Wednesday, September 10, 2008

The Ruling in the News, With Quotes

The Post added a few details to the story this morning. I'll skip the body of their article, which rehashes the gender-identity nondiscrimination controversy.
Yesterday, the Court of Appeals issued a brief order reversing a lower court ruling that had sided with the law's opponents. The high court said it would explain the basis for its ruling in a later opinion.

Jonathan Shurberg, an attorney for Equality Maryland, which led the challenge of the ballot initiative, said the court's decision ensured the integrity of the referendum process.

"The court gave a ringing endorsement to the principle that ordinary citizens have the right to challenge and test the validity of a petition submitted to referendum," Shurberg said.

Ruth Jacobs, president of Maryland Citizens for Responsible Government, a group that worked to force the referendum, called it a sad day.

"We've been disenfranchised," she said. "Every single signature was a wish to have an opportunity to have a vote." Anti-Bias Law Wins In Md.'s High Court

It will be interesting to read the judges' opinions, to see what part of the arguments made them decide as they did. My guess, having watched the proceedings, is that they came to realize that there was no humanly way to obey the law as it's written, it was impossible to file a complaint before the deadline. You get ten days to complain, but nobody announces when the ten days start. Well, we'll see what they said, but I'm guessing that's it. Shurberg is right, this ruling will help make it possible for ordinary citizens to participate in the democratic process.

Jacobs' comment, though, well, I agree with half of it. They were disenfranchised. Yes, they lied to people, they faked signatures, all of that, but the Board of Elections was going to support them anyway. In the end what sank them was the Board's incompetence. When the Citizens for a Responsible Whatever asked how many signatures they needed, the county Board of Elections told them the wrong number. They celebrated when they met that threshold, but it was not enough, they didn't really have five percent of registered voters. The Board even tried to certify forged signatures and lines with squiggles, but in the end it didn't work.

The second half of her statement is not so easy to agree with. Maybe every single signature was a wish to vote, but not every single signature was actually written by the person whose name it was. Most importantly, though, most of the signatures were people who wished to have an opportunity to vote on whether male sexual predators should be allowed to lurk in women's locker-rooms. As far as I know, none of the signature-gatherers actually said, "Would you like to sign a petition to keep discrimination legal?" People signed on the basis of a misrepresentation.

The Gazette has a story today, too, with some more juicy quotes.
"We think it's a big loss for democracy, for Montgomery County and for privacy and safety for women," said Ruth M. Jacobs, president of Maryland CRG, which collected thousands of signatures seeking to put the question on the ballot. "We feel like Equality Maryland tried to hijack Montgomery County politics, like Equality Maryland tried to push their way to the front of the line and didn't care about anybody else. And they did it."

On Monday, the Court of Appeals considered whether Equality Maryland met the statute of limitations in challenging whether Maryland CRG collected enough signatures to put the question on the ballot. Equality Maryland had earlier challenged whether those signatures were valid.

Jonathan S. Shurberg, an attorney for Equality Maryland, argued that the group filed the challenge to the number of signatures as soon as it learned at a June 11 hearing that the Montgomery County elections board had excluded inactive voters when it calculated how many signatures were required. That meant that Maryland CRG would have had to collect a lower number of signatures than if the requirement had been based on the total number of registered voters.

Shurberg had argued that the county's charter, state law and a previous Court of Appeals ruling require that petitioners meet the higher number.

"[The ruling] vindicates the rights of private citizens to participate in the referendum process and to protest a referendum petition filed by anybody," Shurberg said.

Greenberg's ruling "would've shut people out" of that process, he said. Transgendered protection becomes law by court action

Interesting to accuse Equality Maryland of "hijacking" the county's politics. Really, Equality Maryland was participating in the county's politics, this is how the game is played. You want to win, you fight. Everything was above board, the battle was fought in a court of law, there's not much you can say there about hijacking. If the shower-nuts think that gay and transgender people should shut up and take what's handed to them, I think they will be sadly disappointed. There is a movement for equality in this country -- not just our county, but across the country -- and people are going to fight for their rights in a sophisticated and powerful way. And don't forget, lots of us who are not gay or transgender but believe in fairness and treating people with respect are fighting alongside them. It's not a hijack, this is the way democracy is supposed to work.

