Stars and Stripes confirms HRC deal with WH to de-prioritize DADT

HRC and DADT

It has been my impression all along that HRC has been the road block to passing the Repeal.  They have their agenda and they cannot be moved to change it.  What HRC fails to realize is the culture and climate of the Military.  Since most have never served, they don't realize how "orders" work.  When a military man or woman receives an order, they salute and move ahead smartly.  When President Truman desegrated the military after WWII there were few problems, Orders were given and Orders were followed.  

The time is now for the President for remember history, place a ban on further discharges under DADT and for Congress to move this legislation that is languishing in the House.  Move it, Pass it Sign it.

I'm including a link to the speech I made at the Ohio Statehouse last weekend during the Columbus PRIDE Celebrations on DADT.  As a 30 year Veteran of the US Navy and one who was lucky not to be discharged, this repeal is very near to my heart.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...  

---

by: Xnavyman @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 06:48:53 AM CDT

A counterproductive distraction...

With respect, this keeps playing more and more like a TV crime show where there are multiple fingerprints on the body and no eyewitnesses but the local Barney Fife insists, "I got my man! Billy Jo did it! Lock 'im up!"

At best it's a junk TV rerun that distracts us from what's happening live and in color.

Note the article refers to "civil rights groupS" - plural -AND in reference to the House of Representatives not the WHITE House and Belkin referred to "lobbying on the hill for Congress not to..."

I'm NOT saying that gay "leaders" - plural - haven't failed until recently to attempt to put any real pressure on either Congress or the President. They did. But we aren't helped in staying coherent while riding this Tilt-a-Whirl of events inside the Beltway's House of Mirrors by poor reporting in a somewhat wannabe military-adjunct paper.

Stars & Stripes hasn't "confirmed" anything, merely quoted one unnamed "official with the House Democratic leadership"-when did such singular, unidentified claims equate to professional journalism? The subject is too important to build any part of our house upon such sand.

It's just as likely that they are merely echoing the early Bellini report-also about Congress, not the White House-or one of the many echoes of it.

In any case, is one more iteration going to result in any group dependent on gay donations jumping up and recanting their earlier denials? And if they did, how would that help us dump DADT?

Of far more concern than reheating old leftovers, and and suggestive that Stars' reporting is shoddy, is their assertion that repeal "bill sponsor Rep. Ellen Tauscher... publicly said she wouldn't push for passage without support from the president."

She referenced already having Presidential support in her forceful remarks during the press conference in March when she re-introduced the bill: "We have one thing that we have needed for a long time, which is a president that will sign it." Adding, "There is no right time to right a wrong-there is always time to right a wrong," and refused to agree with those who suggested that she should have waited until the economy was better, etc.

Further, Stars failed to mention [do they know?] the unfortunate for us fact that barely two weeks after that press conference learned she was being considered for a State Department post which has been another dip and whirl on this unamusing ride. [No, it's unlikely to be a "divide and conquer" move by WH because someone else will take over lead for the bill when she leaves.]

Shouldn't we leave the "gotcha games" about what might or might not have happened in the past for post decision books? Today they distract from what we all should focus on now: demanding the Ring Master freeze discharges and that Congress recharge the repeal ride.

"Freedom's name is mighty sweet
And soon we're gonna meet
Keep your eyes on the prize, hold on

Now only thing I did was wrong
Stayin' in the wilderness too long
Keep your eyes on the prize, hold on

The only thing we did was right
Was the day we started to fight
Keep your eyes on the prize, hold on"

---

by: Michael Bedwell @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 08:15:24 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

"Confirmed" is a misleading word here, I agree

"corroborates" is more accurate.

---

by: Clarknt67 @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 09:01:18 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

but of course

because of this post by Pam, we now have a group of people who believe it is a fact and not just her theory.  

nothing new at this time.....

---

by: Mattkazoo @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 09:06:37 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't blame Pam...

Box Turtle started with the "confirm" verb....

Confirm, corroborate, prove, imply, make up...whatever...the important point [at the moment] is not the past but the future.

Thanks.

---

by: Michael Bedwell @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 09:16:47 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Oh I don't blame Pam

at least directly. But I dislike that it is being repeated as fact in the title. A title that could be changed.

