGBT, GLBT, LGBTQ, are just a few examples, and sometimes the letters, “I” and “A” are also included- maybe a few others too. But marriage equality doesn’t touch all of these various parts of our diverse communities. So, are we working for LGBT civil rights when we seek marriage equality, or are we seeking rights for some while leaving transgenders and bisexuals with nothing? Another reason why the term “homosexual” has plays a role in the discourse, is that it allows the bigger issue of marriage as a civil right (and for whom) to go undiscussed. When we (in the LGBT community) operate from a victim stance (we have been wronged and treated as second class citizens), we need to speak with one voice and appear as one unified group. but we have no good way to identify as a single group past the pink alphabet soup. The term, “homosexual,” by default sets up the dichotomy of straight people, and everyone else, who the opposition mislabels as homosexual. While we know it is a mislabel, some don’t get too caught up in fighting it, because it implies a unified we, with that being those who are not straight.

While marriage equality is important and will help a huge number of people, it is also played a role in stripping apart the little cohesion that the LGBTQI-whatever-letters-you-want-or-don’t-want. We are so focused on marriage while transgenders still lack basic protections in housing and public accommodations, even in some states where gays and lesbians can marry.

This doesn’t make marriage equality or the people working for it bad or discriminatory. It does mean that broader dialogue about who we are as a collective of communities and how together we can work for civil rights for all the various parts of our diverse coalition is needed.

Some would say that if we gain marriage equality, but further marginalize trans women and men we haven’t accomplished much. Others will say that they are all steps forward to greater equality, and the struggle continues. Who is winning depends entirely on what question you are considering, and what terms you are using to define the various players in the struggle.

Equality Will Prevail

There are few better indicators that marriage equality can prevail, than the aggressive efforts of our opposition. They are working so hard to kill equality precisely because they know how close we are to achieving it, and as we make gains on any level, the battle will only intensify. but will it be a year? 10 Years? or 50 years till we see full equality? That answer may be more connected to which other questions we are asking? If our focus is on if we are winning for marriage, I believe we will slow the process. Or, if we lack a sense of urgency because equality seems inevitable, we will not see it in our lifetime. If on the other hand, we remember that marriage is one facet of the greater push for civil rights for all lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgenders, we can truly see progress for all. If we act with a sense of urgency, and persistence, being treated as first-class citizens will be just around the corner so to speak.

I’m interested in your thoughts, so leave a comment!

via Open Left:: Two good pieces of news on marriage equality.

Gary Van Horn, President of Delta Foundation announced that one of the speakers for this year’s Advocacy Rally will be Cleve Jones.

ADVOCACY RALLY ANNOUNCEMENT: Cleve Jones, a long time gay rights activist and friend of the late Harvey Milk will be joining us at Pittsburgh Pride’s First Adovocacy Rally on the steps of the City/County Building – Friday, June 4th at 6PM

The Advocacy Rally is a new addition to the Pride activities this year. Many are familiar with other aspects of Pride, such as the Pride in the Streets, street dance and party, Pride March, and PrideFest, a day long festival. These activities happen over the weekend of June 12-13, and the rally is being added as a kick-off event on the Friday starting the week-long Pride. During the week following the rally and culminating in PrideFest will be a series of events sponsored by various groups. Last year, this blog, in cooperation with Equality Advocates, STeel City Stonewall Democrats, and the Women’s Law Project sponsored an Advocacy training that was well attended, and a similar event will be planned this year as well.

More information about Pride: http://pittsburghpride.org/

The link below is to Edge, and well worth your time to read it, if you care about DADT and/or equality issues in general. I had hoped to read more and write something reasonable about what this means, but ran out of time yesterday, soi here is the original article.

Ruling on gay Air Force major creates dilemma :: EDGE on the Net.

I have always liked the alliteration, March Madness, even though I’m not a basketball fan, so I decided to use it for this post in describing what may happen in the PA Senate this month. Earlier, State Senator John Eichelberger introduced SB 707, a bill that would ammend the PA constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman, and now, in March, this bill may be up for a vote by the Judiciary committee. Pure madness- this is just crazy legislation for the Senate to be spending any time on at this point in time.

The state already prohibits same-sex marriage with a DOMA type law passed a number of years ago. With the economy still struggling, so many people out of work, and the budget negotiation process about to begin, why devote any time at all to a bill that does not do anything to help the state move forward, or address the key issues facing the state at this time?

The point of this legislation is not marriage or the prohibition of same-sex marriage. The point of it is the amendment of the PA constitution, and to do so in a way that produces benefit to no one in any way. Patterned loosely on what was done in California, those who are opposed to equality for gays and lesbians see such a move as important in their battle. But as Pennsylvanians, what is important to us? Putting time , energy, and resources into a bill that will produces nothing tangibly positive for the people of the state, or the proliferation of a conceptual argument? It might be different if it looked as if the PA DOMA was threatened, but there are no court cases pending or planned to challenge the PA law. There is no need embed this into the PA constitution.

If you want our Senate to be working to put people back to work if you want our lawmakers to set Pennsylvania up as a leader in clean energy; if you want our elected officials to pass a budget on-time, tell the members of the Judiciary committee to ignore this bill at this time, and look at the priorities of the state.

Here is a list of the members of the Judiciary committee. Take a few moments and compose a short letter, and then send a copy of it to each of them. In it, say something about why you don’t want them to waste time on this bill. You can email it to them, but it is more likely to be actually read if you mail it via snail mail. Take a few more minutes and call their offices, and leave a message, asking them to set this bill aside and turn their attention to more important issues.

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/cteeInfo/cteeInfo.cfm?cde=19&body=S

I wrote the other day about this story. Republican California Senator arrested for DUI after leaving a gay bar. It really wouldn’t be much of a story- there are gay politicians and politicians who get in trouble with the law. But it was a big deal because this particluar closet case senator is also highly active as a far right, anti-gay politician. This is your tax dollars at work!

Often this type of story is a big deal because it is the thing needed to get the a**hole out of office and stop his attacks on gay rights, but no such luck this time. Due to term limits he was already barred from further damage. No, has already had a number of terms to wreck havok for civil rights!

The really damning indictment of this incident is aimed at the gay rights/activist community of California. These are the individuals who ought to be hanging their heads and offering apologies for allowing this self-hating fag to do damage for so long.

I want to be clear: everyone including self-hating homos deserve the right to self-disclosure or hide in the close closet, and their privacy should be protected all the way up until they start voting against equality and civil rights. That’s the moment at which they give away their right to privacy and gay activists have the obligation to shine a light on the hypocricy.

That California gay rights activists are out of touch or out of control may not seem like news. However I doubt that this is a California specific phenominon. It may be that anywhere, as gay rights group grow and gain structure as well as prestige, it becomes harder for them to act on the defensive and scrappy. To both, be at the table and serve as watchdog becomes a challenge. Or is this really a matter of just turning a blind eye? In how many other capitol cities, let alone, in DC, does this happen?

Are you helping to hide any self-hating homos, who in their official work capacity work to treat gays and lesbians as second citizens? Think about it: who does this help and who does it hurt?

The hypocrisy of an anti-gay senator and those who protected his secret | San Diego Gay & Lesbian News.

http://sdgln.com/commentary/2010/03/05/hypocrisy-anti-gay-senator-and-those-who-protected-his-secret?utm_source=Empowering+Spirits+Foundation+News&utm_medium=twitter