Another good tidbit from The Gazette:
Maryland CRG planned to meet Tuesday to discuss its next steps. That could include a lawsuit against the county elections board, Smith said.

"I think we would have to wait and see," Jacobs said of a lawsuit. "The opinion's not even out. … The question is what is the County Council going to do to mend it? They clearly alienated people."

If I was them, I would consider suing the Board of Elections for giving them bad information. I bet they spent a lot of money trying to keep gender-identity discrimination legal, and they would want that back. Plus, they have a history of taking thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money in lawsuits in our county, and this would be another way for them to undermine our system of government.

Did the County Council alienate people? As our Spankish-speaking friends sometimes say: jijiji. Maybe they alienated the eleven or twelve hard-core bigots who wanted to maintain the right to discriminate. The rest of us, the majority who elected the Council in the first place, are proud of them for standing up to these minor league bullies.

42 Comments:

Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

September 10, 2008 11:51 AM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Jim,

The County Board of Elections is a state agency, and you can't sue a state agency for giving misinformation. That's something called estoppel, from what I hear, and it's too bad. It was too bad for them, and too bad for us. You simply cannot rigorously depend on an agency for information, which is why you need your own attorney to follow up. They never did that.

In addition, Theresa knew full well that she needed about 38,000 raw signatures to have a margin of safety. That's why she had "Club 777." Had she gotten 38,000, or 35,000, or maybe even 32,000, she would have made the cut. And that's assuming the Court doesn't rule on the validity of all those inadequate signatures, which we won't know for many months. If they're considered invalid, which they should be, then they weren't even close and ended up depending on the rushed and cursory actions of a Board of Elections overwhelmed by multiple special elections in addition to the petition.

So no one was disenfranchised. They all still have the right to vote for the candidates of their choice on November 4th.

September 10, 2008 11:54 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

Dana, thanks for the clarification. Maybe they can't consider suing the Board, but according to this article, they are.

JimK

September 10, 2008 11:59 AM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Anyone can sue anybody; that doesn't mean it will go anywhere.

September 10, 2008 12:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea- not anon
I agree with Dana- the people of MC can vote in November. They can certainly vote in the future to change the Council. But no one was disenfranchised- Ruth is wrong-as usual.

The Board gave all of us problems when they messed up the election machine cards a few years ago - I wrote to a number of people saying we needed to get new leadership there. That has not happened- but I am sure that Theresa, Michele, Ruth and Steina- with the help of their minions- can pull off BOE changes. And note I mean Board of Elections since we know how they did with their attempts to impeach the Board of Ed.

And I am looking forward to the party- I think I still have my "decline to sign" poster- and I am bringing it.

Dana, nice photo in the Post!

September 10, 2008 1:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"And I am looking forward to the party"

when and where?

September 10, 2008 2:32 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Btw, there are no recall provisions for legislators in MD, so the "recallmontgomeryschoolboard" stuff was a non-starter.

September 10, 2008 3:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea

Eyebar, Saturday, 10 Pm.

September 10, 2008 3:41 PM  
Blogger David S. Fishback said...

Jim writes: "I agree with half of [what Ruth said]. They were disenfranchised."

I would not agree with that half. The franchise is the right to vote. CRG and those who may or may not have signed the petitions have the same right to vote for those who make our laws as the rest of us. If they don't like the law, they can vote for candidates who also want to deprive transgender people of the rights the rest of us have.

There is no "right" to turn a republican form of government into a government by plebiscite. The state provides a rigorous mechanism for an exception to representative government. But our elected state representatives placed a relatively high bar to get over, so that we don't descend into a government-by-plebiscite. CRG did not get over that bar. So they were not deprived of any right whatsoever, in their effort to deprive others of rights.

