Why is it that when a politician changes his mind to the detriment of trans rights its ‘political reality’ that must be respected, but when a politician changes his mind to the detriment of same-sex marriage, its not simply political reality but, instead, the politician becomes the embodiment of betrayal – Benedict Arnold multiplied by Julius and Ethel Rosenberg with a Quisling chaser?
And why is it that when gays and lesbians demand their contributions to a politician be returned because he isn’t going to vote the way they want him to vote on marriage the appropriate prosecutorial authorities don’t interpret the demand as an admission that the monetary contributions were intended to be part of a quid pro quo?
Registered with the Collective
Collective Archive Number: CAN-0000-0979-6AF2
View the permanent record, citation metadata, and related articlesCollective context
Continue through the Collective
Contextual reading from independent member publications.
Policy implications
Examines legal, institutional, or policy consequences connected to the shared theme.
Kelli at Planetransgender regarding the scam of 2011: My comments on Equality Maryland facebook continue to be deleted even as I attempt to answer EQMD’s…
Related academic framing
Approaches the shared subject through a related analytical or disciplinary frame.
Even The John thought it was wrong: A colleague defended the SNL skit by comparing it to lampooning Sarah Palin – isn’t it okay to…
Related academic framing
Approaches the shared subject through a related analytical or disciplinary frame.
From the Baltimore Sun: After the House of Delegates this weekend voted overwhelmingly to prohibit employer and housing discrimination for the transgendered, the bill crossed…
1 comment