Sen. Mike Gravel may be a very long shot for the Democratic presidential nomination, but that hasn't stopped CNN, PBS, NBC and the NAACP from inviting him to their sponsored debates. So why has the Human Rights Campaign, the mega-Washington LGBT/Democratic Party lobby, excluded him from their upcoming gay issues forum, where questions will be posed by HRC head and abortion-rights activist Joe Solmonese and lesbian singer/celeb Melissa Etheridge? Gravel has an answer: his pro-gay stances, especially on marriage and military service, would make HRC's designated party faves (Hillary, Obama, Edwards) look bad.
Comments Andrew Sullivan, Gravel "understands that HRC cares much less about gay equality than about their own money and access. This debate is designed to maximize both. There will be no tough questions. Especially of Clinton. Solmonese and Etheridge are her stooges."
Update. Responding to the criticism, HRC relents and invites Sen. Gravel. Also, the Log Cabin Republicans' Scott Tucker states the obvious: "With Melissa Etheridge, a Democratic activist, asking the questions, it should be no surprise that the Republican candidates decided not to participate." True, but it's not likely they'd have come anyway.
But just why did HRC decide to stage a candidates forum that looks like American Idol?
Also, regarding Sullivan, he gives IGF this plug while making the point that-despite what both liberals and conservatives tend to think-all gay people are not supporters of bigger government with ever-increasing regulation, even when those constraints on individual liberty are portrayed (a la HRC) as advances for "gay rights."
32 Comments for “HRC’s Party”
posted by Rhywun on
Pardon my ignorance… but what does HRC even *do* anyway?
posted by Bobby on
HRC doesn’t have to waste time with people who don’t even have a chance.
What do they do? They support liberal causes and hold banquets for $1000 a ticket. They also lobby politicians. They used to be more moderate and even I was a member once. But when they got into the let’s have abortions bandwagon, and let’s include transexuals, I had to quit.
I support transexuals, but not as members of my community. They’re their own separate group. Their issues are about gender.
posted by James on
Melissa Etheridge is the absolute antithesis of my understanding of what it means to be homosexual–I would no more choose her as a spokesman for gay rights than I would choose Ted Nugent to be a spokesman for gun control. Why, exactly, do I have to support Etheridge? She, Rosie, Elton, et. al, promote stereotypes which make it more difficult for those of us who simply want to get legally married and settle down. And raise our children in traditional ways (which is to say, not to take baths with them and show them our private parts).
I watched the Kathy Griffin episode where she went to the gay porn awards. I think she’s funny, but all that did was reinforce society’s idea that gays are hedonistic, amoral idiots–who was that incredibly un-feminine drag queen?
I am not one of Kathy Griffin’s “gays.” I doubt if she would even think I’m gay. I don’t want Melissa Etheridge asking questions–I’d like to see Bruce Bawer or Andrew Sullivan or our own Jonathan Rauch ask questions.
If this election is going to involve people like Melissa Etheridge asking questions on panels, then I’m going to have to spend election season saying, “No, really, gays are nothing like that” a lot.
posted by Audrey B on
Rhywun, HRC is a pro-abortion group that contains gay people. Much like PLAGAL is an anti-abortion group that contains gay people. In fact, you could say gay people are like other people, in that they have many different opinions about many different things. Disclaimer: I myself am pro-abortion. In fact, I think there should be abortions for everyone. If not that, then abortions for some, little American flags for others. I just don’t think abortion is something a gay-rights group should concern it’s self with.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Also, the Log Cabin Republicans’ Scott Tucker states the obvious: “With Melissa Etheridge, a Democratic activist, asking the questions, it should be no surprise that the Republican candidates decided not to participate.”
Well, that, and why on earth would a Republican candidate WANT to go to a debate sponsored by an organization whose stated goal “is to become a steady source of funds and grass-roots support for Democrats — more akin to a labor union than a single-issue activist group”?
In that article, HRC made it completely clear that they are nothing but a Democrat fundraising group whose sole goal is to defeat Republicans. Only an idiot candidate would go anywhere near a group that has specifically stated their only interest is in helping your opponents.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “In that article, HRC made it completely clear that they are nothing but a Democrat fundraising group whose sole goal is to defeat Republicans”.