We just had a post by I believe Autumn, about a story that was false, but was picked up and repeated on-line. Various blogs repeated this false story as fact, until it was found that it was not true. Should we maybe learn from that situation? That until proof is found, we are not being responsible repeating a story as fact?

nothing new at this time.....

---

by: Mattkazoo @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 09:34:19 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

this isn't false

It's just opening the same can of worms again -- is Stars and Stripes' report inaccurate? If so, then HRC will come forward with a denial. Unnamed sources doesn't mean "not factual" it means someone is unwilling to go on the record. Big difference. In one case, Aaron Belkin did go on the record and has not retracted his statement.

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 10:01:20 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Exactly, Pam

Solmonese cited unnamed sources in the White House a few weeks back when he told us about Obama's alleged "secret plan" for us.  If he can cite them, so can everyone else.

As for HRC issuing a denial if the Stars and Stripes report is accurate--I fully expect them to issue a denial in any case.  

Cynic, n.  A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.  
-Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

---

by: QScribe @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 13:56:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I was talking about

the theory that one of the groups involved if not the main group involved is HRC.

That is what I see as "false" right now. Maybe it is true, but it is not proven. Since it is not proven.....it is just an opinion at this point. It does more harm at this point than good. Find the proof and I will be the first one to join you in demanding HRC step down.

Don't we in the LGBT community have enough enemies out there, without creating enemies out of groups that are working in our favor, (even if we don't agree with how they do it)?

nothing new at this time.....

---

by: Mattkazoo @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 20:38:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]

HRC and NLGTF are KAPOS!!!!

Isn't that screamingly obvious?

If any progress in LBGT rights is to be made they must be utterly destroyed.

---

by: David Ehrenstein @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 07:00:49 AM CDT

Oh that's great

Hey I know! Any group that gets any power...we destroy it. I hope you are joking with your post. I really do, because if you are not, than I feel really sorry for you and the rest of the LGBT community.

nothing new at this time.....

---

by: Mattkazoo @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 09:13:57 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

No, Matt.

Any group that gets any power and then uses it against us should be destroyed.  Easy one, there.

Cynic, n.  A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.  
-Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

---

by: QScribe @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 13:58:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think it's just as likely

That this is a cynical move by certain elements in the administration to try and distract and split the community by creating a non-scandal... SLDN's original time-table had DADT coming in 2010.

Notice, we're still talking unnamed sources here and not directly naming HRC or SLDN, but a repeat of the "civil rights groups" by an "official with the Democratic leadership"...

So who is the official?  A staffer?  An actual Congressman?

Would that be you Barney? Or Harry? or Nancy?

---

by: txmichael @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 07:14:23 AM CDT

Joe Solmonese and SECRETS

What is with Joe Solmonese and all the SECRETS?

It's well past time we demand answers from Solmonese.

In May, Joe attended a meeting at the White HOuse.  He emergedfrom that meeting assuring us "They have a plan, a vision".  But, Joe couldn't tell us what the plan was.  It was a "SECRET" plan.  What he told us was that things would become clearer in June.  Actions would happen in June that would coincide Pride month and the Stonewall Anniversary.

What happened in June?  We got a Pride Proclamation.  Nothing unique as these proclamations have been made by previous administration.  THis proclamation contained a "call to action".  But the call intentionally left the White House OUT of action.  The call was for the community and the congress to work together to advance our issues.  The call should have been for the community and congress to WORK WITH THE WHITE HOUSE.

Now, we are getting a cocktail party to "celebrate" the Stonewall Anniversary.  We are told it will be similar to other White House celebrations such as Cinco De Mayo and St. Patrick's Day.  Does it sound appropriate to "celebrate" Stonewall and compare it to a drunkfest?  Wouldn't it be more appropriate to "commemorate" the anniversary of Stonewall in a manner similar to the way MLK Day is commemorated?

What we also got in June was the DOJ Brief.  Was this part of Joe's SECRET plan and vision that he was so happy with?

We've also gotten some crumbs thrown our way as a method to quell the uproar without having to actually do anythign we have asked for and been promised.  Were these crumbs part ofthe original SECRET plan and vision?  Or, more likely were they something quickly cobbled together in an effort to shut us up?

Now, Joe supposedly has another SECRET.  A secret to prioritize ENDA and Hate Crimes legislation over DADT when no such prioritization was ever necessary.

