STAD: Stop Transphobia and Discrimination

The Irish for ‘STOP’ is ‘STAD’.

Transphobic harassment and violence is endemic in Ireland. People are harassed and abused at home, in public, at work, in school and college. But it’s also largely invisible and unreported, and problems that you can’t see are notoriously hard to deal with.

The Transgender Equality Network Ireland (TENI) are doing something about that. Their latest campaign is STAD: Stop Transphobia and Discrimination. STAD’s purpose is to map transphobic hate crime in Ireland. They want to know what is happening, to who, and where.

If you have experienced abuse because of your perceived gender identity or expression, or if you have witnessed someone being abused, let TENI know. It doesn’t matter if the incident was major or (seemingly) minor. Microaggressions matter too, people. TENI need to know about it all, because this is the information that they- and we– can use to create strategies and plans for ending our society’s shameful abuse and brutalisation of its transgender members.

You can report incidents online, over the phone, or on paper. TENI are looking for reports both from victims and witnesses of transphobic abuse. It’s anonymous. It’s safe.

I’m sick and tired of stories of violence. I’m sick and tired of people I love- and people I think are okay, and people I honestly couldn’t stand, and people I’ve never met and never will- being brutalised and shamed and belittled and laughed at and pointed out and ostracised and hurt and killed and driven to mental illness and suicide and pain, because of their gender and how they express it. It’s gone on too damn long. It’s been too damn accepted. It’s got to stop.

Now.

So get off your ass, bookmark STAD and every single time you experience or see transphobic violence? Report it.

 

STAD: Stop Transphobia and Discrimination
{advertisement}

Help Kate Stay Alive

kateb

I’m not American. I don’t tend to throw around words like ‘heroes’ when I speak about the people I admire- it’s a word that seems clunky and ill-fitting to me.

If I did, though, Kate Bornstein would be one of them. Not just for her writing and her work- although those are immensely valuable and important. For who she is. For the genuine interest she takes in the people around her. For her warmth, her openness, and the love and community she embodies. While we don’t agree on absolutely everything- on the other hand, who the hell agrees with someone on everything?- she is one of the most genuinely engaging people I have ever been fortunate enough to meet. I’m immensely privileged to call her a friend.

Kate needs your help.

She’s suffering from lung cancer. It’s treatable. Getting through the treatment and compensating for the money she won’t be earning is going to cost her about $100,000.

Nobody should ever have to look for money for medical treatment. Medicine is a right, damnit. The fact that someone I care about who has given so goddamn much to our community has to ask for help in accessing the  life-saving treatment she needs and keeping a roof over her head when she does it? It is wrong. This shouldn’t be happening. Everyone, whether famous or unknown, rich or poor, admirable or asshole, should be able to get the treatment and support they need without question.

This shouldn’t be happening, but it is.

If you can spare anything- anything, even a couple of eurodollarpounds- please go to her fundraiser and donate what you can. If you can’t spare money, please share and spread the word.

Kate has helped so many of us to stay alive. Please, right now, return the favour.

Help Kate Stay Alive

Bisexuality: Thinking in Opposites

Nicola Moffat is a fourth year PhD candidate in the School of English, University College Cork. If she’s not glued to a screen, you’ll find Nicola stuck in a book or swearing over a pile of unmarked essays. Some of her favourite things are monsters; art; ranty conversations; her nasty cat, George; and going for walks with her other half and her spotty dog, Pepper. She blogs at Monsterivity

I’ve been thinking about sex this week.  A lot.  And that’s not just because it’s Valentine’s day and I’m supposed to be thinking carnally.  I’ve been thinking about the different ways we express ourselves sexually and how we impose limits on those expressions, depending on our views.  This week has also been a learning curve for me where I’ve had to face my own prejudices.

I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve heard people say that Bi doesn’t exist, that you have to be either hetero- or homosexual.  It’s been said, by the way, by people of varying sexualities, not just heteros.  This “either or” rhetoric smacks of something very familiar -you can either be a man or a woman, you can either work or have kids, you can be either emotional or rational . . . how many times have we found ourselves standing just here?

I think in some ways this is why I like being Bi: straddling (if you’ll excuse the pun) this perceived boundary between hetero- and homosexual means that, in some sense, bisexuals break that boundary down and expose the fiction of opposing sexualities.