How convenient that you ignored this part of the article:
“More than 90 percent of the 232 candidates the HRC endorsed — mostly Democrats, but some pro-gay rights Republicans — won their elections in November.”.
Once again your own link makes you look like the lying fool you are. A typical Northdallass distortion, claim a group is entirely and unconditionally anti-republican when it obviously isn’t.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Bobby said “I support transexuals, but not as members of my community. They’re their own separate group. Their issues are about gender.”.
Well, fortunately you’re not in a position to exclude transexuals from the LGBT community. Transexuals just like lesbians and gays are oppressed by the broader society for violating traditional sexual boundaries. What unites us is the unjust discrimination of straigtht society. We are united in the fight agains injustice forced on sexual minorities. Thankfully most gays and lesbians aren’t bigots like you.
posted by James on
Sign me up with Bobby. I’m interested in the problems of men who love men, not people with gender problems. I’m not saying those problems aren’t important, but life is short, and there are only so many issues I can deal with. I am working for the rights of men who want to marry other men and raise children with them.
The rest of the rainbow will just have to do without my support.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Once again your own link makes you look like the lying fool you are. A typical Northdallass distortion, claim a group is entirely and unconditionally anti-republican when it obviously isn’t.
Said article was written AFTER the November elections, and emphasizes that HRC’s primary goal is to elect Democrats and defeat Republicans.
Furthermore, HRC’s own leadership has itself endorsed and given large sums to FMA supporters and other candidates who proudly boast of having “the same position” as Republicans that HRC calls “homophobic” because of their position — all because they’re Democrats.
In short, given that HRC has specifically stated it only wants to support Democrats and has given support to Democrats whose positions it calls “homophobic” if anyone else holds them, I think the point is quite obvious that HRC is entirely and unconditionally anti-Republican.
posted by Les on
Hey, James. I’m a man legally married to another man, thanks to that “F” on my birth certificate that the law won’t allow me to change. Anyone meeting us sees a gay male couple. We’ve been together over 20 years and are raising two kids. I don’t have to fight for my legal right to do so, ‘cuz I already got it. Yet, I’m still working for your right to marry and raise kids.
There’s a little overlap, y’ know. It’s not all black and white. All the alphabet folk are being discriminated against for the same reason – violating our society’s gender norms. I’m not saying you’re obliged to work for bi or lesbian or trans’ rights. Of course not. We have to work where our passion leads us. But I’d think we’d at least be able to *support* the folks who are being discriminated against for the same reason we are.
posted by Bobby on
Randy,
“Well, fortunately you’re not in a position to exclude transexuals from the LGBT community.”
—And who is in the position to include them? Imagine if African Americans decided to include latinos and asians, would that make sense? Heard of the 12 year old boy that got a sex change operation? Does that make sense? At freaking 12!!!! I support a grown up having a sex change operation, not a freaking child who should have had parents with the ballls to say no.
“Transexuals just like lesbians and gays are oppressed by the broader society for violating traditional sexual boundaries.”
—No, lesbians and gays don’t face gender issues. An effeminate straight man can be persecuted, so can a straight man who becomes a ballet dancer, or a woman who becomes a construction worker. My issues have nothing to do with gender.
“We are united in the fight agains injustice forced on sexual minorities.”
—Well, pedophiles, pederasts, people who have sex with animals and dead bodies are sexual minorities, and I’m certainly not united in their struggles. So try being a little clear on the sexual minority thing.
Besides, a transexual doesn’t change his gender to have sex. I met a female to male transexual who happens to like females. Her girlfriend had to dump her/him because she wasn’t attracted to the transformation. Transexuality is about being the gender you always wanted to be.
“Thankfully most gays and lesbians aren’t bigots like you.”
—They are, they just won’t admit it. You’re a bigot, I’m a bigot, transexuals are bigots, we all discriminate in our opinions, actions and attitudes. In fact, some gays are heterophobic, so let’s not kid ourselves here.
posted by Boyfriend on
“And who is in the position to include them?”
Transexuals have been a part of the gay movement since its beginnings. They weren’t externally included. Don’t let Paul Varnell fool you into believing a bunch of leftist gays and lesbians, just ten years ago, decided to make a dinner where they suddenly thought that it was a good idea to make transexuals a part of their movement.