September 10, 2008 4:01 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

If you define the franchise as being only the right to vote, then okay, I agree. What happened to them was that they lined up for a race and were told it was a fifty-yard dash, but it was a hundred. They stopped when they had crossed the finish line as it was explained to them by the BOE, and the other runner won the race.

I don't know if they could have reached the actual required number of signatures by lying to people about the bill and what the referendum would do -- they'll always claim they could have. The board gave them every break, but then let them down through simply not knowing what they were doing.

JimK

September 10, 2008 4:16 PM  
Anonymous Stephanie Stevens said...

Jim,

Thanks for your ongoing coverage of the trans rights issue in Montgomery Co. -- really much appreciated.

Stephanie

September 10, 2008 9:13 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Jim,

They didn't stop. They collected as many signatures as they were able. Theresa is a smart woman; she knew she needed more than 25,001, under any circumstance. A lot more. And as I expect the strict compliance interpretation will be upheld, if not with this case than with another, then it will be even more necessary (as all petition gatherers already understand) to have a substantial overage.

Keep in mind that the BoE never made the argument that they simply gave up when they hit 25,001, and you will recall that they didn't do so at the time, either. They tried to run up the numbers to make a political point, even if not a statistical one.

September 10, 2008 9:44 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

We don't know if they would have made the target or not. The fact is, they were told the wrong number. Look HERE, they've got a whole page titled "Victory Pictures" full of smiling faces. That's got to be embarrassing. C'mon, I'm giving them one ounce of sympathy here!

JimK

September 10, 2008 9:51 PM  
Blogger David S. Fishback said...

Jim,

On that last item, I agree.

David

September 10, 2008 10:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I don't know if they could have reached the actual required number of signatures by lying to people about the bill"

no one lied

"and what the referendum would do"

it would have passed

the default should have been to conduct the referendum

then it could have been clear whether or not it had 5% vote

the BOE decision should have been final

TTF could have then voted out those responsible

September 10, 2008 11:04 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Jim,

I did give my sympathies in the previous thread. They used the process masterfully, playing the Board of Elections against the Council and itself. I can respect that.

And I have offered before, and repeat the offer now, to have Theresa and Ruth meet with me to discuss future issues. There is plenty about which to talk, and much to be learned on both sides.

September 11, 2008 12:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the BOE decision should have been final

The BOE's decision was based on a BOE error. The Court of Appeals has now corrected that error.

September 11, 2008 8:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea- not anon

My favorite showerhead picture is the one with the sheep at their county fair booth. Really, that 1 picture is worth much more than a thousand words!

September 11, 2008 9:23 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

I don’t have much time to write at the moment, but I wanted to express my heartfelt gratitude to EVERYONE that helped stop the CRG vicious anti-trans campaign. Their campaign started out conflating trans people with the mentally ill and pedophiles, but more recently has gotten even worse with a page that was clearly intended to make people think the average transwoman is an HIV infected, drug using prostitute. ( http://www.notmyshower.net/health_risks.shtml ) I suspect that the ONLY transwomen most of these people have met has been me, Maryanne, or Dana, none of whom fall into any of those categories. Not to mention dozens of my T friends that don’t fall into those categories either. The CRG is also either blissfully blind or maliciously uncaring in the fact that this kind of propaganda and marginalization only serves to further the discrimination that trans men and women already have to face.

The T community is too small to have successfully fought this battle by itself. It took the help of a lot of fair minded, generous, and kind-hearted people of many different persuasions to make this happen. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you ALL.

I do believe that reconciliation of the type that Dana has suggested is a good idea. It could serve to save thousands of dollars in legal fees in the future, as well as spare other minorities from these kinds of attacks. If such a meeting is arranged, I would make an effort to attend if invited.

Peace,

Cynthia

September 11, 2008 10:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I do believe that reconciliation of the type that Dana has suggested is a good idea."

If you wanted reconciliation, if would have been a good idea to try to change hearts and minds instead of laws. Why would anyone want to reconcile with someone trying to use government power against them?