The rhetoric of “either or” defines by creating oppositions and can therefore be considered a form of patriarchal discourse; in much the same way that patriarchy has defined opposites in men and women, white and black, reason and emotion (ad infinitum), the creation of a hetero/homo binary repeats this opposition, bringing with it the inequalities associated with these binaries.

Casting identities and practices into dichotomized pairs leaves no room for the fluidity of sexuality or creative identity practices, not to mention refusing the possibility of trans* identities and polyamorous relationships.

Can we give up returning to this place?  Can we move on now?

Bisexuality: Thinking in Opposites

We are Jamaicans: Javed Jaghai

There’s this.

Watching this I remember someone I don’t get to remember. When I was a kid, my dad had a best friend who lived in London. I’m told I met him when I was very young. I always heard about him, though.

He was one of the people who had to leave. Ireland didn’t just export its unemployed back then, you know. The undesirables had to go. Remember reading this week about the Magdalene escapees who fled to England?

I don’t remember him because you couldn’t be a gay man dying of AIDS and stay in your home back then. Not where he was from. Not here.

It’s not very long ago, and it sure as hell wasn’t very far away. We don’t get to look at the situation for LGBT people and those who love them in Jamaica and think that it’s somehow far from our own experiences. The changes in Irish society came about so quickly, and they did so because first some, then many of us found the courage to live our lives openly, but there are still thousands of people in this country scared of who they are and of what their communities will think of them. We’re not so different, even now.

So let’s not look at videos like this and pat ourselves on the back. Let’s look at these and remember that we’ve a lot of work to do, in every part of the world, before we’ve seen the last person growing up and being rejected for who they are and who they love.

 

We are Jamaicans: Javed Jaghai

The Tea Cosy’s nominated for a GALA! THIS IS EXTREMELY EXCITING!

Any of you who’ve been around me for the past few days may have noticed a certain.. increase in cheerfulness in my demeanour. Almost like I knew something absolutely brilliant that I had to sit on for a few days. Like there was something I was itching to tell you all.

There was! To my absolute incredulity, Consider the Tea Cosy has been shortlisted for this year’s GALA ONLINE Award for Website/Blogger of the Year. Some of you sneaky feckers went and nominated me behind my back, didn’t you?

For those of you who aren’t aware of the GALAs, it stands for the Gay And Lesbian Awards. They’re the annual awards of the Irish National Gay and Lesbian Federation, set up, as the NGLF say, “to honour lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender people and organisations for their contributions to Irish society”.

Well.. shucks. I’ll be over here turning cherry-red, muttering something about how you shouldn’t have and hoping someone puts the kettle on before I go into full-on babble mode. To say I’m flattered, honoured, and utterly flabbergasted would be quite the understatement.

I’m in some pretty damn illustrious company- in my own category with GLEN (the Gay and Lesbian Equality Network) and my fellow Corkonians and one of my old haunts GayCork.com, and in the awards as a whole with, oh, absolutely everybody. I can think of far, far worse ways to spend your evening than by looking up every last one of ’em.

The Tea Cosy’s nominated for a GALA! THIS IS EXTREMELY EXCITING!

Don’t Call Me Bisexual: another oldie

This was originally posted back in 2010. I came across it as I was looking for my old civil partnerships video, and figured I’d give it an airing. Enjoy!

 

Don’t call me bisexual.

Seriously, don’t. Call me bi, call me queer, you can even call me by my name if you really want to. But I don’t like being called bisexual.

I’m happy to be open about my orientation. As long as I’m in a relatively safe situation- nobody going to actually harm me- my preference is to be out. It prevents some misunderstandings and misconceptions, it’s an important part of my self and my history, and it’s good for people to know that they know someone who’s queer. Being out is also a very handy asshole filtration system, sparing hours to months of wasted time spent with people to turn out to be small minded bigots. Not to mention the fact that, if I happen to be interested in meeting someone or getting to know them a little better, having the orientation thing worked out as early as possible makes things run a lot smoother than they otherwise would. I recommend it to practically everyone, really I do.

Sexuality ≠ sex

One of the profoundly irritating things about being open about one’s orientation, as I’m sure some of you know all too well, is the assumption that coming out involves a revelation about one’s sex life. That if I come out I’ve shared something personal, even intimate, and that coming out opens a window to all sorts of juicy conversations and details.

