First transgender mayor elected

[katiemac]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27616346/?GT1=43001

What I find interesting is that since the mayor's gender was out in the open from the start of the election, it didn't seem to be an issue in either campaign strategies.

ETA: Apologies for typo in the heading, should be "transgender"

[Snowstorm]

I saw a neat article on this mayor on (I think) CNN. Neat gal. Has a real sense of humor. She was open about people thinking, "Where's the freak show?" but it didn't seem to bother her. She said other people suffer a mid-life crisis and go out and get the latest sports car. She wanted cleavage. So she went out and got one!

Cool gal. Best of luck to her and her town.

[katiemac]

I saw a neat article on this mayor on (I think) CNN. Neat gal. Has a real sense of humor. She was open about people thinking, "Where's the freak show?" but it didn't seem to bother her. She said other people suffer a mid-life crisis and go out and get the latest sports car. She wanted cleavage. So she went out and got one!

Cool gal. Best of luck to her and her town.

Interesting that you use the feminine form. In the article I posted, he said "I'm a dude." So there you go.

[Snowstorm]

With an Internet rate of 9 - 12K, I rarely pull up the links on threads.

Since I saw the article on TV, this person was dressed as a woman and talked about "have cleavage" and then "got one", it's easy to understand why I thought this person was a "she."

[Christine N.]

He was on GMA, I think it was, on Friday, maybe? He's not a post-op transgendered, still goes by his male name.

It's a whole new century in so many ways. Go Stu!

[jvc]

Just goes to show that anything is possible and so long as you have good policies you can get yourself elected. I seem to remember that a town in the UK elected a football mascot as their mayor. Can't remember which one though.

[CatSlave]

I have a feeling we're entering a new age of hope and acceptance.

If it's only a dream, please don't wake me. :)

[Dawno]

<snip>

ETA: Apologies for typo in the heading, should be "transgender"

fixed it :)

[SHBueche]

And in Oregon, no less. Proposition 8 doesn't pass in California? Baby steps people.

[Christine N.]

Prop 8 passed in Ca (making it illegal for homosexuals to marry) -voting no would have defeated it and allowed the gay marriage act to continue.

Prop 8 passed because right-wing religious groups from out of state pumped money into a campaign in Ca. People still voted for it, but they were probably swayed by out of state dollars. Which to me isn't fair at all.

[dgiharris]

Prop 8 passed in Ca (making it illegal for homosexuals to marry) -voting no would have defeated it and allowed the gay marriage act to continue.

Prop 8 passed because right-wing religious groups from out of state pumped money into a campaign in Ca. People still voted for it, but they were probably swayed by out of state dollars. Which to me isn't fair at all.

I think the reverse is true also, that out of state money went to fund those anti Prop 8 ads.

Don't get me wrong, I wish Prop 8 was voted down, but I think it is a slight red herring to accuse right wing religious groups.

Its ALL religious groups. 95% of the major religions define marriage as man and woman. You're going up against 2000 plus years of dogma.

It is a strategic mistake by the Gay and Lesbian community to want to be 'married'.

That one little word, 'marriage', is going to be the reason why they won't get it for another 30 years. Strategically they should have pushed for 'civil unions' that have the same LEGAL rights as marriage. There you go, problem solved and you give 'the church' an out and a reason to not care.

But by going after one of the most sacred church ceremonies, the GLSBs have pit themselves in a fight with one of the most powerful organizations in the history of the world.

yeah, good luck with that one.

Mel...

[Don]

It is a strategic mistake by the Gay and Lesbian community to want to be 'married'.

That one little word, 'marriage', is going to be the reason why they won't get it for another 30 years.
You nailed this one, Mel. Going up against the church is a tough battle. Ask Galileo. :D

[Nakhlasmoke]

That is so awesome.

[Kitty Pryde]

Don't get me wrong, I wish Prop 8 was voted down, but I think it is a slight red herring to accuse right wing religious groups.

Its ALL religious groups. 95% of the major religions define marriage as man and woman. You're going up against 2000 plus years of dogma.

It is a strategic mistake by the Gay and Lesbian community to want to be 'married'.

That one little word, 'marriage', is going to be the reason why they won't get it for another 30 years. Strategically they should have pushed for 'civil unions' that have the same LEGAL rights as marriage. There you go, problem solved and you give 'the church' an out and a reason to not care.

But by going after one of the most sacred church ceremonies, the GLSBs have pit themselves in a fight with one of the most powerful organizations in the history of the world.

yeah, good luck with that one.

Mel...