“effeminate straight man can be persecuted, so can a straight man who becomes a ballet dancer, or a woman who becomes a construction worker.”
Just like a heterosexual can be victimized if s/he decide to engage in homosexual activity. I know of a study that asserted that 72% of the men interviewed who engaged in homosexual activities in the previous year self-identified as heterosexual. Because of this, are we to argue homosexuality is no more an issue to gays/lesbians/bisexuals than to heterosexuals?
AIDS is not rare among heterosexual men and women, but it is more frequent among homosexual men. Because of this, the gay movement became very interested in HIV/AIDS-issues – which I believe was the right thing to do.
Cross-gender behavior and personality are as well more common among lesbians and much more common among gay men than among straight women and men. I know of studies that show gay men have an increased sense of identification with females. In their childhood, most of us tend to be interested in activities usually restricted to females. My personal experiences only confirm this pattern. Why the surprise, then, that the gay movement might be more interested than the general population in dissipating the stigma associated with cross-genderism? Plus the fact that transexuals helped to create, since its beginning, the many strands of the gay movement, plus the fact that homophobia and transphobia share common roots, including the hatred or fear of those who don’t conform to traditional morals, and gender and sexual roles (and the two are not always completely distinguishble) – all of this makes many of us lesbigay believe that transexuals are a part of the gay community as much as you, as a lesbian woman, and I, as a gay man, are.
“Heard of the 12 year old boy that got a sex change operation? Does that make sense? At freaking 12!”
It was bad because of his age?
“Well, pedophiles, pederasts, people who have sex with animals and dead bodies are sexual minorities, and I’m certainly not united in their struggles. So try being a little clear on the sexual minority thing.”
As I said, I, and probably some others, believe there’s some overlapping between homosexuality and transexuality, given that sex and gender roles overlap one another. But there’s no obvious overlapping between homosexuality and necrophilia and pedohilia. Homosexuality is no more about having sex with corpses, children, and animals, than is heterosexuality. Necrophiles, zoophiles and pedophiles weren’t the ones who blended with gays and lesbians to create the civil rights movement that helped us so much. They are not discriminated against because they cross gender and sex roles, like homosexuals and transexuals are. And, most importantly, while heterosexuality, homosexuality, and transsexuality are about an individual, conscious of his/her desires, deciding to act upon them without necessarily hurting anyone, the same can’t be said about pedophilia and zoophilia. You can’t compare transgenderism to pedo/zoophilia in many levels, specially when we’re talking about affinity with the gay rights movement.
posted by Rob on
I think it is time to start limiting the debate to the top 5 or 6 candidates the stage is to crowded. But to invite everyone but Gravel was another stupid mistake by the HRC in a long line of screw ups. I don’t think you should call Etheridge a stooge though. Joe on the other hand could very well be one.
posted by James on
Being gay is not a choice.
Acting effeminate is a choice. If that’s the way you want to express yourself, fine, but remember it’s a choice and you have to accept the consequences of that choice.
If you want to express being gay by having open relationships and multiple partners, fine, but that, too, is a choice, and you have to accept the consequences along with whatever benefits you believe come from that sort of behavior.
I see no reason why I should support people in what I see are unhealthy choices.
I am working on behalf of gay men who express their sexuality in lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships. I want such men to have the right to legally marry and adopt children.
That’s it. That’s the one tiny part of the rainbow that I’m concerned about.
I do not support anyone, gay or straight, who makes what I think are unhealthy sexual choices. I wish them the best in their pursuit of happiness, but they’re not going to get my vote or my tax money if I can help it.
posted by Herb Spencer on
Well said throughout, James. And let’s not forget HRC’s nasty little habit of very publicly endorsing Democrat Presidential candidates before they become their party’s nominees.
posted by quo on
Boyfriend, you wrote ‘Necrophiles, zoophiles and pedophiles weren’t the ones who blended with gays and lesbians to create the civil rights movement that helped us so much.’
