I almost feel sorry for the Human Rights Campaign. I think they long-ago sacrificed their integrity by becoming an outreach arm of the Democratic party. But the LGBT left is incensed that HRC is not working explicitly for the progressive statist/absolutist agenda. Some days you just can’t win.
More. The protesters are charging, for instance, that HRC fails to include “economic justice” concerns in its Corporate Equality Index, thus “pinkwashing” the grievances they have against corporate America.
Furthermore. LGBTQ Task Force leader Rea Carey said, in her annual State of the Movement speech, that LGBT activism has a “moral obligation” to expand its efforts on behalf of the “greater good,” and “to use our progress and any relative privilege we might have to…do our part for a changed and just society.” By which she means bigger, more coercive and confiscatory government. And no exemptions for religious organizations from the dictates of the state. No thanks, Rea.
16 Comments for “Contretemps on the Left”
posted by Mike in Houston on
For once get real Stephen.
This was Act-Up… a formerly relevant group protesting HRC over not emphasizing HIV/AIDS in its activities… and in particular, the Corporate Equality Index.
Hardly what you want to conflate things into… But your animus towards HRC, GLAAD, etc. is telling.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Sounds like a non-event to me — just another example demonstrating that your meme about progressive/left LGBTs marching in lockstep as directed by a sinister force in the basement of the White House is a lot of horse hockey.
I’ve been working on LGBT issues for a long time. I know, from personal experience, how fractious, disorganized and splintered the “gay rights movement” is in reality. If you’d get your butt out of the Alphabet-Street Log Cabin Republicans long enough to experience it, you would, too.
I wouldn’t have wasted the ink. But then I’m neither an HRC member nor obsessed with it.
posted by Thom on
The minute we have marriage equality nationwide (hopefully by the end of June), I predict that the votes of a large number of gay white men will be up for grabs in 2016 – much more than anyone currently envisions. This will really lead to schisms within the gay rights movement. If the laundry list of ACT UP demands this article mentions is any indication of where the movement is headed, be prepared for huge defections of rich white men jumping ship and voting their pocket books. This could get ugly soon…..
posted by Tom Scharbach on
If the laundry list of ACT UP demands this article mentions is any indication of where the movement is headed …
Most likely, it isn’t.
… lead to schisms within the gay rights movement …
I suspect that “schisms” is more dramatic than likely, but I do think that we will see a return to the pre-2000 days, the time before the Republican Party’s full-scale assault on our relationships and our families temporarily coalesced around a common goal — to remove the hateful anti-marriage, anti-civil union amendments and gain legal recognition of our relationships and legal protection for our families on an equal footing.
After that battle is won — and it is close, given the likelihood of a favorable decision in June and the pathetic nature of the conservative Christian resistance movement — gays and lesbians will undoubtedly shift focus away from one battle to many, just like other Americans do and have always done absent a national emergency.
I’ve argued that the entire point of “equal means equal” was to get “equal treatment under the law” issue resolved so that gays and lesbians could go forward working for and voting on other issues important to them, some more or less directly related to “LGBT issues” (e.g. protecting the LGBT kids in our schools) and others not (e.g. working to change school funding formulas so that rural school districts aren’t screwed).
I don’t expect a shift in voting patterns in the near term. Currently, about 20-25% of gays and lesbians vote Republican, and 75-80% vote Democrat. I don’t expect that to change much for a number of election cycles. Marriage equality is not going to take “LGBT issues” off the table, as Stephen keeps hoping, so long as the Republican Party continues to side with conservative Christians on resistance efforts, and there is every indication that the Republican Party will do just that. And many/most gays and lesbians won’t forget the years of battle against the Republican Party, at least not soon.
posted by Mike in Houston on
This was Act-Up (NY & SF) desperately searching for relevancy, not much more. Act-Up is feeling the pinch that many other HIV/AIDS-oriented organizations are feeling as we’ve moved into the “manageable condition” phase of things… we even have some organizations shuttering because their client base has shifted from Ryan White funding to insurance under Obamacare. Hence this sort of “acting out”… which is what you get when anger is all you have.
There are disaffected folks in the larger LGBT community that have long worried that the focus on marriage equality has taken resources away from basic pocket-book issues like employment non-discrimination and, yes, public accommodations (like not being thrown out of your apartment for being trans or gay)…
When we get a “Brown v Board of Education” ruling from the Supremes later this year (hope springs eternal), the skirmishes over “religious liberty” or as Tom likes to point out, does “equal means equal” apply for LGBT people will keep even most of the “rich white gays” in the fold.
posted by Houndentenor on
Maybe in 2020. I think the GOP 2016 platform is going to include another call for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Of course now that Republicans don’t even seem to know if they are in favor of measles vaccinations, who knows what kind of crazy the GOP is about to come up with.
posted by Kosh III on
More delusions
“becoming an outreach arm of the Democratic party.”
It’s not like they were welcomed in the “big tent” of the GOP which has worked long and hard to destroy the lives of gay people–and continues unabated.
posted by Jorge on
For once get real Stephen.
This was Act-Up
And that is all I need to know. Aren’t these two groups supposed to be in tension with each other?
What, you think we’re all supposed to gather around and sing kumbayah? Sure. But we have work to do.
posted by Clayton on
“…they long-ago sacrificed their integrity by becoming an outreach arm of the Democratic party.”
