HRC Pushes For Congressional Action On ENDA

by: Louise

Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 16:30:00 PM EST

Got this email earlier and wanted to share- with both of Maine's representatives being co-sponsors, I can only imagine how frustrating and infuriating for those with less supportive Congress Critters... Louise

Dear Louise, The ENDA vote is coming. We need your help to protect LGBT people from legalized workplace discrimination. And time is tight. Tell your representative to vote YES! I'm sure you're feeling as disheartened as I am about the election in Maine. But if we crawl into a corner and lick our wounds, we're playing right into our opposition's hands. And today of all days, we can't afford to do that. As we speak, the Senate is holding a hearing on the fully inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), and the House could hold its first important vote on ENDA in the coming weeks. This bill would end a bitter injustice in our country: In 29 states, it's legal to fire someone because they're lesbian, gay, or bisexual; in 38 states, it's legal to fire someone for being transgender. It's a sinister threat hanging over millions of heads. And too many in Congress have stood in the way of workplace protections from passing. We need to push Congress into action. Tell your representative to vote YES on the fully inclusive ENDA today! This is one of the next big battles facing our movement. And it's going to be even tougher than passing the hate crimes bill was. Right-wing groups loudly claim that measures like ENDA grant "special rights" to LGBT people and take away the freedoms of people of faith. It's absurd; it's wrong; yet lawmakers listen. If there's one thing the hate crimes victory showed us, it's that Congress can move at a glacial pace. There's only one thing that speeds up the process: direct, sustained pressure from ordinary people like you. Even with the most supportive Congress and president our movement has ever had, it's an uphill battle. And we won't have this Congress and this president forever. So we can't afford to miss this window of opportunity. If we can pass an inclusive ENDA, we will make it safer for millions of people to live their lives openly in America – and the hearts and minds they'll change will open the door for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal and more. We've waited too long for this moment. Let's make sure LGBT workers don't have to wait a minute longer. Tell your representative to protect all workers by supporting the inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Thank you helping us seize this critical opportunity. Warmly, Joe Solmonese President

Statement from HRC's Joe Solmonese

by: Louise

Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 16:45:00 PM EST

HRC's Joe Solmonese, whom I met and spoke with length last night, released the following statement today:

Dear Louise,

A deep and bitter disappointment from Maine yesterday: Maine voters have passed a devastating Proposition 8-style measure overturning the state's marriage equality law.

Our hearts are with everyone in Maine who fought so hard to win recognition for their families. The legislature passed marriage equality earlier this year, but a divisive anti-LGBT campaign to scare voters seems to have worked.

It is infuriating to see that the same fear-mongering ads that were used to pass Prop. 8 a year ago have triumphed again at the expense of so many. This is a terrible loss.

Although we lost our battle in Maine, we will not allow the lies and hate - the foundation on which our opponents built their campaign - to break our spirits. We are on the right side of history and we will continue this fight with even more vigor.

Our friends at No on 1/Protect Maine Equality waged a strong and smart campaign. Thousands of volunteers exposed hundreds of thousands of Mainers to the real lives of same-sex couples and their families - many for the first time.

I am angry. But more importantly, I am determined that with the anger I feel today from this outcome in Maine, we'll rise ever stronger to demand equal treatment under the law and equal respect for our relationships in Maine, California, New Jersey, and every state in the Union.

And in other state elections yesterday...

In Washington state, voters appear to have cast their ballots to approve Referendum 71, a measure that would expand domestic partnerships to have every state-level right and benefit afforded to married couples. I feel confident that when all of the votes are counted, it will be clear that the voters of Washington chose to provide equal rights and benefits to same-sex couples and their families.

In New Jersey, Governor Jon Corzine - endorsed by HRC - has lost his re-election bid. He has been a strong ally for LGBT people in New Jersey, and he had pledged repeatedly to sign a marriage equality bill that could still be passed by legislators later this year.

In Virginia, HRC endorsed Creigh Deeds for governor and placed 20 staffers at work in key delegate races. Deeds unfortunately lost his bid for governor, but there will be new pro-equality voices in the House of Delegates next year.

In Kalamazoo, Michigan, right-wing groups wanted to make sure it stayed legal to fire or refuse housing to someone just because they're LGBT. 65% of Kalamazoo voters disagreed and voted to approve Ordinance 1856, expanding the city's existing anti-discrimination law to include sexual orientation and gender identity.

Check HRC's Backstory blog for updates on these and other races throughout the day.

Louise, I know that the results of today's elections are frustrating.

But having seen the passion and dedication of volunteers in this election, I know that tomorrow is a new day - and that our movement has the strength and power it needs to keep moving forward.

Joe Solmonese
President

Rinse, repeat: Obama admin aggressively defending DADT in court

by: Pam Spaulding

Sat Oct 24, 2009 at 18:19:51 PM EDT

WTF? Didn't we hear during the HRC dinner that the President was working on repeal as we speak?

In a move consistent with other contradictory behavior on LGBT issues, the Obama administration has directed its Justice Department to file an extraordinary motion to get Log Cabin Republicans' lawsuit against the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' law thrown out of court, despite a federal judge's ruling that it can proceed. The 11th-hour move for interlocutory appeal, which seeks to stay proceedings and block discovery, was surprisingly formulated at the same time that President Obama was reassuring LGBT activists that he still firmly opposes the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' law at the Human Rights Campaign's annual dinner earlier this month in Washington, DC.

"After President Obama clearly stated that his highest priority for the LGBT community was to repeal 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell', it is quite troubling to see this 'about face,'" said Terry W. Hamilton, national Chairman of the Log Cabin Republicans. "This aggressive move by President Obama's Justice Department seriously undermines not only his commitment to our community and to the defense of our nation, but it also casts doubt on the motives of those at the highest levels of LGBT leadership in Washington who refuse to criticize the President over this double speak."

Let's go back to the keynote transcript...

We are moving ahead on Don't Ask Don't Tell.  (Applause.)  We should not be punishing patriotic Americans who have stepped forward to serve this country.  We should be celebrating their willingness to show such courage and selflessness on behalf of their fellow citizens, especially when we're fighting two wars.  (Applause.)

We cannot afford to cut from our ranks people with the critical skills we need to fight any more than we can afford -- for our military's integrity -- to force those willing to do so into careers encumbered and compromised by having to live a lie. So I'm working with the Pentagon, its leadership, and the members of the House and Senate on ending this policy.  Legislation has been introduced in the House to make this happen.  I will end Don't Ask, Don't Tell.  That's my commitment to you.  (Applause.)

