Dean's Pink Poodles

You would think the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay rights organization, would be spoiling for a fight over the upcoming reintroduction of the Federal Marriage Amendment. You'd be wrong. Instead, Joe Solomnese and others have bowed to the demands of Howard Dean, with gay families offered up on the sacrificial altar of Democratic politics. Washington Blade editor, Chris Crain, is having none of it.

Rather than actually defend gay families and make the case for gay marriage, HRC continues to argue that the American people don't — and shouldn't! — care about marriage equality for gay couples. "Voters want candidates focused on soaring gas prices, a healthcare crisis and national security," Solmonese says in the release, "not putting discrimination in the United States Constitution." What sort of gay rights strategy is it, when the attention of Americans is focused on our issues, to argue that our rights aren't important, and refuse to engage our opponents in the debate over our equality? [. . .] Can you imagine Martin Luther King, Jr., responding to an attempt to rollback the gains of the Civil Rights Movement by arguing that the issue shouldn't be debated because rising gas prices are more important?

The HRC can't raise money to defeat state level amendments, and now they won't debate gay marriage when the nation and the media are focused on Congressional deliberations over the FMA. They can, however, come to the rescue of abortion activists in no uncertain terms.

What, exactly, is it these people do again? Why do we need them? Aside from the gala dinners, influence peddling, and activists enriched on donations from gay people and their families who suffer real injustices outside the glossy New York - Washington axis.

Dan has additional thoughts on how the HRC and others are pissing away the opportunity to make the case for gay marriage to an attentive national audience. I think now, more than ever, one of my first articles on this blog is becoming increasingly relevant to the movement.

Update: How much do I love Chris Crain? Let me count the ways. Mal linked this earlier article from Crain that I've just now spotted. I've always enjoyed Crain's honesty and integrity when addressing gay issues, even when I've not necessarily agreed with him. However, his recent responses to the DNC's routing of gay partisans mark his Duke of Wellington moment. Crain for President of the HRC!

Comments

[Queer Conservative]

The next time I go to Pride, I'm gonna reach in the "Donate to HRC" bucket and take back all the money I gave them through the years.

[Tommy]

It seems sometimes that gay marraige is designed to fracture and impede gay civil rights. In a country where most state's won't ban discrimination in hiring or housing gays (despite opinion polls showing wide support for such anti-discrimination) and where most state's eagerly outlaw gay marraige in thier constitutions, perhaps we should be focusing the nation's attention on something else this election cycle, like civil rights for gays instead of civil marraige for gays.

Oh yes, I hear you that civil marraige is a civil right (although its better descibed as a privilege - which incidentally only a minority of gays where it is legal take advantage) but we should remember that laws against interacial marraiges where thrown on the dust-bin of history only several years after - that's after - the national oulawing of discrimination in housing, accomodations, jobs.

So if someone is saying its not the most important thing right now. That, just maybe true.

[Jamie]

I happen to agree with Crain this time around, but he also defended the Blade's weak-ass choice to hire Jeff Gannon as a "journalist." *cough, cough*

Come on. We all know better writers out there that have at least a little integrity.

Personally I'd hold back on the lovefest, Robbie.

[Craig Ranapia]

Well, Tommy, that's a rather naive and misleading history of history. Just because the striking down of bans on inter-racial marriage weren't the first civil rights gains, doesn't mean that civil rights groups weren't even having the debate. (And there were influential figure playing the same old numbers game: After all, why should black folks give a damn about the handful of fools with jungle fever?)

Hey, the HRC can keep playing Utilitarian Jeopardy with the civil rights, lives and families of thousands of gay and lesbian Americans. Keep holding the fashionable fundraisers and duck the hard fights down on the ground.

I just think the HRC should front up and explain why the civil rights of gay and lesbian Americans are important, but some people's are more important than others. After all, more people die of lung and breast cancer every year than have ever died of an AIDS-related condition. Perhaps we should just give up on the HIV-positive and PWA too?

[GayCowboyBob]

The Republicans seem to want any diversion to the mishandling of Iraq, Republican corruption and a host of other very important issues that doom them to poor showings in the mid-term elections. What better thing to do then but continue to demonize gay marriage, an issue that is of less consequence currently, to scare voters into reelecting them?