Your side claims you already have the hearts and minds of MC residents and only about a "dozen nuts" opposed you. So we need a law to make sure these dozen people don't discriminate against you?

Please.

If you want a reconciled society, you can start by repealing this egregious violation of basic rights. Start trying to use suasion rather than trying to force yourself on others.

September 11, 2008 10:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous" troll has once again revealed himself/herself to be a person filled with bile and vindictiveness and hatred..."If you want a reconciled society, you can start by repealing this egregious violation of basic rights. Start trying to use suasion rather than trying to force yourself on others."

This is just another example of the "loser syndrome" that is so prevalent in our country...fostered by 8 years of creating a climate of fear, oppression, disdain for those who are different from us, and hatred by our outgoing Administration.

Projecting one's sense of failure or sudden awareness of deep-seated fear and self-hatred onto others is a common psychotic behavior. While I do admire and respect the magnanimous offers by those people in here who have been the victims of viscious personal, hate-filled attacks,trying to reconcile with people like him/her is an exercise in futility.
They live unhappy, dispirited lives and no one, except themselves, can change that. Perhaps a little more adherence to their religious beliefs can help them find the relief they need.
RT

September 11, 2008 10:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry if you don't understand it, RT. But everyone should have the right to do business with whoever they like and feel they can trust and partner. Having the government intervene in these kind of personal decisions is egregious.

I myself wouldn't have any problem conducting business with a generic transgender but I'd really like to reserve the right to decline to do so without explaining my motivations to Big Brother.

To portray my position as you do reveals you to be an extremist.

September 11, 2008 12:24 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Anon,

You still don't have the courage to identify yourself. Why do you hate America?

My offer was to Theresa and Ruth, who have been schooled in rational thought and have shown decency at times during this campaign. But you're also invited, if you'll make the effort to identify yourself and behave civilly.

September 11, 2008 12:47 PM  
Anonymous Lauren said...

Labor organizer Saul Alinsky once said (and I paraphrase):

Any effective means will be automatically judged by your opposition as being unethical.

The most important thing is that the referendum is now off the ballot. There are some matters that ought to be decided by referendum, but not this one. The giving or taking away of rights should never be left up to the whims to the majority and fear-mongering tactics.

September 11, 2008 1:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea- not anon
RT, I agree with you. I think it is good/nice/kind that Dana and Maryanne think that these people can listen to reason or that discussion can help them see the truth. Based on the ones I have met/heard- it's not happening.

I am sick of anon's nonsense- the stupid statement that gov't shouldn't intervene in these things-we would still have segregation, you illogical bigot. see you at Eyebar on Saturday night.

September 11, 2008 1:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Why do you hate America?"

Why don't you elaborate?

"My offer was to Theresa and Ruth, who have been schooled in rational thought and have shown decency at times during this campaign. But you're also invited, if you'll make the effort to identify yourself and behave civilly."

Actually, I may have a matter to call you about in your official capacity in the near future and, if so, I'll identify myself.

I don't think I've behaved any more uncivilly than anyone else here, although I'm open to criticism. You must admit that people on your side believe certain positions are uncivil regardless of the manner in which they are articulated.

"The giving or taking away of rights should never be left up to the whims to the majority"

Oh, good. I think I have a right to free ice cream for life and I don't want it voted on.

September 11, 2008 1:39 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Anon-freak said "everyone should have the right to do business with whoever they like and feel they can trust and partner. Having the government intervene in these kind of personal decisions is egregious.".

So according to you its egregious to have the government prevent businesses from putting up signs that say "whites only" and "no blacks allowed". Thankfully the vast majority of people disagree with your bigotry.

Anonfreak said "no one lied".

Wrong. You bigots repeatedly lied claiming that the law meant children would be in danger from pedophiles pretending to be transgender - no such icidents every happened in jurisdictions with this type of law. You bigots portrayed all transwomen as HIV infected prostitutes in a your typical hideous attempt to demonize those who harm no one.