It’s true that HRC has accomplished little in terms of getting legislation passed, and does not do much else except collect funds and give cocktail parties honoring prominent Democrats. But, honestly, assuming they wanted to do the same for Republicans…who would they honor? Every single Republican presidential candidate in 2012 pledged to reinstate DADT and to support a constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman. Today, the looming probability of a favorable SCOTUS ruling has presidential hopefuls such as Jindal, Huckaby and Cruz resuscitating the idea of a constitutional amendment, and has such “moderate” candidates as Jeb Bush saying, “well, I guess we have to honor the courts, but I will still do what I can to protect the Christians.” Translation: “I’ll support ‘religious freedom’ bills that allow people to discriminate against the LGBT community–and only the LGBT community.” So if HRC wanted to have a cocktail party to honor Republicans for their outspoken support of gay rights, who, exactly, would they honor at the party? Carl DeMaio? Given his “I’m gay but I promise not to vote like one” stance, I don’t see that as being very likely.
posted by Clayton on
“…they long-ago sacrificed their integrity by becoming an outreach arm of the Democratic party.”
It’s true that HRC has accomplished little in terms of getting legislation passed, and does not do much else except collect funds and give cocktail parties honoring prominent Democrats. But, honestly, assuming they wanted to do the same for Republicans…who would they honor? Every single Republican presidential candidate in 2012 pledged to reinstate DADT and to support a constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman. Today, the looming probability of a favorable SCOTUS ruling has presidential hopefuls such as Jindal, Huckaby and Cruz resuscitating the idea of a constitutional amendment, and has such “moderate” candidates as Jeb Bush saying, “well, I guess we have to honor the courts, but I will still do what I can to protect the Christians.” Translation: “I’ll support ‘religious freedom’ bills that allow people to discriminate against the LGBT community–and only the LGBT community.” So if HRC wanted to have a cocktail party to honor Republicans for their outspoken support of gay rights, who, exactly, would they honor at the party? Carl DeMaio? Given his “I’m gay but I promise not to vote like one” stance, I don’t see that as being very likely.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Act-Up served a (sometimes truly useful) purpose in terms of raising awareness about the global AIDS/HIV pandemic, raising funds and resources and (yes) trying to improve the public policy of the White House.
I think that Act-Up can still be useful, but they would need to change — if not their values — their strategy and organizational structure.
However, since human beings tend to be rather stubborn creatures (especially when they believe that its all being done for “the cause”), I think it is safe to say that Act Up (leadership will never want to change or grow) is about a relevant as say, Queer Nation.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Yeah, the North Dakota District Court Judge said that he would put the two cases on hold until after the U.S. Supreme Court rules.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
A legal note: The 11th Circuit today issued an order putting the Alabama and Florida cases one hold “pending the Supreme Court’s issuance of an opinion in DeBoer v. Snyder” (one of the 6th Circuit cases before the Court).
In both states, a lower court held that marriage discrimination is unconstitutional and the 11th Circuit refused to stay the District Court orders. In Florida, the Supreme Court refused to stay the District Court decision, and same-sex marriages are taking place. In Alabama, same-sex marriages await a ruling from the Supreme Court on the state’s motion for a stay.
In Georgia, the other state in the 11th Circuit, the District Court stayed proceeding in the case (before rendering an opinion) until the 11th Circuit ruled in the Florida case.
An odd result — marriage equality is stayed in Georgia, so no marriages are taking place. Marriage equality is not stayed in Florida, so marriages are taking place. Marriage equality might or might not be stayed in Alabama (we’ll know in a few days) but most likely marriages will commence next week.
Meanwhile, in Michigan, the state elected not to appeal a decision by the District Court that requires Michigan to recognize the 300 +/- “window” marriages that took place in the state after the District Court decision and before the 6th Circuit issued a stay.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
More. The protesters are charging, for instance, that HRC fails to include “economic justice” concerns in its Corporate Equality Index, thus “pinkwashing” the grievances they have against corporate America.
So? It’s a point of view, no different than so-called “pro-life” gays/lesbians criticizing The Victory Fund for including reproductive choice as an endorsement criteria. Do you really think that gays and lesbians march in lockstep, or should?
posted by Houndentenor on
How is any of this surprising any more. Stephen would rather elect anti-gay bigots than pro-gay moderate Democrats because reasons. His rhetoric clearly shows a lot of time spent reading, watching and listening to far right nonsense and virtually none actually talking to gay people. At least there seem to be other bloggers writing on this site again.
posted by Tom Jeff on
The Human Rights Campaign has always been a pro-choice/centrist-friendly-terms-with-corporations group (at least from what I know of the group’s history) and they have probably always gotten criticism (rightly or wrongly) from the left.
I am willing to entertainment a civil debate on abortion policy (I have know a few pro-lifers who support marriage equality, but not many, mind you), but most of the time — gay or straight — people would rather try and settle the abortion argument with loud-mouth theatrics.
The Human Rights Campaign has probably been supportive of keeping abortion legal, probably because that what its donors/leadership wanted.
Again, I have known pro life people who support marriage equality, but not many and the issue may be how much money/support comes from forming a coalition with the pro choice cause versus the pro life cause.
Have the bigwigs of the pro-life movement approached the Human Rights Campaign and said, “Hey, a coalition with us will be much better then a coalition with Planned Parenthood or NARAL”.?