Remember Donna Milo, the Cuban transwoman who’s running as a Republican Congress? She believes marriage should be between “a man and a woman” and that her “triumphs are based on [her] abilities, not on a label or a crutch.” That’s nice, except that the crutches she’s supposedly never used are the same ones that allowed her to become a US citizen, get married and have kids.
According to Milo’s website she was born in Cuba in the early 1960s and came to America at age three. As such, she benefited from the 1966 Cuban Adjustment Act which changed the legal status of Cuban immigrants to grant them “permanent resident status” with access to legal work, medical care, government welfare, and unemployment benefits. So Milo’s right; she didn’t depend on a crutch so much as a automatic wheelchair.
Furthermore Milo married her sweetheart (a woman) at age 19 and had two kids. That means that Milo—who transitioned from male-to-female via surgery sometime after becoming a spouse and parent—considered herself a woman when she married her wife; that is, she got gay married, something she’s now against. Ironically, if Milo tried to remarry Florida courts wouldn’t allow her to marry a man because they only take into account your biological gender at birth. So if Ms. Milo wanted to remarry in Florida, she’d have to marry a woman—gay marriage, something she’s against.
It’s important to point out this hilarious contradiction because it highlights what makes Milo such a horrible candidate for Congress. She’s a teabaggy mix of Conservative contradictions who supports ENDA (because her trans-ass could be fired from Congress with no legal recourse otherwise) but is against giving LGBTs other marriage and parental rights. She’s benefited from the same sorts of entitlements she’s now against and that glaring oversight makes her not only a poor congressional candidate, but one who would work hard to make sure none of us ever get married or have kids. Even though she got to do both.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS
I love the teabaggers!!! They keep propping up asshats like this vile crunt and Rand Paul and we won’t lose a single election this fall……….They are under the misconception that the electorates disgust with the clusterfuck of gridluck and partisanship that is DC a desire for extreme rightwing lunatics to take charge………She and Rand Paul are clearly pining for the “traditional family values” of the 1950’s…..Why stop at preventing the Gays from marrying? Paul’s ode to the nostalgia of the pre civil rights days would include preventing Blacks from marrying whom they chose…………..
whatever
“As such, she benefited from the 1966 Cuban Adjustment Act which changed the legal status of Cuban immigrants to grant them “permanent resident status” with access to legal work, medical care, government welfare, and unemployment benefits. So Milo’s right; she didn’t depend on a crutch so much as a automatic wheelchair.”
Zing! Are there new eds at queerty? This is actually really good writing.
Samwise
WOW. When I first heard about her, I just sort of assumed that she was one of those socially liberal/economically conservative types who identified as Republican basically out of force of habit. But knowing that she opposes gay marriage… Christ. This is so typical of conservatives: they’ll change their minds only on issues that effect THEM personally and no one else. What selfishness.
James_In_Cambridge
Another Republican hypocrite? It must be Monday…
Hilarious
The keyword here being FLORIDA. Enough said.
If you’ve ever lived in that state for any amount of time you’ll see most of the Floridian population is ridiculously stupid. I ran away screaming after four months.
Matt
Does anyone remember on South Park when Mr. Garrison had a sex change in order to maintain heteronormativity, yet was still very homophobic? Yeah … meet Mr. Garrison’s real life counterpart.
Mike L.
@Matt: lol yeah
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wVszBNbgj0
^^^Mr Garrison going apepoop b/c her ex wants to get gay married to a his new lover.
Mike
@Matt:
LMFAO That’s what I was thinking while reading this! haha
It’s Mr./Mrs.Garrison!
Missanthrope
She has really vile views and is an embarrassment to other trans people. But do you guys really have to attack her based on her trans status? The slur that “trans people hold up heteronormative values” has been used against us for a long time and it’s fucked up.
tjr101
This is too funny. What a confused and tortured individual she is. Milo is definitely in the right party.
Mike L.
@Missanthrope: It’s not directed at YOU or any other trans ally, it’s directed specifically at this vile btch who does support heteronormative values with no regard or respect for the fights that LGBT ppl have gone through and are still going through which makes it possible for her to try and ascend to the political position she’s trying to ascend to and not feel as threated as she would have been pre stonewall(not that she’ll succeed, everything that comes out of her mouth is full of contradictions with regards to her political views).
Really listen to her interview, don’t just rely on what’s been written in this Q article, you’ll be made much aware of why she’s not liked.
Again listen to the interview you will not be happy with how she articulates (or the opposite) her views and whether they make sense.
