Letter to Treasurer Raimondo

A group of civil rights and advocacy organizations in Rhode Island is calling Treasurer Raimondo’s attention to some of the extreme political positions taken by The Manhattan Institute and demanding that she return the award she recently received:

January 11, 2011
Hon. Gina Raimondo, General Treasurer State House, Room 102 Providence, RI 02903

Dear Treasurer Raimondo,

On behalf of a broad range of civil rights and community organizations, we respectfully write to you regarding your recent affiliation with the Manhattan Institute – an extremist right wing group that promotes offensive, ignorant and hurtful positions towards the LGBTQI community, women, minorities and our environment.

Last week you traveled to New York to stand with and be publicly recognized by The Manhattan Institute, where you accepted their “Urban Innovator Award” for your work to alter Rhode Island’s pension system. Your work regarding the pension system has certainly been the subject of significant debate, and our purpose today is not to reexamine the merits of those legislative efforts. Rather, we seek to call your attention to a series of troubling articles and position papers that we sincerely hope do not reflect your own personal or political positions.
· In “Gay Marriage vs American Marriage”, the Manhattan Institute comes alarmingly close to some of the more common anti-equality rants espoused by the so-called National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and the Family Research Council, by claiming that marriage equality (same-gender marriage) is not the same as “American Marriage”. Furthermore, in “Redefining Marriage Away”, the Manhattan Institute claims that the reason to fear marriage equality is that gay and lesbian couples do not value fidelity, that their asserted lack of monogamy is immoral and dangerous. As if these articles aren’t offensive enough, they publish and reference anti-equality articles and books written by former NOM president Maggie Gallagher including “Why Marriage is Good For You”.
· Ms. Hymowitz writes about how “Women Prefer the Mommy Track,” widespread rape on college campuses is a myth, and claims that feminism as a whole is “not so much dead as obsolete.”
· The Manhattan Institute called claims of racial profiling by police “ACLU misinformation,” “promoting racial paranoia,” and “ivory-tower posturing” and compared being charged with racism to being charged as a witch: to be without any conceivable defense.
· The Manhattan Institute rails against President Obama’s green jobs initiative, stands in opposition to wind power, and sees fracking as an alternative energy solution.

Madame Treasurer, the aforementioned articles are just a sample of what is readily available on the Manhattan Institute’s website. We must ask if you or anyone in your office were aware that this organization published such venomous, racially-charged, anti-gay, anti-environment and anti-women positions before you agreed to be honored by them in New York. We are willing to accept that you were not, but that acceptance must accompany a proactive effort by you. Return the Manhattan Institute’s Urban Innovator Award and publicly condemn these harmful writings at your earliest convenience, preferably within the next 48 hours.

We recognize that the purpose of your visit to the Manhattan Institute was to receive an accolade for your pension work and not to discuss the important issues we have brought to your attention. It is simply unacceptable to us as a coalition, or your constituents as a whole, for you to stand with or accept an award from a narrow-minded and hurtful organization. To do so would be seen as nothing less than an implicit condoning of their bigotry.

Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration, we look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible.

Sincerely, Clean Water Action Rhode Island
Environmental Justice League of Rhode Island
Hope United
Marriage Equality Rhode Island
National Association of Social Workers Rhode Island Chapter
Ocean State Action
Sierra Club Rhode Island Chapter

The Silent Passing of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

The following is from Kmareka’s West Coast correspondent, Elaine Hirsch.

Elaine Hirsch is kind of a jack-of-all-interests, from education and history to medicine and videogames. This makes it difficult to choose just one life path, so she is currently working as a writer for various education-related sites and writing about all these things instead. Currently, she writes for onlinephd.org.

The Silent Passing of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

Ten days after the solemn ceremony commemorating the tenth anniversary of the September 11th terrorist attacks, a momentous piece of legislation was enacted in the United States. Any student of history should remember September 20th, 2011 as the end of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and as the beginning of a new era for gay rights in America, but instead the moment was eclipsed in the national news.

