Limited blogging through next week due to a family health situation. But I wanted to note Jonathan Rowe's take on the latest calumny from anti-gay crank Paul Cameron and his admirers in Christian-right media.
Unrelatedly, more signs that the Human Rights Campaign has abandoned any pretense of being nonpartisan, with its membership in America Votes, a coalition of the left that mobilizes voters for a full range of big-government, take-your-money schemes.
19 Comments for “There They Go Again.”
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Oh dear. HRC is now posturing itself as a “progressive” (i.e. big government) organization. What about the 40% or so of voting gays who don’t support “progressive” big government legislation? I guess we’re supposed to just screw off and shut up?
And they wonder why gay people are pursuing gay marriage as a grass-roots effort, circumventing the “leadership” entirely?
posted by etjb on
Yawn! The Human Rights Campaign has always billed itself as a pro-choice, center-left, federal gay rights group.
They meet the legal definition of being non-partisan.
Many ‘get out the vote’ campaigns and coalitions come from progressive people and groups. Is their even a conservative equivilent of such a group that would accept the HRC?
If exit polling is any guide this does make sense as most gay Americans did vote for Al Gore in 2000.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
The Human Rights Campaign has always billed itself as a pro-choice, center-left, federal gay rights group.
Oh really?
http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=About_HRC
HRC seeks to improve the lives of GLBT Americans by advocating for equal rights and benefits in the workplace, ensuring families are treated equally under the law and increasing public support among all Americans through innovative advocacy, education and outreach programs.
http://www.chubb.com/diversity/chubb4563.html
the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) Foundation, a bipartisan political organization that works to advance equality based on sexual orientation and gender expression and identity
Now, I know that bipartisanship is a scam in and of itself, since the old parties hold identical positions on most gay issues (with differing levels of rhetoric in each wing), but HRC has never positioned itself as partisan, “center-left,” or “progressive.” That’s an all-new tack which started under Cheryl Jacques and has since picked up steam as HRC’s new director takes it off in partisan directions which include support for non-gay issues like abortion and gun regulation.
Gay people who gave money to HRC expecting an as-promised multi-partisan (or at least “bipartisan”) approach to gay issues have been hoodwinked — one could even say defrauded.
most gay Americans did vote for Al Gore in 2000
Actually, most gay Americans either voted against Gore or didn’t vote at all.
posted by Randy on
According to most studies, about 75% of all gay votes went to Al Gore, and the remaining one-quarter went to Bush. The same ratio held in the 2004 election.
So, NE, you are correct that if you add that one-quarter to all those who gay people who didn’t vote, a majority did not vote for Gore. However, a majority of those who did vote, voted for Gore.
Interesting how we can play with stats, isnt’ it?
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
However, a majority of those who did vote, voted for Gore.
Oh, of course. But that “majority” is a minority. A majority of gay people didn’t see any relevance in participating in the Republicrat political process, and the typical arrogant dismissal of them as “uninformed” or “irresponsible” isn’t going to cut it.
Very few organizations — or political ideologies — can claim to represent “a majority of gay people.” All the HRC (or gay liberals) can claim to represent is a point of view which is most popular with the minority of gay people who choose to actively participate in the jury-rigged political system of the moment.
That’s an important point — one which shouldn’t be forgotten.
posted by Randy on
The HRC and other groups would be much more effective if they worked with both sides of the aisle. I’ve long contended that we cannot secure our rights permanently without support from both sides.
Short term, there are probably other strategies, but long term, I think that’s really the only way to go.
posted by kittynboi on
It would help if the other side of the aisle WANTED to work with them.
posted by GayContrarian on
Yackety yabbidy blah blah 25 percent AGAINST Gore let us be clear yada yada babbling boobling HRC leftist commie pinkos NOT representative googledy yabbidy enough with the identity politics NEVER queer absolutely not babbledy blabbeling Independent Gay Forum ooops gay IS an identity never mind and to HELL with HRC anyway. That is my humble opinion.
posted by Ed to Libertarian on
Oh Really?
Yes, just as the Libertarian Party feebly attempts to cloak their own philosophy with nice sounding language, so does the HRC and EVERY OTHER POLITICAL PARTY OR INTEREST GROUP.
People that are less then intelligence (or naive about how American government really works) fall for such cloaking.
BTW, a click look at the two major political parties national platforms will see very different views on LGBT human rights issues.
70% = Al Gore, 20% = Cocaine Bush and about 5% for Gonad Politics Nader.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
It would help if the other side of the aisle WANTED to work with them.
True, but the Democrats aren’t leaping to work with them either, and there are some Republicans who are willing to work with them who are largely rebuffed.
People that are less then intelligence (or naive about how American government really works) fall for such cloaking.
I love it when old party apologists blast the intelligence of those who don’t drink the Kool-Aid, yet demonstrate the inability to construct simple, gramatically-correct sentences.
I guess I’ll bite and go partisan for a minute.
My party’s presidential candidate supported gay marriage and so did the Greens’. Any gay man who supported Bush OR Kerry in the last election is “self-loathing.” And that’s the simple truth, lads and gents.
posted by Bobby on
“It would help if the other side of the aisle WANTED to work with them.”