Matt
@Missanthrope
There’s a big difference between the statement that trans people maintain heteronormative values (which I do not agree with), and stating that Donna Milo is. First, the former argument is regarding the trans men and womens’ gender-identification being fixed and not fluid. The latter is about one politician’s opposition to gay marriage, presumably because she believes marriage should be only between men and women. I didn’t claim her gender was holding up heteronormativity, but that her opposition to gay marriage is. It’s a rather heteronormative opposition to hold, don’t you think? And it’s rather hypocritical of her to do so. That’s why the reference to Mr. Garrison was brought up, because he was a hypocrite very similar to Donna Milo. So, while I am sorry that you were offended, you’re wrong to say she was being attacked on the basis of her trans status in this circumstance.
Matt
Pardon all the grammar issues in that.
Mike in Asheville, nee "in Brooklyn"
NEWS FLASH! THIS JUST IN:
POLITICIANS ARE WHORES. Details at 11.
[Okay, I stole this one from a post on Joe.My.God. regarding a black teabagger also running for Congress.]
Mike in Asheville, nee "in Brooklyn"
Or, how about this one, my own:
NEWS FLASH! THIS JUST IN:
DICK BECOMES TWAT; details at 11.
Mike L.
@Mike L.: Darn forgot to check if the interview was linked in the story.
Here:
http://www.signorile.com/2010/05/donna-milo-marriage-is-between-man-and.html
RealEyesRealize
What’s funny is that I’ve actually heard Donna speak about the issue, and as a matter of fact, she never said she was completely opposing the idea. The GLBT community is so obsessed with acceptance they fail to realize that marriage is a RELIGIOUS sacrament. Many RELIGIONS do NOT believe in GAY MARRIAGE, so why on this green earth would you push to want something that doesn’t want you?
What Donna is for is CIVIL UNIONS, but you were to IGNORANT of a person to include that in your story because you are too fixated and upset that she isn’t the typical GLBT person.
Yeah, she was once married to a woman, but she was a MAN at the time, which obviously made it a hetero-sexual relationship. Donna was long since divorced when she underwent her reassignment surgery. Just a little FYI.
Donna is absolutely for partners being able to “marry” through the court system, but she thinks it’s not something that the state and religion should combine.
Get your facts together and straight so that your writing could possibly be perceived as QUALITY instead of an angry pity party.
-An INFORMED reader
Mike L.
@RealEyesRealize: Separation of church and state, we want civil marriages recognized by the gov.
Screw the churches, they can keep hating thats the beauty of it all.
The gov doesn’t discriminate against it’s gay and lesbian citizens but it does NOT force the church to have to recognize gay marriages that’s up to the religious denominations, but to have religion dictate who the government will treat equally under the law, under the supreme law of the land the US Constitution (NOT the bible) is just overreaching by the religious right.
Keep your church out of my civil rights.
Mike L.
@Mike L.: Meant to say “…The gov ‘Shouldn’t’ discriminate…”
Not “doesn’t” b/c it currently does.
Truth B. Told
First of all, No. 17 “RealEyesRealize”, marriage rights are NOT dependent upon Voodoo rites or any type of Abrahamic shamanistic bone-rattling and waving of incense superstitious cabal in order to be codified or legal — the later is an optional tribalistic ritual for those who are so inclined — it has no force of law.
But your last paragraph does show a little sense – Marriage is not “something that the state and religion should combine” – as you put it. But that contrasts with your “Rand Paulistic” segregationist alternative of “Civil Unions” for gays and lesbians, opposed to full marriage for heterosexuals, which is just plain ridiculous because that train has already left the station.
The tens of thousands of already legally married Gays and Lesbians will not turn in their marriage licenses for the equivalent of a state-sponsored disenfranchising equivalent of a “homos need not apply sign” pinned to their most intimate and loving relationships. You make dehumanizing and dangerous distinctions where none should exists.
missanthrope
@ Matt and Mike:
You’re probably right, she is holding up heteronormative values as an individual. I’m probably a little knee-jerky in my reponse because I’ve already seen people use this bitch as “proof that trans people aren’t with LGB’s” on the internet, which is bullshit, I know you’re not saying that. I apologize.
Zed
I emailed her to express my distaste for her hatred turned into politics. She, or someone on her staff, replied to say she believes in the separation of marriage from government. While she did say she doesn’t believe in gay marriage, that’s because she believes marriage should be a religious thing only, and that all committed couples should have the same benefits under the law.