The jerking around, no matter what reasoning the WH offers, is unconscionable. Instead of the lofty promises in the speech, and instead of another blindside, he should have had the stones to preempt this repeat two-faced appearance by saying in the keynote some blather about "continued legal defense of this discriminatory policy is necessary" and take the heat right there in the room. Stop the game-playing.

So what does HRC have to say about this, I wonder?

Signorile: Ready to March Again?

by: Pam Spaulding

Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 09:15:00 AM EDT

First off, this administration responds to pressure, and unlike the previous Democratic administration, these White House officials cannot contain our discontent by going to groups like the Human Rights Campaign or politicians like Barney Frank (more on that and the reasons why farther down).

They want to keep LGBTs at arm's length, but we continue to make that difficult, and we force them to move - ever so reticently - each time we have applied pressure.

Sure, it was dispiriting to realize that after electing Obama we have to make a lot of noise to get even a little attention, but hopefully we've gotten over that: They're politicians, they must be pressured, and there is absolutely no downside to pushing them hard.

...The successes of the march began when the president decided to address our issues days before the march, agreeing to speak at HRC's annual dinner. Just as he decided to commemorate Stonewall back in June, inviting gays to the White House after much public criticism of the administration's dragging its feet, the president was responding to the marchers' criticisms. The speech didn't outline any new details on how the president would follow through on his promises, but he did spend a bit of capital just by speaking to a gay group - and doing so with much more passion than any time before, and saying a few things more emphatically- and sending a message via the televised coverage to the mainstream and to the opponents of LGBT rights.

• Obama named an openly gay ambassador to New Zealand;
• Barney Frank goes on Mike's show, declaring the march "useless," and proceeds to repeatedly say variations of  this wherever he saw a mic and the press;
• Senate Majority leader Harry Reid was feeling the heat so bad that his caboose was on fire, so he 1) wrote the WH demanding action on DADT, 2) endorsed the NEM and spoke with organizers, and 3) spoke out against the LDS spending its coffers on Prop 8;
• John Berry in the Office of Personnel Management reported that the WHe is talking to Sen. Lieberman about leading the repeal of DADT next spring;
• And ENDA, one of the most essential and anticipated pieces of legislation, is rumored to go up for a vote  in House by year's end and signed next year (good luck with that).

The reason the administration can't contain our discontent is less about this White House than it is about dramatic change in society, certainly since the last Democratic president was in office. With blogs, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, satellite radio, 24-7 cable news and all the other new media, it's impossible for establishment gay groups or prominent gay politicians to contain us.

...HRC has had a rough time since the beginning of the Obama administration, trying to figure out how to operate and how to utilize the grass roots and Net roots while also maintaining access. It's been clumsy at best, disastrous at worst. Any objective critic would conclude the group has not seemed stable. It criticized the president early on regarding Rick Warren, only to fall in line as if bludgeoned by the White House. The group soon became a full-on apologist, with Solmonese going into a meeting with the administration last spring after concerns of White House inaction on LGBT rights mounted, and coming out and saying the White House had a "plan," though he couldn't tell us the details

On the Michelangelo Signorile Show today @ 2:30 ET

by: Pam Spaulding

Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 14:00:00 PM EDT

We'll discuss Mike's recent interview with Joe Solmonese (full audio here), and talk/brainstorm about some ideas on how to foster more diversity at the top, not just concrete actions, but by cultivating broader and more creative thinking that could lead to solutions.

Listen to The Michelangelo Signorile Show weekdays live from 2-6 pm ET on Sirius XM's OutQ: Sirius 109, XM 98 and on the Sirius XM iPhone app. Not a subscriber? Not a problem! Listen online any time with a free three-day pass or, if you have an iPhone, go to the app store and download Sirius XM for free, for a 7-day trial, and listen on your phone.

***

UPDATE: I just finished the show. If you missed my suggestions for HRC, here they are from my post.

[I] took a few minutes to think about ways to address the diversity problem, since I think we can all agree that leadership that is more like the LGBT population at large is a healthier organization than one that is largely homogenous -- or at least one would hope that would be desired in 2009. A couple of ideas to ponder...

1. How about saving a couple of seats on the board as elective posts? Right now, you have to have $$$ to get into the game and on a board.  These positions could be selected by membership in a vote, perhaps regionally, to identify activists with promise in terms of leadership. This does two things -- identifies talent and grooms them at a very high level in our movement. Surely any organization would benefit from this more grassroots approach to representation. A presence and a voice from another socioeconomic perspective can save an organization from committing grievous, PR mistakes because of the blind spots that are common in groups that are too homogeneous. It's almost never out of malice, the errors in judgment are because of being in a bubble of ignorance or insensitivity that can easily be corrected by simply engaging on a peer-level with someone who is not like you, as opposed to relating to someone you are in a paternalistic role with.

2. How about making space at the (dinner) table? Surely some mondo goodwill and PR could be gained if some of those "captains" who buy a whole table at a gala could participate in a matching donation to buy four $250 seats for activists of note around the country who cannot afford the ticket but who are just as politically savvy and successful as the rest of the people in the room. They could be selected by the board (or an HRC committee) that would bring the work they do that doesn't get the recognition it deserves in a forum that has such a high profile. This could motivate so many people out there to get active.

3. Have a table captain host one activist that they sponsor? This would earn HRC tons of good publicity and goodwill as well, and encourage those with means to get to know and learn about an activist in the field effecting change. HRC could provide a list of activists that these donors could connect with, and everyone benefits -- particularly those with wealth who want to do more than just write a check, but not necessarily do canvassing or the field work and then find there's not much between that appeals to them. Building person-to-person relationships on that level toward a common goal certainly builds more bridges to understanding.

1) How much does someone have to bring to the table to be on the board(s), either through donation or fundraising;

2) Are there any board members who do not have to donate or raise funds to have a vote on the board?

3) How many on the boards are POC, women, etc. who  are not of wealth? And what do they, as board members think of the level of socioeconomic diversity of HRC decision-makers?

4) What is the process for appointing people to the board(s)?

5) How is Joe Solmonese, as President, evaluated on his job performance?

6) How many members of the board(s) are also grassroots activists (as opposed to activism by writing a check to support programming)?

7) What is the regional diversity of the board(s)?

