Did Health Care Reform Kill Gay Rights?

Dale Carpenter thinks so. I tend to agree.

"Hard Times for Homophobes"

David Link makes the argument that we should be cheered that we're winning every issue except marriage:

Marriage is not just an outlier, it is the only outlier. The fringe of the right will complain about any legal protections for lesbians and gay men, but they can’t put together a majority on any issue except for full marital equality. An enormous majority of Americans even support repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, though political cowardice on that issue still lingers in Congress -- the same cowardice that got us the policy in the first place.

This chart shows that more than a majority in virtually every state, including the ones with the most anti-gay sentiment, supports employment and housing protection, hate crimes laws and health benefits for homosexuals. The trailing issue in all states is always marriage, with majority-plus support in only six states.

In comments to Link's post on Indy Gay Forum, several argue that marriage equality shouldn't be that important. But, they are wrong. Marriage equality is the ballgame. It is legal recognition that homosexuality itself is fully equal with heterosexuality. The Christian right gets this, it's why they will stop at nothing to prevent it from happening.

The Dallas Principles: A Call to Action

Put together 20-some gay activists frustrated by LGBT "activst" organizations that aren't and by Democrats who promise progress but don't deliver, you get the "Dallas Principles."

These activists met in Dallas over the past weekend and issued a call to action and underlying principals, bedrocked on accountability:

"Success is measured by the civil rights we all achieve, not by words, access or money raised."

While I don't support all of the group's specific policy goals (federal hate crimes legislation being exhibit one), our movement desperately needs the type of thinking, action and philosophy that are embodied in the Dallas Principles.

I should add that I don't know that the reason this group assembled was driven by frustration as I state it above -- I may be projecting my own frustration -- but their call to action is precisely needed because of those reasons.

Full Civil Rights. No Delays. No Excuses.

The Other Preacher at Obama's Inauguration

The Rev. Joseph Lowery, civil rights icon (he marched with King) and co-founder of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. He's an African-American pastor who has spoken out for gay rights and is in favor not only of gay clergy but of same-sex marriage (the latter making him more progressive than Obama).

And he's giving the benediction at Obama's inauguration.

And Lowerey's inclusion doesn't mean Obama's changed his position on gay marriage, any more than Rick Warren's inclusion means Obama's backed away from civil unions and the repeal of DOMA.

Policies matter more than prayers.

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.

Words and Deeds

Bill Clinton is stumping for his wife in the Silver State, and acknowledges that Obama has the words but does he have the experience to turn words into deeds?

Since the former prez has invited us to think about words and deeds, I'd like to point out that during his administration he said the right words about gay rights, but when it came to deeds gave us Don't Ask Don't Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act.

Words. And deeds. Indeed.

Andrew Sullivan expands on the theme.

Chris Crain Makes an Endorsement

It's Obama:

Except on gay marriage, Obama has hit all the right notes on the gay rights issues of the day, and he has refused to pander. He has chastised conservative black pastors and white evangelicals alike for opposing gay rights and aggressive HIV prevention. He even refused the demand from gay activists that he reject the support of Grammy-winning gospel singer Donnie McClurkin because he claims to be “ex-gay.”
Obama is the only candidate who talks regularly about gay rights, including civil unions, in front of national audiences, and he is the candidate best suited to reach out to independents and Republicans in the general election and in fulfilling the promises he has made as a candidate.
If you can vote in the Democratic primary where you live, there is no better candidate on gay rights than Barack Obama.

Trans ENDA

Lost, I think, in the heat of passion over whether we should move forward with a Transgenderless ENDA, is who the real villains are:

[Rep. Barney] Frank said the whip count showed that a minority of Democrats opposing a transgender provision in the bill would give Republicans enough votes to kill a trans-inclusive bill.

We expect that of the Republicans, right? If the Democrats could get their Party in line we wouldn't be having this discussion and an all-inclusive ENDA would be a fait accompli. But for all our community's financial and voting fealty to the Democratic Party they can't muster the votes to do this? And, I would argue, transgendered persons face more open discrimination than most gays do, and there have been recent high profile cases to show it, like this one.

Surely, if you believe that people should be federally protected from discrimination because they are born to love the same gender, it's not a leap to protect people who are born into the wrong gender.

Come Out

Where ever you are. It's important.

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.