It really doesn’t. Think about it this way: if you and I are strangers, and then we meet, it is likely that you’ll* assume that I’m straight. We live in a heteronormative society. Most people assume that most other people are straight. So we’ve met, and you have, consciously or unconsciously, assumed that I am only interested in sexual or romantic relationships with men.

If I tell you that I’m bi, you know less about what (who?) I do than you did before. You’ve lost the only point of information you thought you had. I tell you that I’m bi, then you know absolutely nothing about my sex life*. And that is just fine by me.

You see, I don’t want to talk about my sex life in public. I really don’t. Maybe someday I’ll change my mind about this one, but right now it would feel highly unpleasant, a violation of something very personal and important, which I want to keep between me and Relevant Others**. I like to keep my private life private.

Being ‘out’ doesn’t tell you about my personal life. It doesn’t tell you about who I am or am not involved with, it doesn’t tell you anything about my likes or dislikes. It doesn’t tell you anything about kinks and turn-ons. It doesn’t tell you anything about the kinds of relationships I like to be in. It doesn’t even tell you anything particularly meaningful about the type of people I’m attracted to. All it says anything about is that if you do find out about any of that stuff in the future, or even if I happen to mention someone I’m involved with, you can’t be guaranteed a ‘he’.

Language and homophobes

Have you ever noticed that whenever homophobes are talking about LGBT people, that can’t stop referring to us as ‘homosexuals’? You’d rarely hear an ‘LGBT people’, or even a ‘gay and lesbian’***. You might hear a ‘queer’, but you can bet it has nothing to do with queer theory. You might also have noticed that homophobic types tend to be rather preoccupied with queer people’s (feverishly) imagined sex lives. It’s always all ‘sodomy’ this and ‘lifestyle’ that.

This isn’t necessarily a coincidence. I read an article from the New York Times last week which touched on this topic. This article references a February CBS/New York Times news poll, where

half of the respondents were asked if they favored letting “gay men and lesbians” serve in the military (which is still more than 85 percent male), and the other half were asked if they favored letting “homosexuals” serve. Those who got the “homosexual” question favored it at a rate that was 11 percentage points lower than those who got the “gay men and lesbians” question.

Part of the difference may be that “homosexual” is a bigger, more clinical word freighted with a lot of historical baggage. But just as likely is that the inclusion of the root word “sex” still raises an aversive response to the idea of, how shall I say, the architectural issues between two men. It is the point at which support for basic human rights cleaves from endorsement of behavior.

This makes sense, if you think about it. Just like I don’t want everybody knowing details about my sex life, I don’t want to know the details of theirs. I’m quite profoundly lacking in attraction to the vast majority of people. While on a theoretical level I hope that everyone’s having a marvellous time with people who are having a marvellous time back at them, I really don’t want to know the details. If we don’t want to know about the sex lives of strangers- particularly strangers whose sex lives are personally unappealing to ourselves- then we are less likely to feel positively towards them if every time we refer to them, the word we use to do so is, quite literally, full of sex. I’d like to get away from that.

Would you like a stereotype?

All of this is, for me, closely related to prevailing stereotypes about those of us who are attracted to people of more than one gender. There’s the ones where you’re confused and can’t make up your mind, the ones where you’re flighty and immature. There’s the ones where you’ll sleep with anything that moves. The ones where you’re untrustworthy and bound to cheat on your partner with someone of another gender. Where you can’t be trusted.

A lot of this is about our sex lives- or, to be more specific, about the preconceptions that people have about our sex lives. It’s assumed (by some!) that any bi person in a relationship with another person will be tortured with desires and fantasies about people of another sex until we just can’t help ourselves. That, despite this, we don’t know our desires and that we’ll eventually settle down into one ‘side’ or the other. Even that our orientation as a whole can be determined from a quick glance at our most recent, or current, partner(s).

I know that no single word can completely eradicate biphobia and stereotyping. I also know that it is not my responsibility to single-handedly change the minds of every biphobe and homophobe out there- that’s up to them. And I know that I could be seen to be coming perilously close to blaming members of an oppressed group for the actions of oppressors. This is not what I mean to do. I do not blame anyone for choosing to identify themselves as ‘bisexual’. It’s a legitimate word, and identifying that way in no way absolves anyone from acting in a discriminatory way.

However, I do retain the right to want to make my life just that little bit more smoothly.

Back to me. Because that’s what it’s all about, isn’t it?