8) Has there been discussion about making the boards more diverse in the past? If so, what was the outcome?

Those are honest questions that make no indictment. What they might be is intimidating because they may lead to uncomfortable or embarrassing discussions. Given the level of unfocused vitriol by many toward HRC, it would be understandable. But it's time to stop thinking that not discussing the elephant in the room will make it go away, or buy better PR for the organization to gloss over it. A good example of that were Joe's foot-in-mouth statement on CNN that...

perhaps the crowd at the dinner last night was a little bit more politically aware and had a better sense of maybe, you know, what's at stake and what needs to be done.

Also, my questions above aren't particularly hard if HRC wants to be more transparent about its membership, leadership and make clear that its mission and goals are in alignment with the assertion that it represents "the voice of the LGBT community" on the Hill and to the media.

In my own professional experience, revisiting goals, mission and alignment from time to time is a sign of a healthy organization, not one in crisis. Good leaders know that.

Swing and a miss: critique of my column on Joe S. on CNN makes points, just not regarding my post

by: Pam Spaulding

Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 16:15:00 PM EDT

Surf over to read Adam Bink's "The Scary Rich White Gays," an interesting, if off-the-mark response to my post, "HRC's Solmonese: dinner attendees 'more politically aware', have 'better sense of what's at stake," and Autumn's "We Get The LGBT Diversity Of Media Contact Lists."

As I said earlier the primary problem with the assessment of my post is that it alludes to statements or beliefs that are simply not in my post, but do occur in the comments. I don't have a lot of those kinds of conversations where a reader conflates my views with that of those in the comments as much these days as I did a couple of years ago; it seems to happen more when the subject matter is controversial and people get riled up. Anyway, I thought I'd take a stab at clarifying the situation, since Adam's post doesn't make any distinction between the author and commenters. Before we begin, you'll see references to Rich White Gays (RWG) as an acronym used by Adam. I'll use it for simplicity's sake.

You see, many in the LGBT community (examples here, here and here) have criticized HRC as a group made up entirely of RWGs, and that we should dislike HRC, their money, and their support because of the RWGs. In fact, the HRC headquarters was actually vandalized yesterday for the same reason.

[W]e're the largest LBGT organization in the country with nearly a million members. Most of them are small donors and supporters all over the country. And so, I think we absolutely represent the LBGT community.

But I think that -- as Hilary mentioned last night on the show -- perhaps the crowd at the dinner last night was a little bit more politically aware and had a better sense of maybe, you know, what's at stake and what needs to be done. Because at the end of the day, what all these fights come down to -- and this is where we are in this movement...

What's curious about some of the angry responses to my post, including Adam's, is that it's not a zero-sum game if you add diversity; no one loses access or influence it just increases reach. And as far as trying to link any statements in the post cited (or any prior posts of mine)  to violence is a particularly nasty charge to levy on me, since I have time and again stated that I detest moves like that. And I specifically called out the vandalism on HRC's building when it occurred, before it was confirmed that it was perpetrated by a gay group. Do some of my readers/commenters feel differently -- yes, some do, but that's their opinion.

More below the fold.

HRC's Solmonese: dinner attendees 'more politically aware', have 'better sense of what's at stake'

by: Pam Spaulding

Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 08:00:00 AM EDT

UPDATE: see more commentary at the end of the piece.

It's rare to see the whole diversity/class/power dynamic that vexes the LGBT movement opened up since it's a third rail topic that tends to give some with privilege a case of defensive agita. It's likely this unintentional level of candor won't be seen again any time soon.

LEMON: Joe, I got to ask you this. We had a panel last night, Dan Savage, Michelangelo Signorile, Dan Choi, Hilary Rosen on. And some of the folks who are on that panel said that the HRC doesn't represent the masses of gay people in the country, that it is, you know, one certain group.

Do you think that the group -- how do I put this -- that there is a lack of diversity within the HRC, and if it were more diverse, that that might help the cause?

SOLMONESE: Well, I think that -- you know, I know that -- I think it was Michelangelo who was making some sweeping comments about the number of people in the room and who was in the room, although he did start by saying he couldn't get into the room. So, you know, I sort of take that with a grain of salt. But we're the largest LBGT organization in the country with nearly a million members. Most of them are small donors and supporters all over the country. And so, I think we absolutely represent the LBGT community.

But I think that -- as Hilary mentioned last night on the show -- perhaps the crowd at the dinner last night was a little bit more politically aware and had a better sense of maybe, you know, what's at stake and what needs to be done. Because at the end of the day, what all these fights come down to -- and this is where we are in this movement...

A couple of things are quite notable. Lemon asks about the diversity issue within HRC. Solmonese can't answer that question without either fibbing or going down a really uncomfortable path, so Joe chooses to answer the question in terms of paid membership, so he can reference the multitude of small dollar donors. Those donors weren't at the dinner, nor are they in leadership positions or on the board of the advocacy org.

The real boo-boo, however, is the claim that the crowd attending the annual dinner is more politically engaged, more boned-up on the issues, and even more incredibly, know more than you folks out there -- living in places where you have no rights whatsoever -- about what is at stake. Well, those who opened their wallets to see the fabulous Lady Gaga and the cast of Glee (after all, the dinner sold out before the President's appearance was billed), surely are in touch with the issues more than you are. Joe said so.

But seriously, there obviously were committed activists in that room, people who deeply care about those without the access and power to effect change in the same way they can. It's too bad that they get scooped up in the criticism of HRC's poor handling of the diversity issue. By raising the value of the attendees as "the players" who know better, he's essentially confirming all of the worst stereotypes. Those skeptics outside of the LGBT sphere who saw that non-diverse audience that night are even less likely to support LGBT issues (more on that below).

Adele Stan, in a piece worth the click, "LGBT Activists Criticize Obama's Speech for What Wasn't There, But Miss a Very Big Thing That Was", she points out that the real landmark comment the President made that went unnoticed - he made the connection between the black civil rights movement and LGBT rights.

[E]ven more importantly, completely overlooked by activists as they battle for marriage rights was a critical turning point: In anticipation of the criticism he clearly expected to receive, Obama compared the movement for LGBT rights to the civil rights movement of the 1960s:

Now, I've said this before, I'll repeat it again -- it's not for me to tell you to be patient, any more than it was for others to counsel patience to African Americans petitioning for equal rights half a century ago. (Applause.) But I will say this: We have made progress and we will make more.