Anon freak said "[the referendum] would have passed".

Yeah, right. And president Huckabee's going to do this and that, and the Republicans were going to clean up in the 2006 elections, and Mccain's going to make Huckabee, condoleeza rice, colin powel his running mate and there's a conspiracy to make Huckabee president and Mccain's in on it and the CRW ARE going to get enough signatures, etc., etc. One things clear - when you state what the future's going to be with certainty you're virtually always wrong.

Anon freak said "the BOE decision should have been final".

Only an immoral partisan hack like you thinks an erroneous decision should stand. The judge did what was right and proper.

Anon freak said "I don't think I've behaved any more uncivilly than anyone else here"

LOL, that's one of the best whoppers you've ever told. You've warped everyone's name into an insult, called us, insane, perverts, sick twisted deviants, equated us with pedophiles, necrophiliacs and bestiality. No one's been remotely as uncivil as you have.

Anon-freak said "I'm open to criticism.".

You've never been open to criticism, you continually push the same lies and hatred no matter how well and frequently the error of your ways is pointed out to you.

Anon-freak said "You must admit that people on your side believe certain positions are uncivil regardless of the manner in which they are articulated.".

Absolutely. The position that blacks, Jews, and LGBTS should be oppressed when they are harming no one is uncivil regardless of how you express such hatred.

September 11, 2008 2:34 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Anon, I welcome the opportunity to serve you. And I welcome the opportunity to sit with Theresa and Ruth, because the ignorance and fear has not yet been dissipated. There is still work to be done. I know that, as a physician, Ruth must keep up with the literature, so I assume that she is open to discussion. I assume the same for Theresa, as an engineer, as well.

As for your "hating America," this country is built on democratic engagement. Hiding behind anonymity is not democratic engagement. At least the petition gatherers had to present themselves in the flesh to the public and defend themselves. On the internet, no one knows you're a dog.

I am once again on the wnd website -- it seems you guys can't get enough of me. Thanks for all the attention!

September 11, 2008 2:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr./Mrs./Ms./Dr. "Anonymous:
Thank you so much for your attempted slap-down in identifying me as an "extremist".

Allow me to quote a person whom you probably admire, even though you and your cronies have perverted his once-upon-a-time American conservatism: "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
Barry Goldwater, acceptance speech as Republican candidate for President, 1963
RT

September 11, 2008 3:53 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

You might like to know that Barry Goldwater spent the last decades of his life as a libertarian, defending the rights the gay persons to live as freely as all other Americans.

September 11, 2008 4:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"As for your "hating America," this country is built on democratic engagement. Hiding behind anonymity is not democratic engagement."

Thanks for clearing that up. I'll let every decide for themself is that represents "hating America".

One of the many deleterious effects of the gay agenda on our society is a corruption of our language.

"On the internet, no one knows you're a dog."

Sorry but that is irrelevant. Ideas stand on their own. Personal assessments of the speaker are diversions, hindering a successful resolution of issues.

"You might like to know that Barry Goldwater spent the last decades of his life as a libertarian,"

Me, too. That's why I oppose egregious offenses to personal liberty like bill 23-07.

"defending the rights the gay persons to live as freely as all other Americans."

Gays have as much freedom as anyone else in America. There is, and has been, no serious threat to their freedom.

September 11, 2008 5:15 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

You are grossly misinformed, and, on top of it all, have no sense of humor. But, hey, have a good day!

You might like to know that the CATO Institute, the nation's leading libertarian think tank, filed an amicus brief in the Lawrence v. Texas decision. You might want to review that case before you make the ignorant statement that there has never been any serious threat to the freedom of gay people.

Anyway, this case wasn't about gay people. It was about trans people, as well as the freedom of gender expression for all people, including you. But we know you have enough freedom already, so I would guess it doesn't matter to you.

