The New Hampshire Situation

[phoenixvtam.livejournal.com]

Okay, let's review what happened.

The Human Rights Campaign, an organization with a history of both directly and indirectly working against trans rights in order to secure gay rights, secured the passage of H.B. 436 by arranging for H.B. 415 to be unanimously declared Inexpedient to Legislate. That means H.B. 415 is not just "dead" but cannot be brought back until a new legislature is elected. Had the HRC had not intervened, it is likely that both H.B. 436 and H.B. 415 would have passed, albiet by very narrow margins. But just as with ENDA two years ago, HRC felt that it was acceptable to guarantee the failure of transgender rights in order to increase the probability of gay rights.

What makes this especially awful is that 415 was a matter of life and death for transgender citizens, whereas 436 was little more than a "vanity upgrade" for gays since they already benefited from one of the broadest same-sex civil union laws in the world. While I do in fact agree that civil unions are inherently unequal and that gays have a right to marriage, it is absolutely outrageous to sacrifice rights which are absolutely crucial for the survival of the transgender community in order to secure distinctly non-critical rights for the gay community. Gays have no legitimate right to demand that same-sex marriage be prioritized over basic transgender rights, especially in cases where civil unions already provide them with all of the legal benefits of marriage.

Let me make this very clear. If HRC had not been involved, I would have supported 436 whether or not 415 passed. The reason I now oppose 436 and want it to be vetoed is not that gay rights passed and trans rights didn't, but that HRC has once again committed "treasonne most foule" by stabbing the transgender community in the back. We have not only the right but the responsibility to retaliate, because if we do not then we are sending a clear message that this is acceptable behavior.

Many gays and gay allies have argued that it is unfair for transgender citizens to oppose same-sex marriage regardless of the "unfortunate" circumstances, because it penalizes gays and lesbians who had nothing to do with HRC's treachery. This is an argument based on pure selfishness and not inconsiderable internalized transphobia, and as such really does not deserve a civil response. But I will forbear.

The current situation with H.B. 436 is analogous to cases in which a third party has purchased stolen goods. Even though the third party is innocent of the crime of theft, he or she has no legitimate title to those goods. It does not matter how much the third party paid for them or how much the third party needs them, they must be returned to the rightful owner. Possession of stolen goods is, in fact, a federal offence; anyone who knowingly possesses stolen goods is considered an accomplice to the original theft, and anyone who unknowingly possesses stolen goods is legally required to return them once notified by the police.

The message we need to be sending is this: You have no right to H.B. 436, because it was passed by stealing H.B. 415 from the transgender community. This is entirely HRC's fault, and you cannot blame transgender citizens for exercising the legal and moral right to defend themselves against this.