This is not a statement without some risk for Obama. It's a comparison often met with resentment in the African-American community -- a comparison few have the moral authority to make. The nation's first African-American president is one of them.

On one level, that's correct - that needed to be said. On another level, it's not enough. If you want to see how much impact that statement really had in the aftermath of that speech, surf over to a blog I respect a great deal, Jack & Jill Politics ("A black bourgeoisie perspective on U.S. politics"), where there is a plethora of politically informed, educated black netizens who are tapped into the progressive blogosphere. The President's comparison went in one ear and out of the other for way too many of the commenters.

It's fair to say that The President needs to repeat that link in equality movements in front of other, non-LGBT audiences over and over to make it stick. In those comments at J&JP you'll see:

* Criticism of the complexion of leadership of too many of our orgs with this dinner a nationwide televised display of the gap in race and class  alienating commenters in the thread, feeding the stereotypes quite nicely;

* black gays called house negroes/having house negro syndrome;
-- it matters not if you have a long record of challenging the lack of diversity in LGBT leadership and political inclusion and representing the community on-air; you've revoked your black card.

* the claim that gays have all the rights that they need and deserve, because they see the snowstorm at the public events, and it follows that all gays are white and have money and don't show up for social justice issues affecting POC. And that means homos need to "get to the back of the line" for rights.

I feel sorry for the poor gay brother in the comments there who can't get a break.

As I told a much more diverse audience at NC Pride:

For blacks and other minorities who have to learn how to integrate in the dominant culture out of necessity, they are often feel frustrated and defensive hearing the lack of knowledge exposed when whites make the tentative steps to engage. The honest truth is that, outside of working alongside people of color, there's a lot of social self-segregation going on (on both sides).

What this lack of cross-community dialogue means for out LGBTs of color is that one has to be willing to put yourself out there to be attacked, over and over for addressing homophobia in communities of color knowing that few, if any, white LGBTs are going to come forward to have your back.

I see it time and again, with the excuses ranging from "I'll be called a racist" or "it doesn't feel safe to do this" or "it isn't my place to do it. " Well if you're waiting for it to be safe, it isn't going to happen.

So it is in this environment that black LGBTs have a difficult choice about whether to come out, though more and more are. Fearful of losing social connections, friendships and emotional shelter provided by their faith community if they come out, black gays and lesbians in the church are intimidated.

They fear the judgment of those in the pews and the pastors spewing anti-gay bile from the pulpit. Some of these minority LGBTs simply cannot envision stepping out of the closet because they don't see a welcoming largely white LGBT community on the other side of the door.

So it's in that context that Solmonese's comments are a tragic, confirmed truth that just slipped out in the interview. Our movement needs to address how our largest LGBT organization can represent the reality of LGBT America, because its representative just let everyone know that in HRC's reality, the right mix - the most effective mix - of people in the LGBT equality movement attended that annual dinner. I'm not sure how the rest of us rate other than as a small dollar GAyTM. Maybe Joe will tell us the next time he's on the air.

UPDATE: I know you all are venting your anger in the comments, but you're missing the point. This isn't about destroying HRC; in order to have the level of influence it has on the Hill, and given where the distribution of wealth exists in this country, you're going to get a demographic like that at the dinner. The main problem here is not that there's something inherently wrong with being wealthy, the problem is that those with wealth, like those in many demos, tend to naturally self-segregate. It's the whole class issue. It's not first nature to ask themselves -- "is it important to make a place for those we normally do not socialize with, activists not of wealth who are integral to the LGBT rights struggle to our events?" When it's raised in an assertive posture as many of you have expressed, there is often a backlash defensiveness akin to ("those ingrates, they don't know what we've done for them"); so serious discussions about how human nature and class/diversity issuse are true problems to solve turn into flamethrowing.

There are truths on both sides. If you don't like how things are managed in your name, get into the game and not just be a keyboard activist. I have. Despite little free time with a full-time job and this blog, I do work locally, I give what I can to causes, I visit schools to talk to LGBT youth -- that's just as important as anything I write here. I may not have the money to drop for a dinner ticket, but I give to my local equality organization, participate in workshops and panels, and try to make a difference that way too. You choose where your dollars go.

HRC funds many programs that do outreach in the broader, more diverse community with those donations; so complaints that it all goes to administrative overhead and salaries, while it may feel good to rip, doesn't exactly paint an accurate picture of the impressive work HRC is and is capable of doing. If you started another organization by scratch, it's likely you'd end up with something that looks much like HRC. What could be different is the outlook of the people running the place -- are there ways to be inclusive of fresh ideas and perspectives that doesn't require a large sum of money to earn a place where the decisions are made? If not, why not? It's apparent that Joe Solmonese's unfortunate comments broadcast to the world revealed how he sees the world of LGBT leadership, influence and visibility. In the wake of the comments it would be good to hear whether the organization plans to respond to the viewpoint of its face of the movement expressed in that interview.

We Get The LGBT Diversity Of Media Contact Lists

by: Autumn Sandeen

Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 15:30:00 PM EDT

I added a few lines to the piece to clarify this earlier in the piece.
~~Autumn~~

My weekend was incredibly busy. I went to a Equality California Trans Mixer on Friday night, the San Diego Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Community Center (as the guest of Equality California), and gave a speech for the Annual Scouting For All Rally. So, pardon my delay in getting this diary up.

In between all these events I attended this past weekend, I watched a lot of cable news regarding President Obama's speech at the Human Rights Campaign's (HRC's) annual gala in DC, as well as the National Equality March.

When I watched who the cable news chose from the LGBT community to give commentary: What I saw in the chosen community spokesmodels (which is a colorful way of saying spokespeople) was a sea of gay, white, male commentators. There were exceptions, but those were exceptions.

And, this is a problem. This isn't the problem of the gay white men who are being tapped for commentary, but instead a problem of network and cable news not recognizing the LGBT community is significantly more diverse than just gay white men.

The white gay males I saw speaking for the broad LGBT community included Joe Solmonese, Cleve Jones, Michelangelo Signorile,  Wayne Besen, Corey Johnson (Towleroad), Charles Moran (Log Cabin Republicans).

Exceptions I saw included Daniel Choi, Hillary Rosen, Sherry Wolf, Pam Spaulding, and the two LGBT teens I highlighted earlier. However, I saw each of these folk just once each, while most of the white gay males I listed (with the exception of Corey Johnson) I saw more than once. And, the only African-American LGBT community member I saw interviewed on cable news -- Pam -- got one spoken line in that CNN piece.