So say ‘bi’, if you like. It’s not ideal- it implies that I have two sexualities, for one thing, which is a bit bizarre. But it gets the point across, it’s a word everyone knows the meaning of, and it’s far less likely to get you thinking about my sex life. Or you can say ‘queer’. I like ‘queer’, but I’m well aware that it’s quite the loaded term for many people, so I prefer to use it only when I’m sure people will understand my meaning, and not find it offensive or triggering. Or you can say that I’m not too picky when it comes to gender****. I don’t mind, I’m not fussy. Just don’t call me bisexual.

 

*Bar the fact that I most certainly hope that you are assuming that it includes consenting adults.

**And whoever I happen to be talking to after a few margaritas. Random drunk people are relevant, right? Right?

***Not that I’d know anything about that. Nothing to do with me, them Gays And Lesbians. Entirely different category over here. Although I do have quite a similar lifestyle to many of my gay friends, so it is possible that all of us, straight people included, are Living A Homosexual Lifestyle.

****I am, actually. In my own way. But if you want to find out more about that, you’d best start making up the margaritas.

 

What do you think? Do you think that the 2010 version of me was on the mark with this one? How’d you feel about the oversexualisation of queer identities? If you’re someone who fancies people of more than one gender (high five!), how do you prefer to identify and why?

Don’t Call Me Bisexual: another oldie

An oldie on civil partnerships

As you read this, I’m off learning how to drive bikes around Kildare for the day. If you’re in Kildare, you’ll be able to recognise me by the giant L plate on my jacket (classy!) and the look of sheer terror on my face every time my instructor makes me go past 40kph.

Since I’ve been talking about marriage a lot lately, and in recognition of the fact that the UK and France are both planning on bringing in equality while Ireland drags its feet and files its nails, here’s a video I made back when Ireland first brought in civil partnerships. You get to hear my thoughts on the matter AND see three-years-ago me. Bonus!

An oldie on civil partnerships

Marriage and the Homos: I get comments

I woke up this morning to the following comment in my mod queue:

A true cynic will criticize everyone, both the majority and the minority. I oppose homosexuality, and I blame heterosexuals for promoting it implicitly by their own increasingly pleasure-seeking sexual activity.

http://agalltyr.wordpress.com/2013/01/16/gay-marriage-is-bad-for-society-and-so-are-condoms-and-porn/

To have a meaningful life, do not seek pleasure. Instead seek meaning and purpose. Homosexuality, like many forms of heterosexuality, has no real purpose.

While this comment is ridiculous and the blog the commenter links to even more so, I would like to engage with some of the ideas he brings up

Seeking Pleasure and Meaning

Matthew’s accusation towards us queermos (and a lot of you straight people out there!) is that we get into relationships for no good reason other than pleasure.

Guilty as charged.

While my relationship with the Ladyfriend brings many wonderful things into my life, the primary reason that I’m with her? Happiness. She makes me smile the kind of smile that feels like it goes past my face and under my ribs all the way to my frickin’ toes. Everything else stems from that. I work on our relationship, through our differences, to be the best partner I can be because being around her makes me really, really happy.

And y’know what? That’s precisely the same reason that straight people do exactly the same thing. We make each other happy. Happiness and pleasure aren’t different to meaning- they’re part of meaning. Sharing pleasure, joy and fulfilment are a huge part of what makes our lives meaningful. Following the things which bring you most joy is, in my view, one of the best ways to figure out what your life should mean.

No real purpose?

Matthew would have us think that homosexuality is purposeless, as is, I assume, any hetero relationship that doesn’t involve children.

Take a moment. Think about the people you love. Think about the ways they enrich your life. How they encourage you to follow your dreams. How you are inspired to be a better person by their example and presence. How much learning is involved in sharing your life with others. The ways that you help each other through hard times and share your happinesses. All of the innumerable ways in which the people you love make your life a hell of a lot better than it otherwise could ever be.

That’s purpose. That’s what our relationships are for– they’re an end in themselves. The good things about relationships are, well, the good things about relationships. If Matthew has never had a loved one support him through a tough time, or phoned up someone to share good news, or kicked back with a friend to enjoy a hobby, then I feel sorry for him. If he has, though, then he knows full well that relationships are important just as they are.