Sure, you can prioritize the LEGISLATION required to repeal DADT.  But, at the same time the President can suspend DADT with one stroke of the pen while legislative priorities are pending.

In the end though, it shouldn't take any priorities and "secret plans" to get this legislation that we were PROMISED taken care of.  There is HUGE support among the population for BOTH the repeal of DADT and ENDA.  Congress and the White House culd have acted on BOTH of these already without causing any political backlask at all.  The LGBT community would have been satisified that progress was being made.  Donations to dems, the DNC and other organizations would have continued as always.  Of course this scenario assumes that the DOMA brief would also NOT have included the language that it did.

So, it's time to DEMAND that Joe end his silence about his SECRET PLANS.  He should be forced to explain what thw White House secret plan and vision was / is.  And, he should be forced to explain this latest SECRET about prioritization of DADT.

---

by: timNC @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 07:26:47 AM CDT

I share your sentiments, but...

I agree with much of what you say but the president can't end DADT with "a stroke of the pen", though he could temporarily end the expulsions. It requires repeal by Congress (thanks for making a bad situation worse with your "honorable compromise", Slick Willie) and ENDA is no easy matter despite whatever deceptive polling may say. When push comes to shove it's always been very easy for our opponents to turn it into "Employers will have to hire a man who dresses in drag." That's why we've been fighting for ENDA's at the state level for thirty years and still to this day have some thirty states to go.  

---

by: Dieter @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 08:24:06 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

For the 18th millioneth time...

NO ONE credible has EVER explicitly claimed Obama could end DADT with "a stroke of the pen." The post you responded to didn't either: "can suspend DADT with...." ...which he absolutely can according to DADT legal experts, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, other members of Congress, etc. Efforts for repeal can continue in parallel.

If you genuinely care about the gay equality, please don't keep confusing the issue.

Thank you.

---

by: Michael Bedwell @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 08:35:43 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Chill

If YOU genuinely care about gay equality don't have a fit when someone mistakenly interprets "suspend" to mean "end" and don't accuse people on your side with "trying to confuse the issue". This kind of nasty hair trigger response only cripples us politically and it's all too common.

---

by: Dieter @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 09:08:45 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Correction

Quotes should have excluded "trying to", in case that might be an issue.

---

by: Dieter @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 09:13:56 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

WTF

you reply to me in a "hasty" "hair triggered" manner and then complain when someone points it out to you.

Suspend was the proper term, it means the same as your term "temporarily end".  I don't see how you, with a straight face, could now claim to have mistakenly interpreted what I said to mean END.

And then, instead of apologizing to me, you attack another person who called you out on it.

---

by: timNC @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 09:18:51 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

My apologies

Sorry. I apologize. Read my profile here - We're on the same side. Forgive whatever I've done wrong. By the way, my post made it clear that I understand the difference between end and suspend. Maybe I need to be more careful. I'm new to this site and I'm coming here from other sites, like HuffPo and Americablog, where people are less sophisticated in their understanding of our issues.

---

by: Dieter @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 09:44:15 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

poor reading comprehension on your part

please don't misquote me.

I did NOT say the president could END DADT with a stroke of the pen.  I was very CLEAR in saying "SUSPEND".

---

by: timNC @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 08:36:28 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

to your point on ENDA

Public support for ENDA is HUGE.

Yes the repugs will do their standard dance of using the media to spread their scary, disingenuous misconceptions.  They've been doing that for YEARS.  And, they will rile up their base of , what?  20%?

Isn't it time for the dems to grow a spine, maybe get some remedial media sound byte training and figure out how to smack down the republican lies?

But, you suugest the instead the dems should cower in the corner saying oh my, oh my, the rpugs are gonna say bad stuff and be mean to us, whatever will we do, we better not do anything until we can get the repugs on board.

Right now you can watch the same game playing out in the senate over healthcare.  The public support for a public option is 72%.  Among dems it is 86%.  The public even supports paying higher taxes in order to get a public option.

But, the dems ALLOW the republicans to make bogus claims that the public will revolt if there are any higher taxes.

Grow a pair, dems.

---

by: timNC @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 08:48:54 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

What I find bothersome about this story

Is it's not helpful to pit one section of our community against another. This is a violation of the Dallas Principles, as these advocates are happy to leave our military brothers and sisters (and their partners and supporters) twisting in the wind.