Now don't get me wrong here. Gay white men are integral part of the LGBT community, and should be represented in giving cable news commentary on LGBT news stories. The problem is that gay white males are the majority of the "go to" guys on LGBT stories; we're getting the LGBT diversity of the cable news producers' contact lists.

And, the amount of diversity that these contact lists are providing is completely inadequate. I won't speak to lesbian and bisexual representation, but I will speak to transgender voices cable news could have tapped.

For example, Kim Coco Iwamoto, an elected State Board of Education member for Hawaii, is an Asian-Pacific-Islander woman who is also trans -- she spoke at the National Equality March Rally. So did Babs Siperstein, the only transgender member of the Democratic National Committee. Trans people were visible and findable at the rally, but they weren't tapped by the cable news producers.

Outside of DC, cable news networks could have tapped many trans community people who could have spoke to LGBT and trans specific issues:

• Monica Roberts,  the African American blogger/2008 Weblog LGBT Award Finalist of Transgriot

• Masen Davis of the Transgender Law Center

• Drian Juarez of the Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center's Transgender Economic Empowerment Project

• Author Jamison Green, who is a longtime transgender and transsexual workplace advocate.

• Cecelia Chung, Former Deputy Director of the Transgender Law Center, and Chair of the San Francisco Human Rights Commission

• Prof. Jillian Todd Weiss, the Associate Professor of Law and Society at Ramapo College who is running a campaign Facebook for an Inclusive ENDA

• Internet Podcasters Mila L-Pavlin and Jayna L-Pavlin of Trans-Ponder

• Vicki Estrada, A prominent City Planner/Landscape Architect in San Diego -- part of the California Transgender Leadership Committee (a group whose current focus is California trans employment issues)

• Internet Broadcaster Ethan St. Pierre of TransFM

• Allyson Robinson, the HRC's Associate Director of Diversity and faith blogger at Crossing The T

• Kim Pearson, the Executive Director of TransYouth Family Allies

And, of course, the National Center for Transgender Equality was out and visible at the march.

The erasure of bisexual and transgender experience was furthered by cable news this weekend by their frequent use of  "gay" and "gay and lesbian" instead of more encompassing LGBT terminology. With the notable exception of the writers for Don Lemon on CNN's Newsroom, the news writers at CNN and MSNBC didn't use lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) as the descriptor regarding either the HRC gala or the National Equality March. In fact, in all the hours I watched MSNBC this weekend -- as well as this morning -- I never heard any of the on air reporters use the terms "bisexual" or "transgender." The B and the T were erased by not only by the producers of the cable news networks, but erased by the language the cable network writers used to define our broader community.

And too, by primarily going to gay white men for interview commentary on the LGBT issues, the ethnic diversity of our broader community was ignored as well.

So, in a nutshell, the cable news networks completely failed with regards to LGBT diversity.

When white gay men are the primary "go to" folk for the longer form interview commentaries at mainstream broadcast and/or cable news networks, then mainstream broadcast and cable news networks are not showing the world what our broader LGBT community actually looks like, and what those of us who are erased actually think and believe about our broader LGBT community.

If this were a twitter tweet instead of a longer form commentary, I'd give cable news networks coverage of the HRC gala and the National Equality March the hashtags of #lgbtfail and #diversityfail. The broadcast and cable news organizations need to broaden their contact lists of LGBT spokespeople to represent the actual diversity within the LGBT community.

Breaking: White House disavows 'WH adviser' 'Internet Left Fringe' comment

by: Pam Spaulding

Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 12:00:00 PM EDT

"My comments quoting an Obama adviser about liberal bloggers/pajamas weren't about the LGBT community or the marchers," he wrote. "They referred more broadly to those grumbling on the left about an array of issues in addition to gay rights, including the war in Afghanistan and health care and Guantanamo -- and whether all that added up to trouble with Obama's liberal base...

...But while the administration certainly appreciates progressive new media, it remains wary of it. Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, in particular, regards the online left as impractical and counterproductive. While Communications Director Anita Dunn and Press Secretary Robert Gibbs both have worked hard to make new media a fixture of the Obama communications strategy, the West Wing favors the old media guard -- granting them access and, in the case of Harwood, anonymous quotes in attempts to advance its agenda.

This is what happens when journalists allow sources to take cheap shots from behind the cloak of anonymity granted for no good reason. The source doesn't have to own it if it backfires, and the journalist gets stuck with the reputation for sloppy and erroneous reporting if they decide to dump it on you. Which is exactly what's happening here.

NBC should release a statement either defending Harwood's reporting on the matter or retract it.   And the White House should identify Harwood's source, because it doesn't do much good to claim "we love you, we really really love you" and still protect the person who said it.

The White House is strongly denying a report making the rounds that it views gay critics and bloggers as part of an "Internet left fringe," with a senior adviser asserting to me that this sentiment "does not reflect White House thinking at all."

Yesterday, CNBC correspondent John Harwood set off a min-firestorm on the left after he claimed that the White House views gay and blogospheric criticism of the administration's foot-dragging on gay rights issues as part of the "Internet left fringe." Harwood claimed that an anonymous adviser said that "those bloggers need to take off the pajamas, get dressed and realize that governing a closely divided country is complicated and difficult."

Asked for comment, White House senior communications adviser Dan Pfeiffer emailed:

"That sentiment does not reflect White House thinking at all, we've held easily a dozen calls with the progressive online community because we believe the online communities can often keep the focus on how policy will affect the American people rather than just the political back-and-forth."

The Rocky Mountain News in Denver ceased operations, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer now publishes only on the Internet, and several large newspaper corporations have filed for bankruptcy, including the Tribune Co., owner of the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times.

Mr. Obama said he noted the trend. "I am concerned that if the direction of the news is all blogosphere, all opinions, with no serious fact-checking, no serious attempts to put stories in context, that what you will end up getting is people shouting at each other across the void but not a lot of mutual understanding," the President said.

