Who Was Behind Pulling the Vote on Marriage Equality in MD?

You probably won't be surprised.

HRC and SLDN

UPDATE: The demise of the WashBlade today (Monday, Nov. 16) means the Blade link doesn't work.

Good news -- Barney Frank says DADT may be repealed in 2010, according to an article in the Washington Blade.

But if you wonder why much of our agenda has languished in Congress over the past decade, two quotes shed light on our time spent wondering in the wilderness.

On the question of the timing of DADT repeal, first we have HRC:

"Asked about Frank’s prediction for the repeal strategy, Allison Herwitt, legislative director for the Human Rights Campaign, said her organization 'always takes its cues from its congressional allies.'"

Check. We wait for "cues" from the folks who are supposed to represent us about when they will act to end injustice against us. Got it.

Now, let's throw it over to Kevin Nix, spokesperson for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network:

"Nix also said SLDN is urging President Obama to include repeal as part of his defense budget request, which is expected to be delivered to Congress early next year."

Wait. What? SLDN is "urging" action by the government on our behalf? Actually "urging?" Not waiting for "cues" before asking on bended knee to stop injustice against us? You mean they're not letting others tell us "When we say so, and not before that?"

How impatient of them! Hopefully, someday they will cease being political novices and fall in line with the establishment. Then they will stop rocking the boat and making our "Congressional allies" queasy from having to actually follow through on the promises they made to us when they took our money and our votes.

Meanwhile, let's sit here on our hands and hope the "cues" will come soon.

HRC Wakes Up

A well done letter from HRC taking Obama to task for the anti-gay DOJ court brief.

Just remember, Joe -- accept action, not words.

(Michael, where are you...I've been expecting you to pop up here and say "told ya so!")

HRC, Obama and the Gays

I think John Aravosis has a compelling interpretation of the HRC/Obama "agenda setting" flap, particularly this:

"Many of us have been worried that the Obama administration might be trying to Sista Souljah the gays (i.e., distance themselves from the gays to show just how independent, how "new Democrat," they really are). The irony is that the embattled lead gay groups, in order to survive in an increasingly angry post-Prop-8, and increasingly expectant post-MA-NH-VT-IA-ME-CT, world, may end up having to Sista Souljah Obama in order to regain credibility in the eyes of their own members. And if that happens, I can't name a single Democrat (or Republican for that matter) in recent memory who's been on the receiving end of our ire and walked away unscathed."

As President Obama has to be careful not to be too far in front of public opinion. But he also must not get trampled in its wake.

Did HRC Throw Gay Service Members Under the Bus?

Sean Bugg provides info and links to the breaking news that HRC made a "deal" with the White House to put off repealing DADT in favor of ENDA and Hate Crimes legislation.

Progressives in the White House

The Obamas invited a group of "progressives" over to the White House the other night (seriously, how do we come up with these labels?). The point? to ask for help. According to this account:

"The gist was, `We’re gonna need people out there telling the story of the stimulus and telling the story about how much we need big health care reform and clean energy and green jobs,’” the attendee says.

Among those on the guest list: Labor leaders Jimmy Hoffa, Gerry McEntee and Andy Stern; MoveOn’s Eli Pariser; Sierra Club’s Carl Pope; Planned Parenthood’s Cecile Richardson; and Joe Solomonese of the Human Rights Campaign."

Joe Solomonese of the Human Rights Campaign?

Well, kudos to Joe HRC and good for the community that he was part of that group.

But Joe, you do remember that HRC exists to advance gay rights, not health care reform and green jobs, right? I mean, I understand how we need to help the President get what he wants in a you scratch my back kinda world, but at some point, you are going to say, "Mr. President, we're happy to support you, but we need some indication -- action, even -- to show that you are putting a priority to fulfilling your campaign promises to the gay community."

I mean, the HRC wouldn't place the interests of the Democratic party above the gay community.

Right?

Skip the HRC's Out for Equality Ball

Some people are mad that the HRC is planning an inaugural ball ("We should be marching instead of dancing") but I say let's take it further and urge everyone not to go. Why?

Well, setting aside for a second that HRC is an ineffective civil rights organization (it is) that doesn't deserve your donations (it doesn't), attending won't do us any good. Oh, the pictures will look fabulous in the Washington Blade and Metro Weekly (we clean up well). But if we stick to business as usual (love those Dems, let's all get together and give them our money and votes!!) we get what we've gotten, which is the shaft. What good will it do to ghetto-ize our participation at the Obama inaugural?

Instead, yes -- go celebrate Obama. But go to other inaugural balls and events. Wear your "No on H8" button. Take your partner or boy or girlfriend. Hold hands. Kiss and dance. Talk to people. Let them know you expect Obama to deliver on his promises to our community. Getting a Democrat into the White House wasn't the goal...repealing DOMA and DADT is. Let people know we are watching.