The history of DADT and its eventual repeal is an important chapter for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights community. In the all-male American military service of yore, sodomy was considered a grave violation which merited discharge, but homosexual preferences or tendencies were not specifically addressed until around World War II. Military psychiatrists deemed homosexuality a deviant behavior, and thus not suitable among servicemen. This rather extreme and disparaging view was soon eschewed and replaced by a more tacit “no sex between servicemen” regulation, although gay members of the military continued to be unfairly discharged. The issue of homosexuality in the military was mostly an afterthought during the Vietnam War era, when simply maintaining troop levels was the main concern.

The notorious cases against Fannie Mae Clackum and Leonard Matlovich of the United States Air Force led to the adoption of a policy by the Department of Defense which essentially outlawed homosexuality in the military. By the 1990s, the LGBT rights community raised awareness of this unfair policy and public opinion began to sway against the narrow-minded stance it represented.

It took the brutal murder of a gay sailor serving in Japan to bring the issue to a level of national interest. Radioman Petty Officer Third Class Allen R. Schindler, Jr. was only 22 years old when he was stomped to death by a shipmate because of his sexual orientation in 1992. The young sailor’s murder prompted presidential candidate Bill Clinton to announce his intention to repeal anti-gay military policy, but Congress quickly moved to make it federal law instead. This was a shrewd political move that forced the Clinton White House to attempt a repeal. The Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy is the compromise reached in lieu of overturning the gay ban in the military.

Originally the policy was called “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Pursue.” This was the phrase chosen by sociologist Charles Moskos, who was instrumental in drafting a policy that didn’t explicitly permit homosexuals to serve in the military, but neither allowed them to be discharged as long as they “served in silence.” The original name of the policy was shortened almost as soon as the policy was adopted, but it was also known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Harass.”

As an official policy, DADT was challenged numerous times. The inadequacy of the policy was depicted in at least two films: Serving in Silence (1997) and Soldier’s Girl (2003). Serving in Silence is based on the life of Colonel Margarethe Cammermeyer, an Army nurse who served in the Washington National Guard. Colonel Cammermeyer was honorably discharged in 1992 against her will when she came out as a lesbian. She appealed the discharge in federal district court and was reinstated and allowed to retire.

Soldier’s Girl portrays the tragic murder of Private First Class Barry Winchell, an infantryman in the 101st Airborne Division who was brutally murdered by a fellow soldier who believed PFC Winchell was involved in a relationship with transgendered showgirl Calpernia Addams. PFC Winchell’s murder infuriated President Clinton, who immediately ordered a review of the DADT policy. Lieutenant General Timothy Maude, a top Army officer who sympathized with the LGBT military community, personally met with PFC Winchell’s grieving parents.

The White House under President George W. Bush didn’t do much to advance the repeal of DADT, but presidential candidate Barack Obama made it a campaign promise. In 2010, efforts to repeal DADT and grant homosexuals the right to serve in the US military began in earnest. The efforts were silent but swift, and ultimately successful. The lack of news media attention shouldn’t detract from the sheer significance of the change represented by the repeal. The end of DADT marks a major achievement in the progress of civil rights in America. It may’ve passed in relative silence, but it should be remembered with fanfare.

So, When’s the Wedding?

Same-sex lovers in New York won’t be able to weasel out of making a commitment, or at least one excuse is gone.

Congratulations, felicitations and best wishes to all New Yorkers. This is civil rights for some, and likely to be an economic boost for the whole state, especially those in the floral and photo industries.

The window of opportunity for Rhode Island is closing. We’ll look back some day and ask why we passed on a chance to do right and do well at the same time.

Can This Marriage be Saved?

Dr. Laura Gallagher, from the distinguished Think Tank and Anti-Advocacy group, GLUM(MUN) (Gays and Lesbians Undermine Marriage and Make Us Nervous) takes questions from real readers who bare their hearts and air their dirty laundry so we can be entertained and enlightened. And get blog hits.