Every standard form of Washington behavior is on display here:  reporters like Harwood with absolutely no standards who grant anonymity to pass along playground insults.  Obama officials -- part of the Most Transparent Administration Ever -- who seem incapable of speaking about anything without cowardly hiding behind anonymity, even for on-the-record briefings.  Snide, Fox-News-mimicking dismissals from the Democratic establishment of any discontent or criticism of the President as coming from the fringe, Far Left.  And particular disdain for any instruments -- blogs, marches and  protests -- which the White House cannot control, which exist independent of the tightly coordinated, Rahm-dominated "veal pen" messaging system to which so many leading progressive organizations have meekly submitted themselves in order to ensure their own continued access, funding and future career options within the Democratic establishment.

The only thing remarkable about the comments Harwood passed on is that anyone would be surprised by them.  In that regard, the furor over Obama's complete inaction on gay issues vividly illustrates the same elements that shape political controversies in virtually every other area -- from war to civil liberties to health care and beyond:    

• Pretty words and inspiring pageantry from the President, accompanied by endless inaction or contradictory policies;
• Hordes of people who believe in their heart of hearts that the administration is led by such a nice, just and likable man that it couldn't possibly be guilty of anything worse than a little benign political calculation (just as the evangelical, Texas-swaggering Bush did for Red State loyalists, the urbane, charming and highly intelligent Obama possesses all the cultural markers of a good and decent person for Blue State loyalists, and thus simply can't be capable of anything malicious or destructive -- there's a reason Bill Maher tried to remind liberals:  "He's your president, not your boyfriend"); 
• Organizations (exemplified by the truly dreadful HRC) that suck funding out of progressives and serve as liberal validators of administration conduct whose overaching devotion is to the Democratic Party and the administration rather than the causes they claim to promote (fortunately, civil liberties groups are the exception, as they have remained steadfast, unapologetic, independent and principled in harshly criticizing Obama); and,
• Deeply personalized scorn directed at those who try to hold Democrats and the Obama administration accountable -- since they're the ones who control all branches of government with huge majorities -- rather than devote all their energies to the cheap and easy partisan task of ridiculing and blaming a marginalized, impotent conservative movement which is a small minority and currently wields no power in Washington.

I have no idea who the person is who said this to Harwood or how influential or obscure s/he might be, but whoever it is, that person is anything but unusual or aberrational.  Quite the opposite.

Transyouth Katie Hill: Cable News's Only Trans Spokesperson This Weekend?

by: Autumn Sandeen

Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 09:45:00 AM EDT

As far as I can tell, Katie Hill -- speaking from Tulsa, Oklahoma -- is the only trans person that the cable news networks spoke to this past weekend regarding either the President's speech to the HRC or about coverage of the National Equality March.

She did pretty damn well. I know I'm proud of Ms. Hill in her role as a trans community spokesperson.

But seriously, could the cable news networks find no other trans people to interview than a transyouth from Tulsa? Not one from DC?

The T (transgender) of LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) community was nearly completely erased from the media coverage this past weekend. This is one of two posts I'll have (hopefully) have up regarding cable news coverage this past weekend.

HRC HQ vandalized

by: Pam Spaulding

Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 05:00:00 AM EDT

OK. Who did this? Under normal circumstances that headline would cause many to assume that some anti-gay prank occurred after the President's speech, but that's not what first came to my mind when I heard rumblings abuot this. Some folks who cannot figure out how to own their frustrations under their names decided to commit vandalism to act on them.

The building at 1640 Rhode Island Avenue, also known as Equality Center, was tagged with "Quit Leaving Queers Out" in pink paint, according to blogger Leslie Ewing.

Ewing said she noticed the vandalism at 6:45AM on Sunday, "sans caffeine" she added.

"I only had my phone with me but I did take the shot," Ewing said on her blog, lgbtequalitymarch.blogspot.com. "It says 'Quit Leaving Queers Out'."

The group Queers Against Assimilation have claimed credit for the attack, according to a post at the lesbian blog LezGetReal.com."

Yes, that's really helpful and useful, people. I'm sure some of you out there would endorse this sort of business; I don't. LezGetReal has the full text of the "manifesto" of Queers Against Assimilation claiming responsibility.

The White House called LGBTs part of pajama-clad 'Internet left fringe' for asking for civil rights

by: Pam Spaulding

Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 20:51:31 PM EDT

In an NBC report less than 24 hours after the President declared his unwavering support for the LGBT community, the White House has decided to sh*t on citizen journalists on the left who are simply advocating for our civil rights. This is a real shot across the bow. Via Americablog:

NBC News' John Harwood just reported that an Obama administration staffer advisor today called the gay community part of "the Internet left fringe," and therefore the White House is not concerned about the gay community's, and other Democrats', concerns that the president isn't keeping his promises. As part of its report on today's gay march, NBC's Harwood said the following:

Barack Obama is doing well with 90% or more of Democrats so the White House views this opposition as really part of the Internet left fringe.

Harwood then went on to say that the White House thinks that:

For a sign of how seriously the White House does or doesn't take this opposition, one adviser told me those bloggers need to take off the pajamas, get dressed, and realize that governing a closely divided country is complicated and difficult.

Wow. Nice to know that asking to pass federal legislation (ENDA) so my fellow North Carolinian LGBTs don't get canned for being who they are is a "fringe" activity. I must remind the White House that North Carolina delivered for him in 2008, and LGBT support was key, and was leaned on for support in a big way.

Nice to know that asking to pass federal legislation related to national security (repeal of DADT) when our military forces are strained and the Obama administration is mulling an increase in troops in Afghanistan is a "fringe" activity.

I guess asking for any of the long list of issues to be addressed before 2012 (since re-election isn't a given in the reality-based universe) is a "fringe" activity.

I guess all of that "support" he doled out last night at the HRC dinner and the fact Candidate Obama said to hold him accountable was conditional if you're LGBT. Or maybe civil rights matters are don't qualify for the "keep up the pressure" policy.

It doesn't matter why this behavior is occurring, really. What one has to take away from this message, naturally not attributed to anyone at the WH -- cowards -- is that bloggers are messing up their playbooks. And the answer is to diminish what influence we have -- it's limited at best. You have to ask why is this paranoid, juvenile message getting tossed out there. All those big brains in the White House and the best they can do is to bring up the hoary pajama game?

Here is the transcript via FDL:

LESTER HOLT: John what we saw in that protest today, was it simply frustration or does it represent a serious problem the President is having with an important part of his base?

JOHN HARWOOD: As a practical matter Lester I don't think it's a serious problem. we've seen and certainly Bill Clinton learned that they Democratic President can get punished by the mainstream of the electorate for being too aggressive on social issues so for now I think the administration feels that if they take care of the big issues - health care, energy, the economy - he's going to be just fine with this group.