Marriage and the Homos: I get comments

Responding to Alive

I received a comment in response to my post last week on Alive! Gay Pro Life Network from Andrew, who says that he’s one of the people behind AliveGPN. In the interests of clarity I’ve decided to re-post and respond to his comment, and the other interactions I’ve been having with AliveGPN, here. For clarity and to distinguish from other sources, quotes from Andrew are in Times New Roman.

Who are Alive GPN?

Hello friends. I’m one of the individuals behind Alive GPN. Some other gay friends and I who happen to be pro-life have become frustrated with our lack of representation within the LGBT community. We think human rights begin when life begins. So we decided to make a blog and a Twitter to give voice to some of these issues.

Yes, I’m gay. And yes, I happen to be male. So naturally, my perspective on gays and the pro-life movement will reflect my background. Everyone regardless of gender or sexual orientation should be able to speak out on such an important human rights issue.

Of course your perspective will reflect your background. However, a particular background is no excuse for erasing the experiences and existence of those other than you- namely, in your case, the female, trans*, nonbinary and nonmonosexual members of the LGBT community you claim to represent. If you had set Alive up as your personal blog there would be no problem. However, on your Twitter account you describe yourself as: “Alive! Gay Pro-Life Network- bringing together LGBT Americans in support of the right to life.”

This contradiction bothers me. You advertise yourself first as a ‘network’ that ‘brings together LGBT Americans’. Then you backtrack from this, saying that you are, in fact, a group of friends. Then you backtrack further and state that the reason that nobody but cis gay men are regularly mentioned in your blog is because you are one. Which is it, Andrew?

By the way, none of these things- being a network of LGBT Americans, a group of friends, or an individual- are illegitimate. They’re all perfectly valid ways to conduct your business online or offline. However, if you’re going to enter into discourse in good faith then it is your responsibility to give others reason to believe that you are who you say you are. There’s a reason I’m having this conversation with you and not, say, PLAGAL. PLAGAL are clear about who they are and take responsibility and ownership for what they do. I see no evidence that you have done the same.

I want, however, to return for a minute to your assertion that being a cis gay man means that you get to ignore the rest of your community without consequence. Sure, cis gay men get to have perspectives on any issues you please. However, those of us whom an issue directly affects- the cis women, nonbinary people and trans* men who have uteruses and are fertile- are entitled to question you. Our bodies are the site of the consequences of your opinions. Savita Halappanavar and Bimbo Onanuga were not cis gay men. They were women and their agonising deaths could have been easily prevented were it not for anti abortion laws in my country. The women of Termination for Medical Reasons are not cis gay men. The undignified and callous way in which their trauma is intensified could easily be prevented were it not for anti abortion laws in my country, too.

But I’m not here to talk about why I support abortion accessibility. I’m here to talk about my questions regarding you as an organisation. If you are a group of friends who represent cis gay men who are anti abortion, why not say so? Why claim to be something else?

Queerness and Language

The language used was not intended to offend anyone. I personally despise the word “queer” so I don’t use it in writing or in my personal discourse. That’s just me.

That’s an legitimate perspective. Thank you. I don’t want to press this one, as I know that ‘queer’ is a word that in some contexts continues to be used violently against people, and that it is contentious. However, as someone who identifies as queer, I’d have (more) concerns as to your erasure of people like me. How do you refer to people who identify as queer? Or, say, Queer Studies departments in universities?

Also, you don’t seem to have a problem with the word when it (seems to) suit your agenda.

Bullying

As someone who of course encountered anti-gay bullying in school, my intent was never to diminish the tragedy that continues to take place. The point was merely to note we have taken steps as a society to address the issue with new anti-bullying laws, awareness campaigns, etc. Yet unborn children do not have protection under the law when faced with the violence of abortion. Both are wrongs that must be ended in our society.

I have a lot that I could say on your view that abortion can be compared with homophobia. However, my intent with this post isn’t to discuss our views on abortion- there’s no question that we disagree strongly- but to raise my concerns regarding AliveGPN as a group. I’m happy to discuss abortion at a later date.

Instead, let’s go back to that Twitter account description: “Alive! Gay Pro-Life Network- bringing together LGBT Americans in support of the right to life”. If you are a network of LGBT Americans, as well as people who condemn homophobia and anti-gay bullying as strongly as you do those who provide necessary medical care to pregnant people, then why did Geoff find that these were the top non-abortion-related accounts also followed by your followers?