September 11, 2008 5:30 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

To anon-freak its an egregious offense if people can't fire or evict someone merely for being gay or black. He doesn't see it as any imposition on the gay, black, or Jew who's the best person for the job or the best tenant. They don't come any more whackaloon than that.

September 11, 2008 6:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You are grossly misinformed,"

Well, yes I am, but so are you, and the scary part is: I'm probably more informed than the average person.

"and, on top of it all, have no sense of humor."

Well, why don't you tell us what was so funny?

"You might like to know that the CATO Institute, the nation's leading libertarian think tank, filed an amicus brief in the Lawrence v. Texas decision. You might want to review that case before you make the ignorant statement that there has never been any serious threat to the freedom of gay people."

Why don't you just tell us what you're talking about instead of making some remark that sounds valid because you know no one is ging to look it up?


'Anyway, this case wasn't about gay people."

Maybe. Maybe not.

"It was about trans people, as well as the freedom of gender expression for all people, including you."

"Trans" people have all the freedom they deserve which is the same as everyone else's freedom. No one is guaranteed to be liked or succeed. They are only guaranteed opportunity.

"To anon-freak its an egregious offense if people can't fire or evict someone merely for being gay or black."

It's really pathetic how desperately you try to associate with the black experience. There is no comparison with gays.

The ancestors of black Americans were brought here against their will and sold into slavery. They were freed but never made whole. Thus their descendants were at an incessant disadvantage. This had to be corrected. That has been a long process but is nearing completion when close to half of all Americans, including countless whites, saying they intend to vote in November to make a black man our next President.

Nothing like this has happened to gays. They have chosen their path. They are free and empowered to change it. What they want is a guarantee for the success of their decisions.

"He doesn't see it as any imposition on the gay, black, or Jew who's the best person for the job or the best tenant."

And now we up the ante.

"They don't come any more whackaloon than that."

What's this? A sign post on your garden gate?

September 11, 2008 8:52 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Start trying to use suasion rather than trying to force yourself on others.

Tell that to the CRC who sued MCPS after Michelle's and Rhetta's "suasion" failed to persuade the CAC to their point of view. Similarly the CRG's attempts at "suasion" failed to persuade the County Council to their point of view. You never complained about the CRWhatever's use of force when their "suasion" attempts failed.

It's really pathetic how desperately you try to associate with the black experience. There is no comparison with gays.

Blacks were treated as less than humans because they were black, just like you want to treat my LGBT brothers and sisters like less than human because they're LGBT. People who are not bigots understand the comparison.

September 12, 2008 8:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Tell that to the CRC who sued MCPS after Michelle's and Rhetta's "suasion" failed to persuade the CAC to their point of view. Similarly the CRG's attempts at "suasion" failed to persuade the County Council to their point of view. You never complained about the CRWhatever's use of force when their "suasion" attempts failed."

Actually, it's the same sitaution. Advocates for transgenders should try to use suasion to change people's views rather than impose laws forcing people to transact with them.

Similarly, the school board should not be trying to impose their values on the students of the county.

I wasn't talking about trying to persuade of bunch of out-of-touch local officials- whether it's a bunch of judges or a wayward school board.

"Blacks were treated as less than humans because they were black, just like you want to treat my LGBT brothers and sisters like less than human because they're LGBT. People who are not bigots understand the comparison."

I understand it too. It's false.

Gay people participate in every segment of our society. Blacks were systematically oppressed.

September 12, 2008 10:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"'People who are not bigots understand the comparison.'

I understand it too."

OK, so Aunt Bea was wrong. One bigot gets it.

A different Anon

September 12, 2008 10:35 AM  
Blogger Jason said...

"Nothing like this has happened to gays. They have chosen their path. They are free and empowered to change it. What they want is a guarantee for the success of their decisions. "

There is no scientific proof that change is possible, the only "change" that's been demonstrated is a "change" in how one handles their homosexuality. Those on the "ex -gay" side have not become straight, they have merely had a makeover. They've learned to sound and appear straight, some may even achieve what the ex-gay industry terms "heterosexual functioning" in the bedroom, but the most reliable studies (and that's not saying much, mind you) has "success" stories who ALL admit their attraction to the same sex STILL PERSISTS.