HOLT: But in general when yo look at the left as a whole, have there been conversations about some things they thought would have been done but haven't?

HARWOOD: Sure but If you look at the polling, Barack Obama is doing well with 90% or more of Democrats so the White House views this opposition as really part of the "internet left fringe" Lester. And for a sign of how seriously the White House does or doesn't take this opposition one adviser told me today those bloggers need to take off their pajamas get dressed and realize that governing a closely divided country is complicated and difficult.

Or do I just need to fold my hands in my pajama-clad, Cheetos-stained lap like a good homo?

Time to weigh in...

Related:
* On Obama's HRC keynote -- plus watching our movement in flux
* Joe Solmonese clarifies the 2017 message delivered in HRC e-blast
* Is HRC telling people to sit hands folded for Obama re: progress until 2017?

***

UPDATE: You wouldn't believe some of the excuses flying around on FB and Twitter saying "oh, you shouldn't pay attention to anon sources" or "the WH wouldn't say that" or that this statement somehow is NBC reporter John Harwood making the sh*t up, or that "he didn't say LGBT bloggers" (ok, that one is just lame -- I said in the headline "part of pajama-clad 'Internet fringe'" - AND the reporter's filing a report about NEM, for god's sake, lolol).

Well, sitting in this chair, SOMEONE needs to take responsibility for the statement because it is someone's POV, one believed to be widely held by insiders about progressive bloggers, but never articulated so boldly.

The remarks are an insult to people like me (and readers), who know how complicated governing and legislating are, and many of us do this from a perspective of 1) being in a state where waiting DOES matter and, in my case 2) I blog and work a full time job, at the expense of my own health, not to be a muckraker, but to make a difference. If someone has a different perspective and dismisses me outright, I do have a right to be angry and demand someone own their statement. When I say something it's straight up, you mean to tell me no one has the stones to own their opinions up there? That's pathetic. Anonymous or not, the statement's out there now for all to see.

The bottom line is that it's one of three things -- 1) Harwood is lying or 2) The White House is playing two-faced; or 3) they've got a lunatic loose high level advisor who is off message.

The WH needs to clear it up pronto.

UPDATE 2: I had to change the headline of this post because people appear to be too lazy to read the transcript to see that Harwood's source according to him said "the White House views this opposition as really part of the "internet left fringe." Someone has to own the quote, which is referring to the NEM pop as "this opposition" and encompassing progressive bloggers generally, and many LGBT bloggers that have been critical are a slice of the progressive blogosphere. I understand people wanting to parse this stuff to death to avoid the fact that SOMEONE said this (or Harwood made it up) and has to answer to the statement.

BTW, we're not the only ones "bellyaching"-- take this scorching review by Time Mag's John Cloud, "Obama's Gay Outreach: All Talk, No Action"" :

Saturday night President Obama charmingly delivered a rather bleak message to the gay community on the eve of its latest march on Washington. In a speech to the world's largest gay political group, the Human Rights Campaign, Obama essentially said two things: I'm with you. But I can't do much for you.

...Obama patted himself on the back for his party's passage earlier in the week of a a hate-crimes bill that, for the first time, includes gay and transgender people. And he used the opportunity to tell gay critics who have expected so much of him to express what he expects of them. The hate-crimes bill, he said, had become law only because those who believed in it had thoroughly educated the public about why it was important. "Countless activists and organizers never gave up," he said. "You held vigils. You spoke out year after year, Congress after Congress."

Obama is right, in a civics-class sort of way, because social change can't occur if it's forced from the top-down. But that's also a convenient argument for him, since it defers responsibility from his office.

UPDATE 3: As Jane Hamsher notes, the White House can clear this up quite handily (or face questions about it during Gibbs's next press briefing).

If the administration wasn't in the habit of giving anonymous quotes on a daily basis that might be fair, but reporters regularly complain that they show up for ON the record briefings at the White House only to be told that it's on background. It's a regular habit so you can't just say that the ones you don't like aren't legitimate. They need to stop the practice completely or take responsibility for the ones that get out there that backlash on them. There's a reason the person didn't give their name.

Harwood said that "the White House views this opposition as really part of the 'internet left fringe'" so yes, you're right, he did make the connection - based on what he says he was told. By an aide in the White House, knowing he was going on the national news momentarily to talk about the march.

The appropriate thing for the White House to do at this point is free Harwood up to reveal his source. Because if they just deny that the statement was accurate without doing so, it'll always be trapped in that nether region of journalistic privilege. And the "anonymous source" will have achieved their desired objective of getting it out there without having to wear it.

And if Harwood is lying, he should have to own that, too. But the only way we'll know for sure is if they free him up to reveal the source and the source contradicts him on the record.

Finally, the White House releases the President's speech at the HRC Dinner

by: Pam Spaulding

Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 19:21:02 PM EDT

I wasn't the only one wondering why the President's keynote address during the HRC Dinner wasn't released to the media prior to the speech (embargoed). This is unusual because most major addresses are sent out before so journalists can have accurate quotes in their articles, which are usually written during the delivery. The White House will sometimes re-issue the transcript (as delivered) as well.

None of that happened yesterday, and Steve Clemons of The Washington Note decided to ask the WH what the blazes was going on.

Last night at 5:30 pm, I called White House press and asked to make sure that I got an emailed copy of the remarks which would probably be time embargoed. I left email and phone number as the phone recording requested, but there was no follow up.

I ran into Brian Bond, the capable Deputy Director of White House Public Liaison, before Obama's speech last night and was told that we would get the speech and not to worry.

Thanks to C-Span and MSNBC, folks can watch the speech -- so it's not completely out of public view, and the White House did distribute the "pool reporting" on Obama's 25 minutes at the HRC Dinner in which he reported that he had really made it as the opening act for Lady Gaga.

But nothing yet on the White House web page -- and nothing in my in box about Barack Obama's commitment to end "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and his commitment to pass an exclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which were hight points of his remarks.

This is meant to be a friendly critique -- but while the gay community at the HRC dinner was enormously enthusiastic that Barack Obama was the first President since Bill Clinton in 1997 to speak at its annual event, we don't want the important remarks the President gave hidden so as not to make the weekend news cycle.

Well, I received my copy of it at 11:40 AM ET on Sunday, after just about all of the Sunday talk shows have aired. Make what you want about that. Here are the President's remarks in full.

