This song makes me think of my recently deceased dog, Mona.  I just picked up her ashes on Friday.  I won't forget you my friend.

 

For that to make any sense, check out O'Neill's column in which he tries to figure out how a marriage protection amendment works.  Apparently, one of the most memorable bits of testimony:

One of the more imaginative arguments in favor of the amendment was made by Randy Lee, a law professor at the Widener University School of Law. A 50-year-old father of six, Mr. Lee likened the idea of equating gay unions with marriages to an unfair trade practice.

"You can't put a picture of corn on a can of peas and sell it as corn,'' he said.

Sue Frietsche of the Women's Law Project also mentioned that analogy to me. It you stick with the analogy, though, gay marriage makes more sense -- keep the peas with the peas and the corn with the corn.  None of this succotash stuff to trick innocent children into eating their vegetables.  Everyone knows kids sort mixed veggies out into little like minded piles anyway.

So what does it all mean?  Well, since this is like my 19th post for the day (lots happening), I guess I'll Brian have the last word. 

But there is something about the institution of marriage that people in love continue to value. That may be the only thing that unites everyone in this argument. If anyone can get past that irony, that's the good news.

 

 

The Philadelphia Gay News follows up on their decision to leave blank space on their front page allocated to Barack Obama's interview, plus some insight as to how the Advocate interview just isn't the same.

This is from last week ...

Apparently, Obama hadn't granted an interview to any local gay press - across the whole nation - in over four years.  Hence, his recent interview with The Advocate.  Which isn't the same thing at all.

I also learned that LGBT voters account for 3% of turnout in Pennsylvania. 

In the most recent GLCC newsletter, the organization announced that Celebrate the Night has become an official committee of the organization.  Celebrate the Night is a variety show that benefits the GLCC.

As you may recall, CTN generated a firestorm last year by refusing to audition a transwoman and pronouncing that she was not woman enough to meet their criteria.  At that point, the CTN website described the event as celebrating all women.

They've since updated it to state:

For the purpose of this event, if a person is legally recognized as
a woman or living full-time as a woman, she is a woman.

No such requirement that to be a lesbian, you must be legally recognized or living full-time as a lesbian.  Which is good since there are many, many women who participate in CTN that are not 100% out of the closet and I would hate for them to feel excluded just because they aren't lesbian enough.

Well, at least if the GLCC is going to formally associate itself with an organization that openly discriminates against transwomen,things are a little more out in the open.  The GLCC has historically been a little weak on transinclusion and I don't really think this is going to come as a shock to anyone.  The truth is that Pittsburghers who are L, G, B and Q really have a long way to go when it comes to lifting up and including our trans brothers and sisters.

For a complete herstory on this situation, click here.

As this group finds its footing in the party and the region, I have for the most part been impressed with the new leadership (and recent leadership). I'm particularly pleased that they have invested some resources on issues as opposed to just elections.  It is important that LGBT Democrats send a clear message to our elected officials on how we view issues and what steps we can take as a community to express our position.

That being said, I do worry that the organization "dilutes" the impact of their endorsement.  First, there has been a tradition of naming individuals to an honor roll of sorts -- "Honorable Mentions" -- indicating they are good on issues, but didn't receive the endorsement.  Sometimes they didn't submit a questionnairre, but the group feels they deserve consideration.  I'm just so-so with that practice.  It isn't really democratic and doesn't make the actual endorsement that valuable. 

Another example was Friday when the organization used their official email blast to inform us of an upcoming LGBT event for Hillary Clinton, the endorsed candidate.  Great.  That's a good use of resources.  A few lines down there was a listing for an Obama event.  Huh?

I'm not offended, but I am confused.  Is that organization's purpose to elect a slate of candidates selected by the members or is it to educate the general LGBT community on all Democratic candidates, information and events?  Either is fine I suppose, but trying to do both is sending people like me -- members -- conflicting signals.  

Here's my ultimate question -- why should I turn up for an endorsement process when it doesn't carry a lot of weight?  If you are going to promote candidates who were not endorsed, either as Honorable Mentions or by promoting their events, why should I care about the endorsement?  What value does it have? 

In my opinion, the slate should be the slate. Individuals should be free, of course, to promote whomever they choose, but the origanization should focus on getting folks from the slate elected and not dilute resources on candidates who are not on the slate.  No matter what the reason.  Maybe next year, they'll fill out the questionnaire or show up at an event.  But if Steel City can mobilize the local LGBT community to have an impact on a handful of elections, they have done their job as well as sent a message about our political power.

The endorsement of Steel City should be coveted by local Dems and something they have to earn.  We shouldn't settle for anything less. 

That being said, please consider joining the organization as Ledcat and I have done.  It is a long way to November.  In practical terms, you should be deciding if Luke Ravenstahl needs to do more than show up at PrideFest to earn your endorsement.