I support everyone's right to set their own priorities in terms of what legislation they'd like to see fast-tracked.

But what's even more bothersome about this story is the idea that our advocacy groups (which still remain unnamed, is it HRC?), and have denied such a deal, are happy to collect money from our military people and their supporters and profess to advocate on their behalf. Meanwhile they are making shadowy backroom deals to backburner their concerns.

If that's the strategy they want to pursue, let them own it. But they won't confirm it for fear of outcry and donor boycott from those who support making DADT repeal a top priority.

---

by: Clarknt67 @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 07:44:39 AM CDT

Yes, it's so sad...

But watch a certain few blogs (like one whose name starts with a Q and ends with a y) turn this into a "queer civil war". While I haven't been that enthusiastic about HRC's foot dragging in the past, we don't know what the real story is with DADT's delay. And ultimately, it's the responsibility of Obama, Reid, and Pelosi to get off their behinds and do something ASAP.

Act on Principles and make equality happen.  

---

by: atdnext @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 09:55:45 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Very Interesting

  HRC is not my representative.  HRC doesn't represent many of the LGBT people I know.  

 But they keep getting called the main LGBT rights organization.  This leaves me with one question,

Who is sending them the $money$ ?  This can only lead me to think that the main donors to HRC have to be LCRs.  Who else would vote and donate to the slowing down and foot dragging process of LGBT civil rights?

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 07:47:37 AM CDT

re: "Who is sending them the $money$ ?"

People with no imagination. Who let a teddy bear wearing a sweatshirt with an = sign on it inform their political activism. (Which probably covers have the electorate, alas.)

---

by: Clarknt67 @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 08:02:28 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not necessarily lack of imagination

I supported HRC until last week and I don't think I fall into the category of people who lack imagination. People can care passionately about justice for our community while assuming that people who go so far as to devote their lives and careers to it can't be bribed, can't be taken in - that they've always got their eyes on the prize. In my case it's my passion, born out of real emotional and psychological torment in coming to terms with my sexuality (conservative background, you know) that led me into a naive trust that they must be like me. At any rate, it's unrealistic to think that most LGBT people will ever go so far into the weeds as to have a sophisticated understanding of Washington's gay rights politics and, moreover, total political apathy within our community is by far the bigger problem.

---

by: Dieter @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 08:57:50 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sorry, you summarized better my point

it lacks sophistication to donate to HRC. They are the McDonald's of gay rights groups, their logo is everywhere, if one doesn't have the time or inclination to read critical analysis of who's doing what, who's winning what victories and where, it's easy to arrive on the idea that HRC's a good investment.

If you DO read about these things, it's easy to find other groups that are accomplishing more with less and offer a better return investment for your activist buck.

Hint: Think local.

---

by: Clarknt67 @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 09:06:29 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Think local

Think local. I've reached the same conclusion. I myself am done with the gay rights behemoths, though I also give to Soul Force - the organization that really goes into the belly of the beast. My previous HRC money will now be going to keeping same-sex marriage legal in Maine and, should it be necessary and it probably will, the even more important battle of keeping it legal in Iowa.

---

by: Dieter @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 09:24:29 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The vast majority of the GLBT population

doesn't follow politics.  Most of my RL friends were unaware of the DOJ brief and thought that Obama is a swell guy who really likes us--didn't he say he's a "fierce advocate" for us?  There's a burden of proof, and it's on everyone who follows politics to educate the people that don't follow day-to-day events.  When the HRC sets up tents at pride festivals, question them as to why the think that President Fierce will be moving on anything.  Show them the proof of what is really happening.  

At DU, for example, which is "progressive", we've got threads that question whether Pam is "black enough" and questioning that she would expect anything more than the leadership is willing to dole out.  Other threads insist that Obama has only had 5 months--how dare we expect our pony before they get theirs?

In the end, we're going to have to educate the LGBT community, insist to our leaders that they deliver on goals, and tell our elected representatives that they are at risk of losing funding and votes.

# Duty, duty -- honor is, is --
Honor, Creideiki -- alertly
# Shared, is -- Honor #

---

by: MileHighDawg @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 08:17:45 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

add HRC to the picket list, too

We need to let them know that their GayTM is shutting down, too.  Sad that white-collar, inside the Beltway political folks lose the ability to recognize military service as an important tool for individual advancement in our society.