Well maybe not necrophiles and zoophiles, but Harry Hay, a pioneer of the gay rights movement, became a supporter of NAMBLA.
posted by Audrey B on
I’m curious about who put the “L” first in “LGBT”. Nothing against lesbians, but going by sheer population, there are nearly twice as many gay men as lesbians (and that’s with the affect AIDS has had on gay men). Personally, I would prefer it arranged alphabetically: BGLT! I don’t know if transsexual issues should be considered under the gay & lesbian umbrella, I do know abortion most defiantly should not be!
posted by Xeno on
I’m in the mood for a BLT now …well actually a club sandwich without mayo.
Oh and who cares about the HRC or the Dems. Despite not actively working against us like the GOP contenders are doing, none of the front runners are up to go on the bat for us, as if they’re walking on the tips of their toes. Screw them all.
posted by Bobby on
If Harry Hay was a member of NAMBLA, then shame of him, the same goes for Ginsberg. Goddamm pedophile supporters is what they are. How would would he have liked it if he had been raped as a kid? Pedophiles should be given capital punishment. They should not even be allowed to use the “gay” label.
“72% of the men interviewed who engaged in homosexual activities in the previous year self-identified as heterosexual.”
—They’re a bunch of cowards. If you can’t come out in this day and age, you’re nothing but a wimp. And please, let’s not blame it on homophobia. Most of us here are out, are we not?
“I know of studies that show gay men have an increased sense of identification with females. In their childhood, most of us tend to be interested in activities usually restricted to females.”
—That’s only because at that age we’ve yet to understand our sexual orientation, so we explore it from a different point of view. Later on most gay men do not become drag queens. Besides, pre-operative transexuals sometimes play unfair, they try to seduce straight men without being honest about their status. Then the poor guy finds a penis instead of a vagina. With us gay men and lesbians, we’re more honest, except for the creeps that try to hit on straight men and straight women.
“might be more interested than the general population in dissipating the stigma associated with cross-genderism?”
—Ha! I’d love to go to my conservative forum and tell them about that idea. They have enough problems accepting gay marriage, gay adoption and gays in the military. Now I’m supposed to tell them, “guess what, next plan on the agenda, teach men to crossdress.” Jesus, do we have to embrace every issue and cause? Let transexuals do that one.
“can’t compare transgenderism to pedo/zoophilia in many levels, specially when we’re talking about affinity with the gay rights movement.”
—My point is that there will always be different types of people who like different types of sex, and we have to be picky with whom we accept. That’s the problem with the gay commuinity, you go to a gay pride parade and you’ll see gays in s/m gear marching.
There’s straight people into s/m, you don’t see them marching. There’s straight people into nudity, they go to private nude resorts where nobody bothers them, they don’t show their penises at parades.
The latest craziness is that now gay organizations are no longer LGBT, but LGBTQ. The “q” is for questioning. So if some bastard can’t figure out what he is, he’s included!
So I would argue for a clear separation between gay rights and transexual rights. Otherwise we’ll get into uncomfortable situations like the convicted killer in Massachussetts who who is suing to get a sex change operation at taxpayer expense. Is that what we want to support? The man killed his wife, is serving a life sentence, he’s already changed his name, the prison already provides him with lipstick and femenine things, and now they’re supposed to help him become a woman? Shocking!
posted by James on
I don’t see why it seems so silly or disruptive or intolerant to define “gay” as “men who love men.” Transgender, bisexuality, lesbianism, etc., are not about men loving men, so they are not, IMHO, gay. I guess you have to further qualify the defininiton to read “Men-who-see-themselves-as-men who love men-who-see-themselves-as-men.”
Feminists can group together to achieve a specific set of goals without being seen as intolerant. Why do lesbians feel the need to join up with gay men? How can we possibly help? Other than cheering from the sidelines, our issues don’t really intersect.