Thank you, Dr. Gallagher, for guest blogging here. Readers ask us…

Q. Dear Dr. Gallagher, 

My husband and I have been happily married for 55 years, and we weren’t no spring chickens when we tied the knot, if you get what I mean. We agreed early on to let bygones be bygones, and did not worry about what happened before that special night in Vegas that ended in the Chapel. We have enjoyed many decades together in loving harmony.

For the past year, Frank has not seemed himself. He gets up and puts on his pants, and then puts on another pair of pants over the pants. I don’t dare to say anything because he’s gotten very touchy. He makes sandwiches and puts them under the bed, and gets furious if I sweep them up.

I was taught to cater to my man, and at my age I’m too tired to care anyway, but there’s another problem. He thinks I’m cheating on him. I have not been near another man since President Eisenhower was running the country, but he’s insanely jealous. Why could he not have been this hot, like, around the 1970’s? What am I doing wrong?

Signed: Edna

A. Dear Edna,

It’s the Gay’s fault. Your husband has been corrupted by the Gay Agenda via the Mainstream Media, and he thinks that he can lure men into his bedroom by putting sandwiches under his bed. We see this many times in our clinical practice. His suspicion that you are cheating is projection. He is secretly attracted to a man.

Are there any gays in your neighborhood? Town? State? Well, there you are.

Send a check today to GLUM. We care about your marriage, and we know best.

Dear Dr. Gallagher,

My wife and I believe in traditional family values. She would stay home with the children, and I would support us working for General Motors. We were so happy until the Hummer IV (Bigger than a Breadbox) project went to Sichuan Tengzhong Heavy Industrial Machinery Company, somewhere out of state. They got the goldmine, and our town got the shaft.
Tiffany and I were willing to do whatever we had to do to support our family. We finally ended up applying to WalMart. She got hired as a greeter, they said I was overqualified.

Tiffany is a spunky girl, and she would do anything for me and our kids.  The problem is, I am taking care of the kids. This is way harder than I ever imagined. Tiffany has changed. She seems to like being out of the house and says she is fine with the way things are for a while. I want out.

Signed: Trapped and Unfulfilled

Dear Trapped,

It’s the Gay’s fault. In the past, Tiffany would have strapped on her best bonnet and gone to petition the factory owner, trembling but resolute. He would have smiled sardonically, cupped her chin in his hand and casually granted you employment, as a coal hauler, or whatever. (B.Cartland, 1967)
Your family would get no benefits. Whether the factory owner would get lucky is a whole novel.(Harlequin)

So would you rather have a couple of the kids die of consumption (do you have enough spares?) and live a life of high drama, or wipe up Cheerios while taking courses online for a cubicle job with benefits?

There was a Golden Age. Really. Before there were Gays. If it were not for them, your life would be Gothic.

Send a check today to GLUM. We care about your marriage, and we know best.

Dear Dr. Gallagher,

I heard GLUM experts testify that the real meaning and purpose of marriage is procreation. I have a confession to make. I found myself single again through widowhood, and fell in love with Ted. We married, though we are of mature years.

What is the meaning of marriage, when procreation ain’t gonna happen?
Signed, Still Ticking

Dear Still Ticking,

Like I don’t recognize that as a throwaway phrase from a David Bowie song that I listened to for research purposes? You are a troll, asking me trick questions. I could tell by your lapsing into slang, because you just can’t help it.

Well, forget about it, Jane Doe, if that is your real name. Studies show that your odds of finding a man when you are in the geezer demographic is way on the edge of unlikely. That makes you a deviant.

That means you are the type that would notice two gay guys moving in next door and shrug, instead of getting out torches and pitchforks.

As far as your question, there are so few of you deviants that you don’t comprise a base worth playing up to. But I could be wrong. Maybe I should tolerate you and hold out the promise that if you’re really good and humble, we might acknowledge your existence.

Send a check today to GLUM. We care about your marriage, and we know best.

Thanks to Dr. Laura Gallagher and GLUM for letting us use their column, and send your lovelorn problems to Kmareka at this address. We Care.