Pontifex, the Pope‘s English account, comes above all others. He has described those who do not share my exclusive fetish for the opposite sex as objectively disordered and having a “strong tendency ordered towards an inherent moral evil.

Paul Ryan repeats his election trick of coming second, despite campaigning tirelessly against marriage equality, adoption rights, and military career options for the LGBTQ community.

Mitt Romney trails Ryan considerably, both in homophobia and ranking, managing only to oppose marriage equality and unduly inconvenience children raised by same sex couples.

Michelle Malkin follows, her energies devoted to countering marriage equality.

The gender balance is further improved by the addition of Alveda King, who opines that “Homosexuality cannot be elevated to the civil rights issue. The civil rights movement was born from the Bible. God hates homosexuality“. 

Ann Coulter is perhaps included because she feels thatmarriage is not a civil right [for the LGBTQ community]”, or that she can “talk gays out of gay marriage”, or perhaps because she opposes sex education that may teach children about the “homosexual lifestyle”. She makes my job easier by issuing all quotes at a talk to gay conservatives.

If you are, as you say in your name, a network of LGBT Americans, and as you say to me, someone who is deeply concerned with anti-gay (pity about the LBTQIA folks, I guess) bullying, then why on earth do you associate with people who encourage and commit bullying against our community? What kind of real-live network of LGBT people overwhelmingly follows those who have made careers out of destroying our rights and our lives? Anti-gay bullying isn’t, as you say, a mere tragedy. It’s a travesty. And your so-called network is overwhelmingly made up of people who commit that travesty. You can say as much as you like that your “intent was never to diminish the tragedy that continues to take place”. Your actions, and your refusal to condemn homophobic organisations, say otherwise.

You could argue- and probably will- that you don’t get to control who follows you. Fair point. However, if you are being followed by homophobes then why aren’t you engaging with them? If you have an audience of people willing to listen to you and opposed to LGBTQ equality, when why aren’t you putting as much effort into winning them over to support your rights as you are into taking away the rights of pregnant people?

Finally..

If anyone shares our pro-life position and would like to offer their perspective, I would certainly welcome it! We all have full-time jobs and this is just a side-project for us so we’ll certainly welcome any assistance in building and improving it.

Feel free to email me: [email protected].

Y’know, I think you might have better luck with someone like PLAGAL than the Tea Cosy if what you want is help building your website! But thank you for engaging with me.

Right, Tea Cosiers! What do you think? Have you any questions for Andrew? Is there something I’ve missed? Am I being unfair? Am I being too damn nice? Let me know!

Responding to Alive

Every Equal Marriage Debate Ever

So I promised myself I’d take weekends off from blogging from now on. I think if it’s ever going to work I’m gonna have to lock myself away from all kinds of news and media from midday Friday until Monday morning, because I just can’t seem to keep away.

I’m always amazed when I watch debates between marriage equality advocates and opponents.

What happens, you see, is that you have an opponent claiming that marriage must be kept solely between people of different legal genders in order to protect children.

Then, inevitably, a parent raising kids in a same-sex partnership and an adult who was raised by two mums or two dads talk about their experiences of having done just fine, thank you very much, except for having their kids/parent considered a legal stranger to them.

Opponents ignore these people standing in front of them and rattle on about complementarity without actually mentioning what precisely is to be complemented, while waving discredited studies about.

Advocates come back with actual statistics regarding those studies and go into precisely why they were discredited.

An opponent tells everyone that the problem is that we’re all getting far too over-emotional and can’t we just look at this logically and dispassionately and decide that men and women are the only people who can get married without all those pesky ‘feelings’ getting in the way.

Then, in a moment that had me wanting to get up from my sofa and clap wildly, George Hook comes in all guns blazing like the legend that he is: “How can Gerry Fahy say that I’m emotional about the greatest emotion of all- love? Of course I’m emotional about love! It’s an emotional thing! And you can’t expect like.. if Ingrid thought for a moment that at any point in the last forty years I wasn’t emotional about her, she’d show me the door!”

It was a beautiful thing.

If you fancy seeing anti-equality “forces” getting trounced on national TV- and let’s face it, who doesn’t- hop over to the Late Late and start at 1:17. I’m sorry that I can’t seem to embed it- if anyone knows if/how to get RTE vids embedded, let me know!

Every Equal Marriage Debate Ever