I used to be a smoker. I don't anymore. I haven't had a craving in well over a year.

I used to be a drinker, I don't anymore, and I haven't had a craving for it in over 3 years.

But ex-gays, who've been in programs and praying their butts off for upwards of 4 years...still..have...cravings. That's not addiction, that's not choice, that's the reality of who one is. You can accept it and live like a responsible adult, or you can not.

No homosexual or lesbian chooses to be gay: they choose to accept the cards they are dealt and live their lives fully. They choose NOT to pretend to be someone else. They choose reality.

September 12, 2008 12:53 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Anonfreak said "It's really pathetic how desperately you try to associate with the black experience. There is no comparison with gays.".

Of course there is. Black people were once denied service based on who they are just as you would have LGBTs denied service. Its the same thing You can't rant about how people should have the right to do business with whoever they like without giving them the right to deny service to blacks and jews just as you would have them deny it to LGBTs.

Anonfreak said "the school board should not be trying to impose their values on the students of the county.".

Of course it should. The school has an obligation to teach students what they need to know to be good productive citizens. Part of that is accepting your neighbours for who they are as long as they hurt no one.

Anonfreak said "Trans" people have all the freedom they deserve which is the same as everyone else's freedom.".

Trans people deserve the same freedom as everyone else and until now they didn't have it. You are protected from discrimination on the basis of race, religion, and ethnic background. Trans people deserve equal protection - equality bigots like you would deny them.

Anonfreak said "Gay people participate in every segment of our society. Blacks were systematically oppressed.".

Wrong. Gays are not allowed to marry, not protected from being fired from their jobs for something other than their ability to do the job, not protected from eviction for something other than their ability to be a good tenant, not protected by hate crimes laws as bigots like you are. LGBTs are systematically oppressed by bigots like you, albeit not in the identical manner that blacks were.

September 12, 2008 1:52 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Jason said "But ex-gays, who've been in programs and praying their butts off for upwards of 4 years...still..have...cravings."

Look at Peterson Toscano, 17 years and tens of thousands of dollars trying to pray away the gay and all of it a waste. That's exactly what bigots like anon-freak want, LGBTs to waste their lives miserably trying to be something they aren't. Anon-freak and his fellow haters want to do everything possible to oppress gays and deny them happiness. They truly are an evil despicable bunch.

September 12, 2008 1:58 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Anonymous is a parody of himself, and he's perfectly aware of that. He is not delusional, I think, but intentionally makes hypocritical statements to goad people into responding to him; it's how he gets his kicks. De gustibus non est disputandum. I myself like bowling.

He reminds me of some former and present employees of Concerned Women for America (founded to oppose the ERA, moved on to promote the harassment of LGBT people) and the Family Research Council. I suspect when he contacts Dana in her official capacity, she won't be able to out him, alas, but I can pretty much guarantee that he is an employee or an activist for one of the national anti-lgbt organizations: he is too schooled in the anti-lgbt party line not to be a paid expert, or at least a very active volunteer. He is often annoying, but always entertaining. I still think discussing lgbt rights with him is like arguing predestination with th Pope: you're not likely to get anywhere, but it's instructive to articulate your own opinions.

September 12, 2008 4:46 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

I left for work this morning incensed that people would have sympathy with CRG/PFOX in their loss. After all the things these folks have done to impede the fair treatment of lgbt people, and the safety of children, how could anyone sympathize with them.

But then again, I used to think somewhat as they do ('sexual deviants' was a phrase in my vocabulary).

One of the proverbs we studied in class today was "Semel malus, semper malus", "Once bad, always bad." My students all protested, saying that people can change, and everyone is more noble at some times than at others.

I think their right. Nonetheless, in extending an olive branch to Theresa, Regina and Ruth, I would advise caution. Even a declawed cat can bite.

rrjr

September 12, 2008 4:51 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home