---

by: greatwhitebear @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 07:53:27 AM CDT

No Gay Rights = No Gay Money

I'm going to use this as a talking point when they try to get money from me at pride next weekend. Why the hell do they think they have the right to make secret agreements that affect all of us?

---

by: cbear @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 08:20:24 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Better to leave DADT till last?

In a way it may be better politically if DADT is left till last. It's our one issue that the general public is aware of, understands, supports and sees as having significance beyond our community. This is not true of our other legislation. None of our other issues meet all four of these criteria. It's the one issue that gives a certain legitimacy to our struggle in the eyes of the general public and that our opponents can't twist and distort in one cynical way or the other. I know people's military careers are at stake but there's a lot at stake in regard to our other goals as well.

---

by: Dieter @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 08:09:49 AM CDT

except it's likely the easiest legislation

to get through. it has 140+ co-sponsors in the House, the stated support of nearly all Dems, the stated support of Obama, and enjoys 70%+ approval rating from the American public, even over 50% among conservative Republicans.

If the GOP tries to make hay over lifting the ban, they risk further alienating the mainstream which is behind it, and they reinforce the idea they are old, out of touch, Jesus-freak culture warriors.

Just picking the fight looks like a winner to me for the Democrats.

---

by: Clarknt67 @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 09:10:44 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

DADT serves our puposes for the time being

And then we lose the one issue that keeps our opponents from claiming our struggle is either trivial, involves no real injustice, or is just about "foisting" gay marriage on society.

---

by: Dieter @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 11:39:17 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

NO.

Dieter, I am an individual whose life has been ruined, completely shattered by DADT. This isn't just about careers. DADT is to me what UAFA is to a binational couple. It keeps me, a veteran, from being with the person I love when she gets sent overseas. It is walking on eggshells in a perpetual state of paranoia. It has destroyed our relationship, and ripped our life apart.

This is the easiest piece of legislation to pass, it will affect WAY more people than a crumb thrown to federal civilians, and it will have an immediate, positive impact.

I personally need this justice, and so do thousands of troops, veterans, and those of us who love them.

God save ornery old queens! - kevinchi

---

by: Keori @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 14:13:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sing out, Keori!

One could deconstruct many reasons why DADT should get the most focus upfront, but the simplest one is the "the sky didn't fall" strategy.

Middle Americans WORSHIP the military for many reasons, and one, rarely discussed out in the open, though Nathaniel Frank addresses it in the DADT evolution book Unfriendly Fire, is that the military is where average Americans look for definitions of something they have erroneously learned to prize so highly: "masculinity."

Which was why letting women into the military was so ferociously opposed by so many and still is by some including...wait for it...the banshee most opposed to gays in the military, Elaine Donnelly. And it is why lesbians are discharged at a MUCH higher rate, and often with more vehemence, than their gay male counterparts.

I think any LGBT legal barriers left unbroken after a couple of years of an open military can be more easily knocked down with, "If they're good enough for the military...."

Personal to Keori: I'd still like to include your in-uniform photo if you're willing. Just write me at michael@leonardmatlovich.com.

Thanks.

---

by: Michael Bedwell @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 14:53:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Let me think about it, hon

I haven't done an end-of-service photo, and it's been three years! But I still have my dress whites around here somewhere. Let me give it some thought. I'll email you from my public email address later.

God save ornery old queens! - kevinchi

---

by: Keori @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 16:21:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It should be first!!!!

For all the reasons you list. These are our consitutional rights and until we stop 'asking' and start 'telling' our lawmakers we demand equal rights, they will continue to toss us crumbs and we will continue to take them. What part of that is so hard for our community to understand? Our consitutional rights are not negotiable. Period.

Come, come, my conservative friend, wipe the dew off your spectacles, and see that the world is moving."
-Elizabeth Cady Stanton

---

by: T2inDC @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 15:18:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Omnibus Bill?

If the problem is there isn't enough room on the legislative calendar, perhaps we should've pushed for one omnibus bill. Attach DADT to ENDA.

---

by: GrrrlRomeo @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 08:41:18 AM CDT

Okay this does not help

Ok, HRC is still a major group for many in the LGBT  community, it is a well known symbol outside of our community.