I have to respectfully disagree on several fronts. First, it's not all religious groups that oppose same-sex marriage. For instance, Episcopalian bishops within CA all opposed Prop 8. The Board of Rabbis of Southern California, representing rabbis who lead reform, conservative, and orthodox Jewish communities, issued a statement against Proposition 8. The leader of my own religious community performed well over 50 same-sex marriages this year, and in fact had her own same-sex marriage as well! There are Christian churches that are for Prop 8 as well. I personally only know a few of them but they are out there.

It's not a strategic mistake to want to be married, it's an intentional move based on intellectual and emotional needs to be a full part of American society. It's a very challenging fight, certainly, because of the intolerance and fear of the powerful religious right. There was no need for the gay community to push for civil unions, because we already have same-sex civil unions in California (but they are called domestic partnerships). Civil unions are nothing but 'separate but equal'. Better than nothing, but not what the community wants, and not full equality.

[maestrowork]

In way, I don't think it's a big deal in a sense that it shouldn't even be an issue, and I hope in the future we wouldn't even look at sexuality or gender identity as an issue. That is, we won't care, and certainly headlines such as "transgendered mayor" or "gay President" would become irrelevant. [That said, I do think -- at current time -- it is a great thing that such barriers are being broken]

[dgiharris]

it's not all religious groups that oppose same-sex marriage.

I may have been a little misleading in my statement. It wasn't so much that I said All religions are against it, (though I do infer it). I said that all the major religions DEFINE marriage as between a man and woman.

The emotional arguments and resistance to same sex marriages stem from that front. But the sources you've provided are more than enough for me to recant some. Can we agree that the majority of religious groups are against same sex marriage? I think that is a more accurate statement


It's not a strategic mistake to want to be married, it's an intentional move based on intellectual and emotional needs to be a full part of American society. It's a very challenging fight, certainly, because of the intolerance and fear of the powerful religious right. There was no need for the gay community to push for civil unions, because we already have same-sex civil unions in California (but they are called domestic partnerships). Civil unions are nothing but 'separate but equal'. Better than nothing, but not what the community wants, and not full equality.

I am all for equality under the law. The problem in this instance is somehow, the term 'marriage' got intermixed with the Church based Ceremony. So you have this wierd combination of both Canon Law and the Constitution. So this push by the GLSB community pits them against the bible (as interpretted by traditional churches and dominations).

In short, logic has very little place in this fight. It is an emotional issue and there is no logical argument that ever trumps religious zealotry.

This is one of the rare cases where I believe that Separate But Equal can work and hence my statement about civil unions being equalivent to marriage (as seen from by the law). But if your heart is set on 'marriage', then either 1 of 2 things need to happen.

Either, we as a culture change the Semantic of 'marriage' to not include religious ceremony or the Church reverses its position on marriage being between a man and a woman to any two loving people.

I can see no compromise with the Church within my lifetime on this issue. It would be like the Church reversing its position on Abortion.

The problem, as I see it, on this issue is that religion is intertwined with it. We are not talking cultural or societal here, we are talking about religion and all the big ones, Judiasm, Christianity, and Islam. These institutions are older than the majority of countries on the planet.

Now, are there dominations that bend the rules here, sure. Are they the majority? No.

I wish the GLSB community all the best, but I don't see them convincing the big three of their positions any time soon.

Mel...

[caromora]

Interesting that you use the feminine form. In the article I posted, he said "I'm a dude." So there you go.

It's an understandable mistake in this instance, I think. Personally, when I heard "transgendered" and "got breast implants," I figured that his gender identity was male-to-female. In which case, of course, it would be correct to refer to him as "she" (whether he was post-op or not). But he doesn't self-identify as a woman, as far as I can tell from the articles I've read; he agrees with his birth-assigned sex. He just likes to cross-dress and wanted breast implants.

In any case, I love what he said about blackmail-proofing himself. Very funny.:)

[Don]

II am all for equality under the law. The problem in this instance is somehow, the term 'marriage' got intermixed with the Church based Ceremony.
No 'somehow' to it. The government started licensing a religious rite, ignoring the concept of the separation of church and state.

The government also decided that some religions' concepts of marriage were valid, and others (Mormons and polygamy) were not. They also declared that same-race marriages were valid, and mixed-race marriages were not, and placed other restrictions, such as age, on what began as a religious rite.

(Read up on the history of marriage licenses sometime. They were first used in the US to prevent interracial marriages.)

Then they decided to grant special legal status to those who formed a partnership using that rite. Eventually, they recognized that two people of opposite sex should be able to obtain that special legal status outside the church (justice of the peace) but did not rename that concept, still calling it marriage.

The whole mess violates the 'equal protection under the law' concept of the Constitution, as well as the separation of church and state. Religious leaders allowed their religious rite to be co-opted by the state. The Supremes never corrected the problem.

It's been an uphill battle ever since.