I want to support the rights of men who love men and want to marry them and have/adopt children with them. Being forced to include gays who see multiple partners as they gay ideal only weakens my focus. Men who like to dress and act in effeminate ways, and think that shocking public behavior is the way to gain social acceptance also don’t help me. If I am already distant from women by virtue of being gay, I am even more distant from the world of lesbians. So I don’t see my ability to deal with the issues I want to deal with–marriage and adoption–in any way enhanced by trying to team up with these other groups.
posted by reality bites on
Why do lesbians feel the need to join up with gay men? How can we possibly help? Other than cheering from the sidelines, our issues don’t really intersect.
are you really that dumb? lesbians also want to get married to people of the same gender and adopt babies. we are fighting for the same thing.
and allow me to go on a limb and say that you need us, not the other way around. heterosexual men make most of the decisions in this country, and we don’t cause the same hard-wired repulsion that gay men seem to cause in (some) straight men. to many homophobes, lesbians are often an afterthought. it’s that buggery issue that gets them all riled up. that’s just the way it is.
furthermore, there is a common perception that women are naturally nurturing, are more likely than men to want to settle down and have babies, and are biologically wired to care for children. if feminine lesbians didn’t exist (and were thus unable to be placed in photo ops with cute little babies), people like you would be up shit creek without a paddle. WE are helping YOU. get it?
hth!
(to all others, sorry if this is offensive. but it does contain a grain of truth.)
posted by Brian Miller on
You guys *do* understand that this closed event, shown on a specialty cable channel that few people subscribe to, is not designed to enhance the debate on gays at all, right?
It’s designed to give the HRC and NGLTF a fig leaf for their preferred candidates, so they can claim to have undergone “due diligence” before endorsing Hillary anyway. It’s as stage-managed and phony as the 2-party presidential debates.
Most gay people won’t even tune in, since it’s going to be a boring love-in filled with clich
posted by ETJB on
Apples and Organzes. The HRC does not control what CNN, PBS, NBC or NAACP does or share the same mission or philsophy as these news organizations.
It makes no sense to point out to a new organization and then wonder why an interest group does not act like a news outlet.
Most of the GOP candidates did not attend the NAACP event (big mistake) and I doubt that they would have attended the HRC. The LCR are certainly free to host (in their mind) a free debate.
Which major party candidates to invite? Which independent and third party candidates to invite?
BTW, just about every news outlet (even PBS) has a horrid record when it comes to Independent and third party candidates. But I dont see many GLBT conservatives loosing too many tears of that injustice.
posted by Bobby on
“Most of the GOP candidates did not attend the NAACP event (big mistake)”
—Why is it a big mistake? The NAACP is dominated by radicals who hate republicans. 90% of blacks always vote democratic inspite of all the republicans that kiss their asses. It’s a waste of time, blacks who vote republican don’t identify themselves with the NAACP.
In fact, most middle class blacks have little in common with the NAACP, Al Sharpton, The Nation of Islam, the Black Panthers, The Rainbow Coalition and all those radical organizations.
posted by Brian Miller on
The HRC does not control what CNN, PBS, NBC or NAACP does
If HRC approached one of the major networks, offering them an exclusive opportunity to trade on HRC’s brand to offer an exclusive candidate debate focusing on gay rights, you can bet one of the networks would take them up on it. It’s foolish to think otherwise, especially considering all the media mogul money that pours into HRC’s donation coffers every year.
The reality is that the moguls (and their HRC brethren) don’t want an event that makes their chosen candidates look bad based on gay issues. By carefully controlling the event and minimizing its exposure — while also filling most of it with insipid celebrity fluff — they can be sure this happens.
It’s not rocket science.
Which major party candidates to invite? Which independent and third party candidates to invite?
All of them.
This constant pretense that Americans are too stupid to understand what multiple politicians’ positions are on the issues is laughable. The same media that insists that on people are confused by two or more candidates present a dozen or more on “American Idol” without a second thought.
Which is a more important forum for our nation’s future?
Now they don’t have to do it, but that doesn’t mean I’m not going to make fun of their ridiculous claims that it’s just so impossible to figure out. I know that they’re too smart to be that stupid, and that I’m too smart to be stupid enough to believe they’re that stupid. 😉
posted by Bobby on
“Which major party candidates to invite? Which independent and third party candidates to invite?
All of them.”
—I disagree, I watched independent and third party candidates debate on CSPAN once, it was extremely tedious and boring. Politics is like sports, would you want to watch the Special Olympics or real athletes?
