It's MzMartiPants to you!

Originally published at Transadvocate. Please leave any comments there.

The following video is from ” Rapture Ready: The Unauthorized Christians United for Israel Tour”

[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/mjMRgT5o-Ig" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]

At the end of the video, I caught a glimpse of this:

This kind of display dispels the notion by some in the civil rights community that GLBT people aren’t being dehumanized.

Originally published at Transadvocate. Please leave any comments there.

As the Hate Crimes amendment to the Defense Funding Authorization is being debated in the Senate, it’s funny hearing some of the arguments coming from those opposed to allowing the additional protections to sexual orientation and gender identity. Many of the callers advocating for killing the Hate Crimes amendment have taken liberty of saying it infringes on free speech.

Nothing in the Hate Crimes bill (S. 1105), nor the amendment to the defense-spending bill with the exact same wording, makes any notation of hate speech. Nothing.

Yet still, the callers and advocates – specifically from the conservative religious groups – continue to equate this with being locked up for speaking their minds! Literal calls to senate offices have beseeched senate offices to not let the bill pass, and “don’t let them lock up my preacher.”

Hearing these arguments, the terms “specious” and “exaggerated” come to mind, but those descriptions fall way short of accuracy. Even hyper-exaggerated is inadequate. Their arguments are nothing short of absolute fabrication, pathologically so.

There’s always the perennial argument as well: protecting people who made choices to be gay, to be transgendered. At least that argument had validity, to an extent. We could choose to repress who we are. But then, why?

Religion itself is a choice. Back in the day, when Ronald Reagan railed about the “evil empire” – then known more commonly as the Soviet Union, or U.S.S.R. – religious citizens of all stripes were choosing to repress who they were. The government back then would come down on Soviet citizens who chose to express their faith openly. There were consequences for their choice. And we correctly considered that a travesty of human rights.

Indeed, people can choose to be religious or not, or even choose to change their religious faith. Why would any of the religious faithful speak with anyone outside of their own sect about their faith if it weren’t, at some level, to hope to draw others to their own religion? That’s choice, and America officially embraces that to the point of protecting those from being attacked for their choice. With the multitudes of various denominations, people should have the right to choose and not be condemned for it.

So why are so many opposed to what they see as choice of a different kind. (Yes, I’m aware of the studies on gender identity and sexuality that have pointed to biological underpinnings – that’s an article for another time. For the sake of argument let’s just agree to “choice” now and continue.)

To say that religion, or “the churches” are opposing hate crime expansion is inaccurately broad. Many progressive and humanitarian denominations support it. To my knowledge, we haven’t heard one religious denomination officially come out and categorically oppose expansion of hate crimes for sexual orientation and gender identity. They will officially state they don’t approve of the lifestyle choices. But opposing laws deterring hate violence against these expanded communities, as a denomination is a step beyond the pale. It states that that religion tacitly approves of hate-borne violence against gays, transgenders, etc. because of their choice.

Ultimately, this opposition for hate crime protection on GLBT people it has less to do with religion and nothing to do with Christ-like spirituality. It has everything to do with individuals leading congregations, or those using religious affiliation out of convenience and taking liberty to speak representatively in their behalf.

As we’ve seen, it’s a wonderful shield against reproach for these opportunists. Nobody cares to be seen as taking on a religion, which can easily be flipped into an assault on God. This built-in irreproachability gives them automatic advantage, something they never lose sight of.

It also allows these opportunists the ability to weigh in on and indirectly influence others’ choices by encouraging or protecting punitive reaction against them. Their ultimate hope is to effectively end choices made which these self-appointed arbiters deem wrong. Once they successfully deny protections against gay or lesbian, bisexual or transgender Americans, what do they do for an encore?

One glaring omission from the current hate crimes bill is the homeless. Will these same folks speak out, railing against protecting these people who they feel made the wrong decisions in life? Will they feel the homeless have chose to be too slothful or incorrigible to be protected, and that free speech – or wielding bats as seen on TV in Florida – should be what is protected?

And how about religion, the other choice mentioned earlier? We live in what we advertise as a pluralistic society, and that all are free to worship howsoever. But does everyone agree with such open tolerance toward those who choose religions that may contradict our own scripture?

Just last week during Senate prayer, a Hindu priest provided the opening invocation. Shortly after beginning his prayer, jeering yells like “abomination,” “there is only one true God,” and “we are Christians and Patriots” came down from above. No – not from heaven but from the gallery of visitors over the Senate Floor. Christians upset with a Hindu prayer, upset with a man who made different religious choices then they.

If precedence is given to those who would implicitly oppose any stoppage of hate violence to those who made “choices” they didn’t agree with, then where does this leave others whose choices they don’t agree with. Even though religion is a category currently covered by hate crimes law, what about those whose religion is deemed by the prevalent faith to be what they consider “making the wrong choice?” How long before they begin turning a blind eye toward violence against them?