—Well, that’s like calling the president a tyrant and a nazi and then inviting him to speak at your convention.
The only people that can deal with conservatives and rightwingers is other conservatives and rightwingers.
The exception is cute liberal lesbians, their vaginas seem to have a power over straight males. I’m not kidding, at a radio show with a wingnut, it was the liberal lesbian who got treated better than me.
posted by Jason Kuznicki on
“It would help if the other side of the aisle WANTED to work with them.”
—Well, that’s like calling the president a tyrant and a nazi and then inviting him to speak at your convention.
Bobby, that’s outrageous. There is a big — giant, gaping — difference between “not wanting to work with someone” and calling him a Nazi. Being a gay Republican makes no sense whatsoever to me, and it gets more nonsensical every time the GOP flogs the marriage amendment nonsense. But still, let’s keep some sense of proportion, shall we?
(Oh yeah, and I’m a real fiscal conservative: I vote Libertarian or Democratic…)
posted by etjb on
No Republican in Congress who has supported gay rights legislation has been “rebuffed” by the Human Rights Campaign.
Their are far more Democrats, then Republicans, that want to work with the HRC.
I am no “apologist” for any political party. I simply stated a fact, and you seem unable to reconnect to the real world.
The Human Rights Campaign has always been (1) bipartisan, and (2) center-left (or “neo liberal”). The fact that you and other gay conservatives seem unable to grasp this fact, does not lend you much credibility.
“My party’s presidential candidate supported gay marriage and so did the Greens.”.
Honey that is all fine and dandy. However, third political party candidates are almost never a serious candidate in American elections, especially in presidential ones.
The HRC knows that America is a two-party cartel. If you want to change that, then I would suggest supporting the work of Ballot Access News and Fair Vote.
“Any gay man who supported Bush OR Kerry.”
In a two-party system, these were the only two candidates that mattered. The system is rigged against Independent and third party candidates so that they can not win.
What the 2005 Socialist, Green, Libertarian or Snowmobile Presidential candidate thought about gay rights did not matter because the system is set up so that they can not win. Period.
If you want to help advance gay rights then you had to look at the two candidates that could win the election; Bush or Kerry.
posted by Bobby on
“Bobby, that’s outrageous. There is a big — giant, gaping — difference between “not wanting to work with someone” and calling him a Nazi.”
—Jason, do you visit leftwing websites? You think we don’t know what leftwingers are calling us behind our backs and sometimes in front of our faces? Many republicans have been called nazis. One latino activist even went to a public school and said “Republicans hate latinos.”
How the hell are we supposed to work with those people? And by “those people” I mean leftwingers.
So the hell with HRC, they can keep meeting with other liberals and bitch all they long about how evil we republicans are. But we’re not gonna waste our time with that filth.
Gays who think like me we’ll keep voting for center-right and rightwing candidates and hope for the best. Neither me nor my comrades on the right want the GOP to become the “Centrist Party” or “Liberal Party.”
posted by ETJB on
“Gays who think like me we’ll keep voting for center-right and rightwing candidates and hope for the best.”
Well, that did wonders for gay conservative Germans in 1933…
posted by jeff on
Gays who think like me we\\’ll keep voting for center-right and rightwing candidates and hope for the best
of the rights presently enjoyed by gays and lesbians, how many of them came to be by using this method?
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
No Republican in Congress who has supported gay rights legislation has been “rebuffed” by the Human Rights Campaign.
HRC regularly endorses anti-gay Democrats over pro-gay Republicans, Libertarians and Greens. This is undeniable fact.
of the rights presently enjoyed by gays and lesbians, how many of them came to be by using this method?
If you’re waiting for politicians on the right OR the left to “grant you your rights,” you’re going to be waiting a long time. All people have rights — it’s up to you and me to assert those rights and claim that which is our birthright as US citizens.
The influence-peddling and tweedledee-tweedledum-tweedledumbest antics of the old parties certainly isn’t going to get you there — if you’re an out gay man, neither the left nor the right represent particularly interesting or liberating points of view.
posted by Bobby on
“of the rights presently enjoyed by gays and lesbians, how many of them came to be by using this method?”
—When people like me or hate me, it’s not because of gay rights but my own behavior, how I carry myself and how I treat others.
If those tactics were so great, ACT-UP would be a respected organization.
“Well, that did wonders for gay conservative Germans in 1933…”
—Hitler wasn’t a conservative, he was a national socialist, he hated rich people, he stole private property, confiscated firearms, and created many state jobs. Just because Hitler was a bigot doesn’t mean he was conservative. There’s a lot of bigots on the left to. I saw a documentary about Lenin that shows he wasn’t the nice guy everyone thinks he was, neither was Castro, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Min, Chairman Mao and many others.
posted by jeff on
“of the rights presently enjoyed by gays and lesbians, how many of them came to be by using this method?”
—When people like me or hate me, it’s not because of gay rights but my own behavior, how I carry myself and how I treat others
agreed. now could you answer the question – which rights that have been afforded to gays and lesbians came about by ‘voting for centre-right and right wing candidates and hoping for the best’?