All this story and the insinuations that the "groups" include and/are HRC, does nothing to help our cause. The story and the reporting of what Stars and Strips is reporting is helpful for those of us who do not read that magazine. But adding that it might be HRC, just increases hate against HRC.

If there is actual evidence against HRC, by all rights report it. But what does this story do? It creates the rumor that HRC is behind this move, and now we have a dozen or more bloggers going to other sites and emailing friends...etc. saying that HRC is evil and is working against the LGBT community.

This just creates an rumor that will be repeated and made "fact" in the minds of those who don't realize it is just conjecture at this point.

nothing new at this time.....

---

by: Mattkazoo @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 09:02:59 AM CDT

Just a question

call it unscientific social research:

1. Of those who dislike, hate, or are angry at the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), what is your level of activity in the LGBT rights movement? Which would best describe your involvement?

A. I only blog or work online
B. I donate less than 4-5 days a year
C. I donate 10 or less hours per month
D. I donate 1 or more hours per week
E. I work for a LGBT rights group as my primary job
F. I am not active

nothing new at this time.....

---

by: Mattkazoo @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 09:24:50 AM CDT

How about G?

I keep abreast of politics and continue to educate people who don't.  Most of the LGBT people I know in real life were unaware of the disgraceful DOJ brief.  There's more going on than just the LGBT rights groups.  

# Duty, duty -- honor is, is --
Honor, Creideiki -- alertly
# Shared, is -- Honor #

---

by: MileHighDawg @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 10:06:05 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Let me add one thing

Part of the reason we're in this mess is that people are willing to outsource responsibility for their rights to the professional LGBT rights organizations.  Responsibility really needs to lie at the grassroots--we have to own the responsibility ourselves.  

# Duty, duty -- honor is, is --
Honor, Creideiki -- alertly
# Shared, is -- Honor #

---

by: MileHighDawg @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 10:39:18 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Try that where I live.

Obviously you don't live in the typical suburb. Advocate all you want here and, though we gays may have come far enough that you won't be regarded as a total freak, you'll still be dismissed as someone hung up on a rather insignificant subject.

---

by: Dieter @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 11:30:46 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

You don't get more conservative than DuPage County Illinois

I live in Denver now, but I grew up in DuPage County.  It takes time and effort, but it's not impossible to get those people that consider themselves rank-and-file Republican (even now), although "moderate", to pay attention.

So it's possible, even in the suburbs.  It takes personal fortitude, though.  You have to make sure that your family and friends know that if they insist that you are subhuman, that you can sever relationships until they wake up.  We are the one minority that when we come out, we come out alone, frequently needing to leave families behind entirely.

# Duty, duty -- honor is, is --
Honor, Creideiki -- alertly
# Shared, is -- Honor #

---

by: MileHighDawg @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 12:42:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not about Republicans

It's not just Republicans. I've done phone banks and gone door to door here for the Democratic party. Two and a half years ago I raised my voice among our little Democratic activist group here in Naperville against the Democratic candidate for the federal House trying to unseat our relatively moderate Republican representative (Judy Biggert, 13th district) who was an ostentatiously socially conservative Catholic who adamantly opposed abortion rights and didn't support "unnecessary" laws against homosexuals. I got looked at like I had three eyes, though I was allowed to keep going after I insisted on taking the bigot's literature out of the bags I was to distribute onto people's door knobs.

---

by: Dieter @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 13:45:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

D

---

by: txmichael @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 10:29:43 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

But I'm not angry with HRC...

---

by: txmichael @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 10:30:19 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

D

I wish it were E though, I really do.

---

by: kevinchi @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 10:32:28 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

If your point is that one can't criticize HRC until one meets a certain criteria...

... then you have no point.  Welcome to America.

And "only" blog or work online -- as if that's not significant?  And you don't cover financial support?

Well, you did say it was unscientific.

---

by: diablorobotico @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 13:30:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Actually

no my point was more one of simple curiosity, and to see apparently because I like to piss people off, although why asking questions pisses off people.....well maybe some people are a little too wound up for some reason.

I think we need an official Pam's House Blend picnic or day at the beach. Something to calm people down.

nothing new at this time.....