It’s all about the polls, when Jesse Ventura won in Minnessota he had America’s attention. If he coudln’t keep that attention is his fault, although I do admire the guy for trying and for being original.
posted by Ted on
Stephen Miller wrote:
“Also, regarding Sullivan, he gives IGF this plug while making the point that?despite what both liberals and conservatives tend to think?all gay people are not supporters of bigger government …”
There’s a huge difference between “all gay people are not supporters of bigger government” and “not all gay people are supporters of bigger government”. Andrew was actually making the latter point, not the former.
posted by ETJB on
The NAACP is one of the major civil rights organizations in the United States and they DO represent many of the issues that black Americans care about.
The fact that most Republican presidential candidates do not see civil rights to be a worthy campaign topic or do not to even try to make their case to a large group of voters is telling.
The NRA is a major interest group in the nation, as is the AARP. If I were running for a major office I plan on going to their debates, even if I did not agree with everything that they said.
BTW, the reason that middle class people of color can exist, is because of so-called ‘radical’ civil rights groups.
posted by ETJB on
“If HRC approached one of the major networks, offering them an exclusive opportunity to trade on HRC’s brand to offer an exclusive candidate debate focusing on gay rights, you can bet one of the networks would take them up on it. It’s foolish to think otherwise,”
Maybe, maybe not. C-SPAN might give it coverage, but I doubt that a ‘gay rights’ debate would get much attention outside of the gay press.
That still does not address the major point; interest groups are not news networks.
Some major media out lets might give the HRC money, (good pr) but a debate is likely going to be less marketball then Paris Hilton, especially a gay one.
You make it sound as if major media outlets and the HRC were plotting to hide the Democrats record on gay rights. Such paranoid talk is just silly.
If (all but one) Republican snub the NAACP, what was the chance that they were attend the HRC debate?
The bottom line is that it is not pratical to invite EVERY SINGLE independent & third party candidate to such a debate.
Yet, it is not as simple as putting EVERYONE who is running for President on the same stage.
Does that mean that no such alternative candidate should be included? No, and I done plently of work on campaign law reform and voter’s rights.
posted by ETJB on
Bobby;
I live in Minnesota. Jesse Ventura polls went up because he participated in a three-way (dont laugh) debate with the DFL and Republican candidates for governor in 1998.
This was because the Reform Party had major party status in the state. Had he not been invited to the debates, his poll numbers would have never made him viable and he probably would never have become governor (not a bad thing from my viewpoint, but still).
It is a bad idea to suggest that EVERYONE who is running for president should be invited to participate in a debate, but it is also a bad idea to suggest that only the two major party candidates
should be invited.
posted by ETJB on
Yet, what will people do about it other then complain?
Try to change the debate rules for the Commission on Presidential debates?
Encourage LGBT groups representing the four major parties (GOP, DNC, GR, and Lib) to organize some type of candidate debates?
posted by Bobby on
Well, a debate of 3 people is ok I suppose. But EJTB, I thought Ventura’s campaign was succesful because they used the internet really well to connect with voters.
“The fact that most Republican presidential candidates do not see civil rights to be a worthy campaign topic or do not to even try to make their case to a large group of voters is telling.”
—It’s not a worthy campaign topic because blacks already have civil rights. Interracial marriage: Check. Integrated military: check. Segregation prohibited: check. Integration in school: check. Affirmative action (which is not what MLK would have wanted): check. African history month: check. What other civil rights are there? Health care is not a civil right, freeing black criminals from jails is not a civil right, making sure every black person gets into college (and a lot do at the expense of whites because of stupid racial quotas) is not a civil right.
Some blacks are their own worse enemies. First you have the “acting white” phenomenom. Basically, if you live in the getto and you try to get good grades, practice ballet or do something other than stereotypical black things they will harass you. Then you have the lazy assholes that sit on a street corner all day, bitching about the man, how the man keeps them down, how they can’t get a break. Then you have the getto names they give their kids, I’m sure employers are dying to hire a Shaniqua or a Tyronne or maybe a Shabazz. Reminds me of a stupid gay activists who changed his name to Sissyfag. I saw him on CNN, I wanted to kill that bastard, what an embarassment.
Seriously, civil rights for blacks? What? The right to play basketball and make millions of dollars in the NBA? How ’bout some affirmative action for white people? We need more diversity in sports, maybe we could have quotas, for every 2 black boxers they have to hire 1 white boxer.
No wonder republicans don’t care about civil rights, it’s a pointless issue.