Originally published at Transadvocate. Please leave any comments there.

In reading the recently published “Interview: Transgenderism Emerging on the Heels of Homosexuality in Media” at the Christian Post, I sat amazed with my mouth agape at the following statement.

“When you look at Scripture for example, when Paul talks in 1 Corinthians 6:9 about the following group of people will not inherit the Kingdom of God. One of those groups of people he calls the “soft men.” Now the meaning of that essentially, in its historical context, is men who feminize themselves to attract male sex partners. And that’s the closest thing you have in the ancient world to transgenderism. Paul lists them among the group of people who risk not being included in the Kingdom.”

For years conservative Christians have used 1Corinthians 6:9 to prove that homosexuality is a sin. In using 1Corinthians 6:9 in the above context, they are confirming the view that the verse isn’t about homosexuality. For years liberal churches like the MCC church have argued the fine points of the Greek words used in 6:9 (malakoi, malakee, and arsenokoitai instead of the word paiderasste).

The question of usage is unclear, but one thing is not. This verse either relates to homosexuality or effeminate behavior, but NOT both. If they use this passage as a way to deny transgender people a place in the church, they leave the back door wide open for gays and lesbians.

These types of attacks on transgender people are by conservative Christians who don’t care about theology or about scripture. They are simply trying to find a way to further their hatred and bigotry.

Originally published at Transadvocate. Please leave any comments there.

You’ve probably heard of the ex-gay movement. You may have even heard of the ex-ex-gay movement. Odds are slim that you know anyone that is ex-transgender. But have you ever known anyone that is ex-ex-transgender?

You have if you’ve read this blog.

In 1997 I confessed to my wife that I’d cross-dressed most of my life. After her initial shock wore off, she began to accept and integrate this part of me into our marriage. This was an activity that I’d never told anyone about, much less participate in with another person in. In late 1997 I began to realize that I might not be a crossdresser, but that something deeper was hidden underneath all the shame. My wife, the love of my life, had told me in no uncertain terms that if I was a bisexual or transsexual, our marriage would be over. Those two facts were playing a tug of war in my mind for months that caused me to go into a cycle of depression. In January of 1999 things finally came to a head, this looming thing was something I knew that I couldn’t hide from myself any longer. Crying curled up in a ball in the middle of my bed, I realized I couldn’t rid myself of this. I didn’t want to die, but I couldn’t keep living this way. In the desperation of the moment, I cried out to God.

For the next two years, I dove head first into the bible. I joined Horizon Christian Fellowship South, led by Pastor Tony Smith. The church was very bible centered, and the services were more educational than they were emotional. My days and nights away from the church, my head was either stuck in a bible, or on the net researching and or debating theology.

I felt part of my call was to evangelize online with other men that had suffered through gender dysphoria and were struggling with this sin. It was the early days of the Internet then, blogs were still years away. The only place you could freely post your thoughts were either on AOL discussion boards, or on Usenet. I started a group over at Dejanews.com called Nikao (which in Greek means overcome, conquer, or victory). I spent hours writing and debating on Usenet, the power of Christ’s redeeming love. My growing obsession blossomed and I decided it was time to start making preparations for Bible College.

The very thing I thought would save my marriage, doomed it. The deeper I immersed myself into Christ, the angrier my wife became. She said “you’re just replacing one part of your life with another. As long as you are in that group (Nikao) you’re still in it, just from a different angle.” She saw how radically it effected my behavior, turning me into someone she couldn’t stand to be around. On August 25th, of 2000, the wheels fell off our marriage. My wife of six years hated me so much she physically assaulted me. Her assault and time in jail solidified the end of our marriage.

In the traumatic days that followed, members of my church were supportive, albeit, distant. With the impending divorce and custody battle, I leaned on my pastor for guidance and support. In my fight for custody, I asked him to go to court with me. Knowing that my wife would play the transvestite defense, I asked him to stand before the court and testify to my church activities and my attendance. He told me he would “pray about it” and get back with me. He never did. Needless to say, I lost custody of my daughter.

In November of 2000, I started seeing a therapist about my gender issues. One of the most profound concepts she ever taught me was the difference between desire and action. She said something to the effect that “you can modify your actions, but you can’t modify your desires.” Desire is a physical response to an external stimuli. You can say you don’t like chocolate, but you can’t make your mouth stop watering when you smell it. You can be ex- transgender, gay, bisexual, in action, but not in desire.

Coming across a post entitled “Transsexual Fraud” at Trading My Sorrows.com blog, reminded me of my ex-trans past. With the media exposure and growing cultural acceptance of a more fluid gender identity, I’m sure that these types of online ministries will pop up more and more (to join Reality Resources and New Hope Outreach).