---

by: Mattkazoo @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 19:20:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Come now, Matt

You've been active here long enough to know perfectly well that a great many of us are, or have been, very actively involved with the LGBT movement.  But putting that to one side, you know the old saying: "One need not be a hen to judge an egg."

Defending an organization that has been in existence for well over three decades and collected uncounted millions of dollars (they won't release the figures, as I'm sure you know) yet accomplished virtually nothing can only lead to more complacency and do-nothing-ism.

Cynic, n.  A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.  
-Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

---

by: QScribe @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 14:09:59 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Roll Up, Roll Up!

This is your chance to win it big, it's Find The Lady with your civil rights, my friends! It's either Congress, the White House or the HRC, folks, make a guess, make a guess! Pick the right org, my friends, and you'll win your civil rights! Who wants to have a go?

____________________________________
Cuius testiculos habes, habeas cardia et cerebellum.

---

by: tavdy79 @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 09:55:07 AM CDT

Know how your own elected officials

vote before finding any other scapegoat (in this case HRC).

Yesterday there was a post saying that 77 members of the House had signed a repeal of a gay rights bill (see how I am I can't remember if it was repeal of DADT or DOMA).  Is your Representative a co-sponsor?  If not write, call, email.  Much better use of activist time than comdemning HRC which at least does some things to advance equality and full citizenship.

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 13:10:09 PM CDT

It was DADT and at the link is a list of co-sponsors

See if your Representative signed on.
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/...

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 13:12:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Walk and chew gum at the same time

DADT, DOMA, ENDA and Hate Crimes are equally important.  All are very simple pieces of legislation that would dramatically improve the quality of life in this country and catapult the U.S. towards the top of the list of countries who champion human rights.  It's now time for Congress and the President to step up and provide the leadership needed to get the job done.  Repeal DADT, DOMA, pass ENDA and hate crimes, America will be a better place having done so.

---

by: Guy in SF @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 14:37:04 PM CST

Uniting American Families Act

belongs on the list too.

---

by: Guy in SF @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 13:34:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Reid.....quelle suprise another Mormon standing on our throats

I hope we can find a Nevada Progressive to smack him around in a Primary fight. I never could see why democrats in the senate liked him enough for leadership.

"race, taste. and History finally overcome....and you ain't there"
by Tony Kushner

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 14:10:14 PM CST

I don't like the HRC ... but

An official with the House Democratic leadership said the House is committed to repealing "don't ask" but has agreed with civil rights groups to put new hate crime legislation and a workplace nondiscrimination bill on the legislative calendar before taking up the military issue.

I really don't like the HRC, but I actually support this priority set.

To me the military issue is less broadly applicable to all of us than hate crime legislation and workplace anti-discrimination.

Maybe I am not following things carefully enough, but why is this priority set any sort of problem?

Brings up a question for me: Who exactly decided that LGBT people's big issues are DADT and (since this is the other one) marriage equality? Someone like me is more interested in broader changes that would affect as many of us as possible. Both DADT and marriage equality are focused on subsets -- people who want to get married and people who are or want to be in the military. While these groups are important, they are subsets of the larger communities.

---

by: michelle @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 14:35:21 PM CST

ignore HRC, look to SLDN

Seems to me that DADT repeal is SLDN's central issue, and they haven't waffled or gone all Vichy on us like HRC or the cocktail circuit.

Whatever HRC did/is doing/is alleged to have done, seems to me that we can trust SLDN. It's one issue of many, but they could run with it.

---

by: coram nobis @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 14:44:22 PM CDT

I've been assuming

(and maybe it's just the cynic in me) that this is precisely why HRC wants DADT on the back burner--it's not their issue.  When/if a repeal happens, SLDN will get the credit, the praise and the limelight, not HRC.   And that, goodness knows, would be the end of the world--for HRC.

Cynic, n.  A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.  
-Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

---

by: QScribe @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 15:37:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

like it's 1993 again

Worth remembering that the lobby that sought to defeat the ban in 1993, and wound up with DADT, was the Campaign for Military Service -- joint creation of HRC and the NLGTF.

---

by: coram nobis @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 18:05:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

IF you're in the armed forces, you're expendable

So, why would HRC care about DADT when they've got so many issues that are important to A-List gays?

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality. -- John F. Kennedy (inspired by Dante's Inferno)

---

by: oldbrit @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 17:25:08 PM CDT