There are many state efforts for and against gay marriage that won't be settled anytime soon. And it's very unlikely that there are enough votes to push through the amendment in the Senate anyway. HRC's work isn't going to make significant inroads especially with Republicans in power. And frankly, any gay organization that puts up a fuss right now is doing more damage to the effort in the long term by keeping the debate about gay marriage rather than the incompetancy and corruption of the GOP. We need to unseat those that would actually favor such an amendment first (including Democrats actually) and frankly most of those people are also the people responsible for the Republican problems I mention above. If you step back and let voters focus on the stupid, horrible things Republicans have already caused, it's a fait accompli.

[Tommy]

Craig - you can give up on them if you want to.

You can also debate anything you want, just don't be suprised when others don't think its as important as you do.

(As for your grasp of history of Montgomery in 1956, they weren't arguing about the right to marry white girls).

[Craig Ranapia]

GayCowboyBob:

Ah, yes, the political graveyard is full of the victims of the faits accomplis that didn't happen. Still, you should become a strategist for HRC: "If we stop talking back, perhaps the mean doody head Republicans will shut up. And perhaps if gay rights organisation give enough money and cover to homophobic Democrats like Howard Dean they're going to be quiet too."

Yeah, right. There's better odds of Brad Pitt dumping Skankalina to spend the rest of his life screwing my brains out.

Not for the first time, I really wish the HRC would decide whether it's a civil rights advocacy organisation or a partisan hack shop.

[The Rev. Jack Malebranche]

It seems sometimes that gay marraige is designed to fracture and impede gay civil rights.

I have nothing bad to say about that comment.

[reilly]

Thank you Craig. You got it right.

Here's an article about a closed door session called by the Republicans to stir up the gay marriage issue to once again rally their base. Do you guys really think that gay marriage or gay rights will ever progress with the Republicans in office? The Republicans are just trying to stir up the issue to distract everybody away from their massive shortcomings-- again. Are we really going to fall for that?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060518/pl_nm/rights_gays_congress_dc_1

In the closed door session, the measure to pass a constitution ban on gay marriage passed ten Republicans for, eight Democrats against, with nobody crossing party lines. Do you really think the Republicans are on our side and Democrats against us? Come on!

[North Dallas Thirty]

I noticed something interesting, Reilly: you claim Craig "got it right" when he criticized HRC for being a partisan hack shop -- but you then followed it up with a diatribe against Republicans and a defense of Democrats.

Perhaps you and Bob should BOTH go to work for HRC and/or NGLTF; you'd fit in nicely.

Meanwhile, those of us who think the future of gay rights lies somewhere other than mindless hate of Republicans will carry on elsewhere.

Oh, and here's a money-saving tip for you; just use the DNC stationary and website, instead of generating that funky HRC stuff. There's no need to put on airs for us; just proudly advertise yourselves as DNC employees and admit that all the money we give you goes there anyway.

[Scott]

Could people finally be getting the message that the HRC (aka "The Champagne Fund") really isn't wearing any clothes? Gawd, I hope so...I've spent the past 15 years both hearing stories of how these idiots behave outside the Beltway--and seeing it first-hand myself---and trying to tell people who speak of them as Tom Cruise does about Scientology that they are a crock of shit. They suck money out of local communities with little regard to the impact that they have on those communities, then deign to come back in and show the poor, uneducated, barefoot masses how to do Gay rights in their towns (because obviously, the local yokels wouldn't have a clue). A few "Gala Dinners" here, a few "Gala Dinners" there....a new tony HQ that cost how many millions?---all designed to self-perpetuate their own existence. How many pieces of legislation have they won votes to successfully pass in Congress? Hmm, all I hear are the crickets chriping on that one. Forget the whines from the Loony Gay Left about them being "non-activist" and "mainstream"; I'd settle for "effective". But I don't think Harvey Milk could make them that. Let's just start over with a new organization that really gives a crap about people outside the power centers of the universe, and not just how much money they can get from them via emotional masturbation.