Christ said:

“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.” - Matthew 15-20

The ex-trangender life I experienced was anything but peaceful, truthful, or accepting. My hope is that my fellow human beings who are dealing with the challenges that come along with gender identity variance look at the “fruit” of their life and decide to follow the path which is the most fertile for fruit to grow.

In the end I’m not really ex-ex- anything. I’m me. I hope that anyone that in my situation finds a path to this much peace and truth. I hope they find an orchard full of the fruit like the one that continues to fill my life with blessing after blessing.

Originally published at Marti Abernathey.com. You can comment here but Marti feels more love if you comment there. Registration is no longer required.

Writing a response to a hateful, bigoted blogger, the words of
Gandhi came to mind.

“I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians.”

“Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. I consider western Christianity in its practical working a negation of Christ’s Christianity.”

“It is my firm opinion that Europe does not represent the spirit of God or Christianity but the spirit of Satan. And Satan’s successes are the greatest when he appears with the name of God on his lips.”

The Christianity in this country that listens to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or Laura Ingraham; consumes popular culture like there is no tomorrow, supports the Iraq war, and votes for George Bush, are not Christians. They are like Saul before Damascus, a Pharisee. Christ said of the Pharisee:

“You make God’s law to mean nothing so you can keep your own laws! You are not true to yourselves! What Isaiah said about you was true. He said, ‘These people respect me with their mouth but their heart is far from me. They do not mean it in their hearts when they worship me. Their teachings are only the words of men.’”

If you’re going to judge me, judge my life, and try to subject me to your religious beliefs, how about you follow your own teachings? Hell, how about you KNOW your scripture, before trying to teach it to me?

To you that do follow the example of Christ, I apologize. I love you. I thought that anyone who claims to be a Christian, is a Christian. I’m sorry I’ve thrown you in with the American Pharisee’s. You walk the walk, and talk the talk. You live the word, and are a shining example of the Christ found in the Bible. I admire you, and your conviction even though I do not share it. If every confessed Christian was like you, this country would be heaven on earth.

Originally published at Marti Abernathey.com. You can comment here but Marti feels more love if you comment there. Registration is no longer required.

From Anarcho-Judaism:

It is difficult to be human. It’s scary. Because in fact we are alone, we never really get to fully know anybody—not even ourselves. At the most we can touch, for a moment, the mystery that other lives are, for a moment of love, friendship, ideological or artistic or spiritual communion, sexual pleasure. But only barely.

Then we are again alone, we will die and we have no way of knowing what happens to us half an hour from that moment. We fear everything that we can not control, and that is almost everything, even though we like to imagine it is not so much so. In some issues, we might fool ourselves but in others, like sexuality, it is impossible. Here, control fails us in seconds before a desire, a dream that we would have never thought ourselves capable of, and suddenly there it is, happening to us. That is why the alliance of the cross and the sword that maintains empires is founded on our loneliness, our fragility, our need for warmth and approval, our vanity that makes us need to feel part of something eternal and transcendental. What this alliance controls the most is that part of life most impossible to control, the part we fear the most: our sexuality. We thank the cross and the sword for protecting us from what we can not control by obeying, by being part of their institutions, by believing that we need institutions to mediate between us and the chaos of life, uncertainty and death.

Originally published at Marti Abernathey.com. You can comment here but Marti feels more love if you comment there. Registration is no longer required.

Talk of Jefferson and the seperation of church and state dominated this weekend’s “Meet The Press.” I have to laugh about their talk of the founders. If you dig into Jefferson, you cannot deny the seperation of church and state.

“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” –Thomas Jefferson

“The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man.” –Thomas Jefferson

You can read more from the founders thoughts on church vs state here and here and here.

The comment was made that Hitler was an atheist, and that between Hitler and Soviet rule, more people have died under atheism than Christianity.

“We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith.
We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement,
and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.”
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Berlin on 24 Oct. 1933

Either they are ignorant fools or willfull liars.

You can read more at No Beliefs.com.

Originally published at Marti Abernathey.com. You can comment here but Marti feels more love if you comment there. Registration is no longer required.

Mark Angelo Cummings

[kml_flashembed movie=”http://www.youtube.com/v/tb1Pgjtuo4E” width=”425″ height=”350″/]

Originally published at Marti Abernathey.com. You can comment here but Marti feels more love if you comment there. Registration is no longer required.

But not you…

Originally published at Marti Abernathey.com. You can comment here but Marti feels more love if you comment there. Registration is no longer required.

Lots of tranny/Jesus chatter on the internets.