And to be fair, there are other organizations participating in the HRC Ball, ones that are worthy of your contributions. So contribute to them directly and skip the wasteful masturbatory HRC extravaganza.

Here's a list of inaugural events you can chose from. Why isolate ourselves when we don't have to?

Obama and Gay Rights -- Don't Get Your Hopes Up

I was a gay cheerleader for Obama, no question, and am thrilled and relieved he won.

But this quote from Joe Solmonese, leader of the Human Rights Campaign, is just insane:

“I think this is a milestone moment in American history and a milestone moment for the GLBT community,” Solmonese said.

What? The election of a Democrat is automatically a "milestone" moment for the GLBT community?

Shouldn't we wait until Obama has actually delivered something for the gay community before declaring victory for our community?

The WashBlade article that quoted Solmonese is rife with swooning statements from other gay rights leaders. Feeling the euphoria, you'd have thought voters defeated the anti-gay initiatives in three states instead of the depressing opposite.

Hey guys -- by declaring victory for gay rights and your love for Obama before he's actually done anything, aren't you taking the pressure off of him to actually do anything? You've not so subtly telegraphed that a democratic victory in and of itself = gay victory. And it ain't necessarily so. Remember Bill Clinton and Don't Ask Don't Tell not to mention DOMA?

We gays have our noses so far up the Dems asses they don't need to stick their neck out for us to retain our votes and our money. After all, where else will we go, right?

Can you name me one Democratic office holder of national prominence who has taken a risky stand for gay marriage when it would matter? If Obama is so eager to help gays, he could have taken a vocal stand against Prop 8, which he was said to be against. It could have made a difference.

So, I'm skeptical. And I would think it'd be smart politics if our so called gay "leaders" would be too, and not wet themselves just because we elected more Democrats to office.

What's Lacking in Pride is a Movement

I shouldn't be so hard on Capital Pride.


Sidebar: Although they somewhat set themselves up for the ridicule. My main reason for being disdainful is that Pride is a lack of purpose pretending to have a purpose. From the Cap Pride's Web Site:

June 6th will kick-off the 33rd annual Capital Pride celebration! This years theme of "History. Vision. Legacy." will allow attendees from near and far to be part of a celebration of what it means to be Proud in our Nation's capital.

The weeklong celebration of educational, civic and social events, will culminate with the landmark parade on Saturday, June 14th and the street festival Sunday, June 15th. (emphasis added).

But if you review the schedule of weeklong events, you find one forum, one interfaith service, and then happy hour, a bachelor auction, a bachelorette auction, a Miss Capitol Pride Pageant, a men's party, a woman's party, a parade and a street festival. Dancing shirtless, bidding on on beefcake and competing drag queens -- this is "what it means to be proud in our nation's capital?" Drop the pretense. It's a party with no purpose other than partying. It's a Mardi Gras.

End Sidebar.

Problem is, there is a vacuum in our community, one that Pride could help begin to fill by being a rallying point. What's missing in Pride is a national gay civil rights movement.

In California a volcano just erupted. Part of the fallout of that event is going to be a backlash at the ballot box this November. Winning there has ramifications for the entire community. It's the beginning of the collapse of legal and political discrimination against gays. If we win.

You couldn't tell that D-Day will be happening this November based on Capital Pride (and the gays in California acted like they've already one, according to this observer).

But, as I said, I'm expecting too much of Pride organizers. Their task is to throw a party, not galvanize a community into a national movement. Problem is, no one is doing this. One might think HRC would be such a vehicle, but HRC is fundamentally a fundraising organization not a civil rights grassroots organization. And it's too in bed with the Democratic Party to take the risks needed for a civil rights movement. Partisans don't like to rock the boat in favor of their incumbents and civil rights movements make waves.

Pride has its pleasures (as this fellow noted). It's just too bad that nearly 40 years after Stonewall our community hasn't been able to form a cohesive national civil rights movement.

Happy Pride.

HRC Both in Yellow

At the Democratic Debate here in Las Vegas earlier this week the Clinton forces showed up in bright yellow. In the picture the HRC contingent in yellow tee shirts watches as yellow-shirted Hillary folks march into the rally area.

Strange how the color matched the color of the other HRC: the Human Rights Campaign. You couldn't tell their tee-shirts apart, until you read them.

Probably just a coincidence as we know the Human Rights Campaign is not an arm of the Hillary Rodham Clinton campaign

Gravel and the HRC Debate

You may have heard of he contretemps caused by Mike Gravel (he's a democrat running for President, in case you didn't know) being excluded from the HRC/LOGO debate. HRC says he's not a "viable" candidate because he hasn't raised more than $100,000. Somehow HRC views Dennis Kucinich as a "viable" candidate although everyone knows the only way Kucinich will get in the White House is through a public tour.

For the record, Gravel is unabashedly pro-gay marriage, backs repeal of DADT and speaks clearly and forthrightly on full equality for gay and lesbian Americans.