 

Read Your Bible

Yesterday was busy, with a rally for Planned Parenthood in the morning and hearings at the State House last night.

I was sleep-deprived already, having driven 360 miles round trip to go to a wake, and I had to work too.

I’d love to review some of the arguments against marriage equality when I get a chance, but one outrageous claim stands out.

Several speakers, including clergy, said that marriage has always been one man and one woman. Some went so far as to say that this was not only the case for Judaism and Christianity, but for humanity since the dawn of time.

Have they never read their Bible?

Well, I have, and will expand on this point after I get home from work.

Senator Harold Metts had his Bible in hand, and unabashedly preached his Christian faith, saying several times that it was not his opinion, but God’s word. I think Rhode Island lost an inspired minister when Metts went into politics, and gained a politician who gives the impression that his office is a means to his religious ends. I don’t know how much he is willing to recognize the rights of constituents who do not share his beliefs.

Rev. Bernard Healy said that the reason for marriage is children. This was the testimony of several other speakers. I wish the Church had used its influence on the late governor when he repeatedly cut programs for poor children, but they have their priorities.

I don’t know what Roger Williams would say about all this. He left Massachusetts because they had a state religion that punished heretics. Now Mass is wicked blue and RI has an organized religious base that politicians defy at their own risk. Mass, I notice, has not suffered the apocalypse predicted for RI if we let same-sex couples marry. In fact, the divorce rate there is low. Maybe protecting marriage is more connected to employment, education, opportunity and justice than to depriving qualified couples who want legal recognition for a commitment they already live up to. Maybe heterosexual couples value marriage more when they see how this right, or lack of it, affects their gay friends and neighbors.

Cat–The True Threat to Marriage

He Threw Up in Your Closet

by J. Spot Fido and Sparky Goodboy, PhD, LLC, ADHD

The time has come to stand up to the ‘politically correct’ apologists for the feline agenda with some wet-nosed hard-nosed facts based on research studies conducted at Canus University in Paw Paw, Illinois.

These studies prove that cat is the greatest threat to the family today.

First of all, cat is a threat to children, increasing the risk of asthma, allergy and cat scratch fever. Cats are 75% more likely than dogs to sneak into children’s beds and hide in the blankets. Dogs try, but they get caught, because they are less sneaky than cats. Cats are known flea carriers. When you see a dog scratching, that is the natural grooming behavior of a fastidious animal. When a cat scratches itself it means that cat is infested. While it is true that dogs occasionally lick themselves, they do it for good reasons, once in a while. Cats do it constantly. They should get a life.

Cats lure children by stalking and chasing paper, dustballs and moths. Children think this is cute. The cats are just faking it. Except for the really stupid ones.

Cats are a threat to marriage. Whereas most men have a natural bond with dogs, women are susceptible to evolved feline behavior. Cats cry like babies, snuggle and ‘purr’– a sound that would repel most women if they realized it was the sound of spit vibrating through bronchial tubes.

Cats sneak into the bed and expand during the night, physically pushing couples apart. They cause arguments. A man might toss the cat out the window, knowing that they always land on their feet, and for some reason his wife will take offense.

Cats are known to prevent marriage. A single woman is 30% less likely to marry in any given year for every additional cat she acquires over 3, not including temporary litters of kittens. Women who have more than 10 cats, paradoxically, have more relationships with men, but only men who wear Fedoras and argue with people on the internet.

Cats are a threat to the home in the most literal sense. You can always tell when there’s a cat in the house–even if it’s hiding under the couch, the couch is all scratched up. Cats never invite their owners to join them for a healthy walk in the fresh air. Heck no, if you took them for a walk you’d call them and they wouldn’t come back– until they felt like it. Instead cats poop in a box. How disgusting. Additionally, cats are fussy eaters and consider vomiting to be socially acceptable. What can you expect from a creature that licks itself instead of shaking all over to get rid of loose fur? And they claim they’re intelligent? Grrrr……………………………………………………………………………

Spot! I hear footsteps! They’re home– turn off the computer. Look natural. Let Fluffy out of the closet………….baad cat!