Of course, she and her staff are inclined to tell me what she knows I want to hear…Still, it’s possible the queerty misunderstood the interview and she is being honest with me. Let’s hope the latter is true, since it is far less depressing in case she does wind up in office.
jeffree
The Prop 8 trial showed convincingly that there are no valid economic/ psychologic/ sociologic arguments (etc.) against same sex marriage. So, the arguments against SSM are based in religion.
LGs want the full package of rights/ responsibilities of marriage (taxes/ adoption/ inheritance. Etc.)
The issue at stake are the RIGHTS not the church blessing. European countries who have approved of SSM separate the civil & religious components.
Ms Milo’s own adopted state of Florida would not allow adoption or marriage by a same sex couple, and her home nation of Cuba denies LGBT rights and fights against religion.
Now she needs to take a stand: is she wanting 2 impose Cuban standards in the US? Is she willing to adopt separation of church & state to allow same sex couples to attain all the benefits of civil marriage?
Greg G.
It shows that trans issues are separate from gays.
I think the T should be taken out as it is a different cause from ours. If people like that don’t want to appreciate all that WE’VE done for them (blanketing them under LGBT) and benefited from our struggles, then let them.
OnCloud9
Go Donna Go woo hoo!
Mike L.
@Zed: It doesn’t matter you know why, b/c not in our lifetimes will the gov separate religious marraiges from civil marriages. It would be a bigger fight I think than gay marraige. Libertarian views are just way far to the right even for the non-religious right. Those views cannot make it in reality take for example Rand Paul’s interview w Rachel Maddow.
Mike L.
@Greg G.: SO just b/c of some indivuduals like her who will always be there (there are gays against gay marraige too believe me I’ve met some) we should just dump a whole group of ppl that are discriminated against b/c of heterosexism and heteronormativism same reason we are discriminated, we may know there is a diference between sexual orientation and gender identity but to the straight cisgendered homophobe we are all a bunch of Fags, see they don’t differentiate and even if they did it would not be right to leave our T brothers and sisters behind like countless other minorities leave us. Don’t judge a whole group of ppl b/c of one rotten-and conflicted-apple.
Jessica Sideways
*sigh* I cannot understand why ANYONE on the LGBT spectrum would be willing to run as a Republican. Isn’t that self-defeating?
stingr
What a cunt. Fuck her and her fake vigina. I hope she dies a slow painful death, in her country, CUBA. Get the fuck out of the US you lowlife trannie.
Donna Milo
Certain individuals twisting my words and views on marriage with malicious intent and using the Internet to spread these falsehoods for political reasons have bothered me for some time.
I want to make my position absolutely clear.
I support the separation of church and state 100% as the founders of this country intended. That said I view marriage as a religious sacrament that is to be performed and regulated by churches, mosque, temples or any other type of house of worship not by governments. Governments can and should enforce contracts between cognizant and consenting adults, regardless of their gender or sexual orientation.
Therefore churches if they so wish can perform ceremonies and recognize marriages between individuals regardless of their gender without any interference from the government and governments should validate and enforce contracts between individuals whether they are called domestic partnerships or civil unions also disregarding the particular gender of the respective parties.
In any relationship love and understanding are the most important elements (though sometimes patience greatly helps) regardless of the gender of the partners or their sexual preference.
Donna Milo
@jeffree: Certain individuals twisting my words and views on marriage with malicious intent and using the Internet to spread these falsehoods for political reasons have bothered me for some time.
I want to make my position absolutely clear.
I support the separation of church and state 100% as the founders of this country intended. That said I view marriage as a religious sacrament that is to be performed and regulated by churches, mosque, temples or any other type of house of worship not by governments. Governments can and should enforce contracts between cognizant and consenting adults, regardless of their gender or sexual orientation.
Therefore churches if they so wish can perform ceremonies and recognize marriages between individuals regardless of their gender without any interference from the government and governments should validate and enforce contracts between individuals whether they are called domestic partnerships or civil unions also disregarding the particular gender of the respective parties.
In any relationship love and understanding are the most important elements (though sometimes patience greatly helps) regardless of the gender of the partners or their sexual preference.
Martha Juste
Hilarious i beleive that cubans and cuban americans are the biggest pieces of shit god ever created. Every single one of them is a hippocrite and this faggot is just another example of how they act self righteous but are really the devil in disguise. to quote the bible if a man acts like a woman he is an abomination to god. TS Fags.