Chris Crain, the vigilant HRC watchdog, gives the HRC a pass on the Gravel snub. He says Gravel would be a "distraction." He makes this comment after he notes that in the previous presidential debate held by HRC in 2003, Sam Donaldson moderated and held the candidates' feet to the fire over the distinction between marriage and civil unions. In the absence of a professional journalist that is unlikely happen in this debate and the candidates will likely be lobbed softball questions by moderators Joe Solmonese and Melissa Ethridge. Crain laments this fact.

But holding their feet to the fire is precisely what a Gravel in the debate could do. Gravel himself nails it:

Ironically I think the real reason why HRC didn't invite me is that I'm too vocal in my advocacy of gay rights. None of the top tier candidates would have been comfortable facing an opponent who consistently points out their refusal to embrace true equality for gays and lesbians. HRC simply bowed to the star factor. It's just a shame that this travesty was perpetrated in the name of the LGBT community.

I don't think this rises to the level of "travesty." I do think it's another example of our largest and most resourceful gay rights organization missing an opportunity to give voice to equality. The equal sign that is their logo looks less and like an equal sign and more like a gymnast's parallel bars upon which Solmenese and his cronies can can cavort to the pleasure of the Democratic party establishment. And perhaps that is the true travesty.

Unpersuaded on Hate Crimes

Russell Henderson and Aaron McKinney, the neanderthals who murdered Matthew Shepherd, are serving life sentences for their crime. They will be in jail the rest of their lives. They are being punished for their heinous crime without the benefit of a federal hate crimes law covering gays.

I have been undecided on hate crimes legislation for some time. But in reading the writings of those pro and con, I have to say I am more persuaded by those con. Those for it don't seem to have much muscle in their arguments.

Joe Solmonese, head of the Human Rights Campaign argues in a Wash Blade op-ed that hate crimes legislation should be passed because, well, HRC needs a victory. It should be passed, he says, because it is "mature." That doesn't make it right.

Dale Carpenter, a gay professor who was the victim of anti-gay violence himself, argues that the law is no more than symbolic. Saying that supporters of hate crimes laws for gays have failed to cite one crime that has gone unpunished because due to lack of resources, Carpenter argues that hate crimes legislation would do nothing substantive in deterring crimes against gay people:

We now have almost 40 years of experience with these laws, yet there’s no evidence they have actually reduced hate crimes. A new federal law will not likely deter future violence.

Here’s why. Bias crimes are especially irrational, welling up from deep hatreds, resentments, and fears that law can hardly touch. They're often committed by young males in their teens and early 20s who don’t know the nuances in criminal law and whose animalistic behavior is probably not very responsive to nice legal incentives. Neither the prospect of federal (as opposed to state) prosecution nor the threat of additional time in prison (beyond what the offender would get anyway) will deter bias attacks.

He also makes a point that this symbolic legislation will give Democratic politicians cover from tackling thornier issues of real significance (like the more than 1,000 federal benefits denied to gay couples).

It may give the new Congress a "pass" -- allowing Democrats to say they have done something “pro-gay” and freeing them to avoid the harder and far more consequential questions of military service and protecting gay families in the law. These are issues, unlike hate crimes, about which Congress really can do something of practical value.

Solmonese seems to agree that the bill is symbolic, as he writes of it's "symbolic impact" on opponents. He also takes to task Carpenter's assertion that it will give Congress a "pass:"

We simply do not believe that passing hate crimes “forestalls” other legislation any more than the six o’clock train “forestalls” a later one.

That's a lousy metaphor...politics is not a railroad, where efficiency is prized. It's more like an unsatisfactory Christmas. "Hey, I may not have given you everything you wanted, but I gave you something. Now shut up and eat your turkey." HRC should know this as they've been the leading cheerleader of the "yeah, the Clintons gave us DOMA and DADT but they were nice to us in other ways" mantra.

Finally, Malcontent argues that:

The sine qua non of the gay-rights movement has been "equality." Yet hate-crimes laws are the very essence of inequity. In singling out favored groups for protection, you must necessarily afford lesser protections to others.

The pro-hate crimes folks have failed to make their case. Hate crimes legislation will likely pass. The real test for the gay rights movement will be what of real consequence we can accomplish.

The Vacuum Created by HRC

A lot in the gay blogosphere lately critical of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest and most well-funded gay lobby.

Chris Crain has a good round up here. Michael Petrelis has also been on the case.

In general, I think the criticism is justified. But I also think HRC just doesn't want to be the kind of organization that is really needed today -- a powerful organization that marshalls national resources to battle locally. It may be sexy to defeat the Federal Marriage Amendment -- an outcome that was pre-ordained with or without HRC -- but the real work is happening in places like Wyoming and New Hampshire. Yet flip to HRC's homepage and you'll see nothing about those struggles.

There's a vacuum, a need, and it isn't being filled by HRC. Perhaps it's time to stop wasting energy trying to make HRC into something it doesn't want to be and figure out how to create the national gay civil rights organization that is so clearly needed.