Over at “The Cafeteria Is Closed” Gerald Augustinus comments on a BBC story about an Anglican reverend that transitioned on the job. He quips:

“Obviously, that person has some deep-seated issues, why else would he have wanted to become a mannish looking elderly lady.”

and then wonders what the Vatican’s position on sex change procedures is. He cited a press release from the John Norton Catholic News Service:

“The key point is that the (transsexual) surgical operation is so superficial and external that it does not change the personality. If the person was male, he remains male. If she was female, she remains female,”

The Vatican text defines transsexualism as a psychic disorder of those whose genetic makeup and physical characteristics are unambiguously of one sex but who feel that they belong to the
opposite sex. In some cases, the urge is so strong that the person undergoes a “sex-change” operation to acquire the opposite sex’s external sexual organs. The new organs have no reproductive function.”

In the comments “berrien” says:

Sick, sick, sick. Better keep an eye on him….uh, her,…uh, it. Good thing he got the knife before he came into the church and got transfered to the Catholic priesthood, eh?

My response:

First of all, Peter is Anglican, not Catholic, correct?

I’m not a theologian, I just play one on the internets.

As far as “genital mutilation,” I’m not that familiar with Catholic doctrine, but I know that the Bible speaks specifically to this:

Matthew 19:12 “For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.”

“Sick, sick, sick. Better keep an eye on him….uh, her,…uh, it“

Nice. Might explain why Catholicism and Christianity in general is in decline.

Christ never dehumanized, never condemned, never mocked those in sin.

Now, I would note that I do not believe in sin. To believe in sin, you need to believe in the existence of God, which I don’t.

Over at POWERBLOG! “Powerball” complains about parents who let their gender dysphoric children live in their chosen gender. He states it’s

“one of those stories that make you pull your hair out.”

Rob commented:

Often, these children are actually hermaphroditic, and the parents are simply hiding this information from people who really don’t need to know.

I responded to them both:

Why would you pull your hair out? Your blog seems to indicate that you’re a Christian American, yet you don’t seem to support free will choice? Does the Constitution or the Bible somehow make this decision by parents and health care professionals any of your business?

Rob, in all fairness, there’s a big difference between gender identity disorder and an intersex condition. I’m about as left wing as they come, but lets not muddy the waters between the two conditions.

GID isn’t something that’s just dreamed up in the heads of the parents. It’s a known, mental disorder that is treatable. What this debate centers around is science vs faith. You’re talking about a group of people that believe that carbon dating is conspiracy against God, and the Earth is 4000 years old. If you can’t agree on carbon dating, then there’s no way you’re going to come to a concensus on this.

This a battle of reason verses faith, plain and simple.

Well, unless you’re trying to carbon date something….

Originally published at Marti Abernathey.com. You can comment here but Marti feels more love if you comment there. Registration is no longer required.

I can hardly write this post without writhing in disgust. Right Wing talk show host, Glenn Beck, recently compared Hillary Clinton’s comment on the need for health care reform to the genocide perpetrated by the Adolph Hitler and the Nazi death machine. What could Clinton say to bring comparisons to Adolph Hitler?

“But the whole issue of health care is coming back. That may be a bad dream for some, but for others, it’s a very welcome possibility, because we are on an unsustainable course. I think that we have to come up with a uniquely American solution.”

Some pretty controversial stuff there! These right wing talking heads are the first ones to criticize movie stars for speaking out on topics they have no educational background on, yet these same hacks will make outrageous statements when a politician dares to say there is a problem with our health care system.

“Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane.” - Martin Luther King, Jr.

I laugh at that quote, considering the National Black Republican Association has made a ludicrous claim that Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. 46 MILLION people are without health insurance. Those that have coverage are paying more money for less benefit. Is that the “Dream” that King spoke to the nation about?

So I ask you, who’s more like the Nazi’s, Glenn Beck or Hilary Clinton? If the US has a “Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda,” Beck is definitely an officer. He spews rhetoric and propaganda without any kind of moral or intellectual basis for his arguments. In that vein, he reminds me of Lewis Prothero, from “V for Vendetta:”

“Here was a country that had everything, absolutely everything. And now, 20 years later, is what? The world’s biggest leper colony. Why? Godlessness. Let me say that again… Godlessness. It wasn’t the war they started. It wasn’t the plague they created. It was Judgement. No one escapes their past. No one escapes Judgement. You think he’s not up there? You think he’s not watching over this country? How else can you explain it? He tested us, but we came through. We did what we had to do. Islington. Enfield. I was there, I saw it all. Immigrants, Muslims, homosexuals, terrorists. Disease-ridden degenerates. They had to go. Strength through unity. Unity through faith.”

The scary part is that he still has a voice, an audience, a fan base. The election this year gave me hope, hope for change. But as long as assholes like Glenn Beck have a podium at which they can spew this baseless rhetoric around, our country is at risk.

Hillary Clinton is by no means a friend of progressives, but the people like Glenn Beck are definitely the mouthpiece of the enemy.