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary
__________________________________
For Immediate Release                                                         October 11, 2009

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AT HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN DINNER
Walter E. Convention Center
Washington, D.C.

8:10 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you, everybody.  Please, you're making me blush.  (Laughter.)

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  We love you, Barack!

THE PRESIDENT:  I love you back.  (Applause.)

To Joe Solmonese, who's doing an outstanding job on behalf of HRC.  (Applause.)  To my great friend and supporter, Terry Bean, co-founder of HRC.  (Applause.)  Representative Patrick Kennedy.  (Applause.)  David Huebner, the Ambassador-designee to New Zealand and Samoa.  (Applause.)  John Berry, our Director of OPM, who's doing a great job.  (Applause.)  Nancy Sutley, Chairman of Council on Environmental Quality.  (Applause.)  Fred Hochberg, Chairman of Export-Import Bank.  (Applause.)   And my dear friend, Tipper Gore, who's in the house.  (Applause.)

Thank you so much, all of you.  It is a privilege to be here tonight to open for Lady GaGa.  (Applause.)  I've made it.  (Laughter.)  I want to thank the Human Rights Campaign for inviting me to speak and for the work you do every day in pursuit of equality on behalf of the millions of people in this country who work hard in their jobs and care deeply about their families -- and who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.  (Applause.)  

For nearly 30 years, you've advocated on behalf of those without a voice.  That's not easy.  For despite the real gains that we've made, there's still laws to change and there's still hearts to open.  There are still fellow citizens, perhaps neighbors, even loved ones -- good and decent people -- who hold fast to outworn arguments and old attitudes; who fail to see your families like their families; who would deny you the rights most Americans take for granted.  And that's painful and it's heartbreaking.  (Applause.)  And yet you continue, leading by the force of the arguments you make, and by the power of the example that you set in your own lives -- as parents and friends, as PTA members and church members, as advocates and leaders in your communities.  And you're making a difference.

That's the story of the movement for fairness and equality, and not just for those who are gay, but for all those in our history who've been denied the rights and responsibilities of citizenship -- (applause) -- for all who've been told that the full blessings and opportunities of this country were closed to them.  It's the story of progress sought by those with little influence or power; by men and women who brought about change through quiet, personal acts of compassion -- and defiance -- wherever and whenever they could.

It's the story of the Stonewall protests, when a group of citizens -- (applause) -- when a group of citizens with few options, and fewer supporters stood up against discrimination and helped to inspire a movement.  It's the story of an epidemic that decimated a community -- and the gay men and women who came to support one another and save one another; who continue to fight this scourge; and who have demonstrated before the world that different kinds of families can show the same compassion in a time of need.  (Applause.)  And it's the story of the Human Rights Campaign and the fights you've fought for nearly 30 years: helping to elect candidates who share your values; standing against those who would enshrine discrimination into our Constitution; advocating on behalf of those living with HIV/AIDS; and fighting for progress in our capital and across America.  (Applause.)

This story, this fight continue now.  And I'm here with a simple message:  I'm here with you in that fight.  (Applause.)  For even as we face extraordinary challenges as a nation, we cannot -- and we will not -- put aside issues of basic equality. I greatly appreciate the support I've received from many in this room.  I also appreciate that many of you don't believe progress has come fast enough.  I want to be honest about that, because it's important to be honest among friends.

CNN debate on Obama speech between Signorile, Savage, Rosen and Choi

by: Pam Spaulding

Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 04:52:24 AM EDT

They really got into it last night, with Dan Choi serving as the diplomatic optimist, Hilary Rosen as the pragmatic defender of The Patience Agenda, and Michelangelo Signorile and Dan Savage as the critical activists. It's a must-see.

On Obama's HRC keynote -- plus watching our movement in flux

by: Pam Spaulding

Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 22:10:53 PM EDT

However, I have to agree with Sean Bugg, my fellow commentator on the coverage tonight, who made a great point that if you aren't a wonk or activist clued in to the messy politics going on behind the scenes, this speech is a huge home run of support from the President of the United States to a kid out in the sticks who watches it can now feel he is part of the American fabric. In our cynical view of the political system, jaded by the hypocrisy and spinning we see each day, as well as outright lying by pols and advocates, you have to remember how this speech can resonate with non-political LGBTs and straight America. The President actually engaged with a segment of our community in his first term to affirm support for the LGBT community. I doubt you'll see him endure sane, rational criticism from the right on this other than the usual whines from the fringes who already think he's Satan/Hitler/Muslim terrorist, etc. That's progress on its own and it should not be minimized.

So that's my praise. As far as criticism, I don't even know where to begin.  But I'll first share the news that HRC is happy with the speech.

"Tonight, President  Obama told LGBT Americans that his commitment to ending discrimination in the military, in the workplace and for loving couples and their families is 'unwavering.'  He made it crystal clear that he is our strongest ally in this fight, that he understands and, in fact, encourages our activism and our voice even when we're impatient with the pace of change.  But these remarks weren't just for us, they were directed to all Americans who share his dream and ours of a country where "no one is denied their basic rights, in which all of us are free to live and love as we see fit."

"And we heard unequivocally  about the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell: 'I am working with the Pentagon, its leadership and members of the House and Senate to end this policy. I will end Don't Ask, Don't Tell.  That is my commitment to you.'

"Finally, we heard something quite remarkable from the President:  'You will see a time in which we as a nation finally recognize relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman.'

"This was a historic night when we felt the full embrace and commitment of the President of the United States. It's simply unprecedented."

"We were heartened to hear the President say, 'I will end don't ask, don't tell.' But an opportunity was missed tonight. SLDN was disappointed the President did not lay out a timeline and specifics for repeal.The 65,000 gay and lesbian service members--who put their lives on the line and who remain impatient with the pace of progress--deserve to know when their commander in chief and Congress plan on getting rid of this law."

This was a well-crafted, oddly familiar address if you're a political junkie, because it felt like a stump speech, a post-election speech and a WH LGBT photo op address patched together. I understand his support for equality; what I didn't hear is that civil rights of human beings are any more important than any other political issue he faces. That correcting a grievous wrong affecting the lives of American taxpayers he wants support from on other issues is ok to shuffle down in the pile of issues. Honestly, it's good to know where you stand -- statements of support without any timelines at this stage in the game is frustrating and very informative. But it doesn't mean we won't continue to press for them, no matter what Barney says.

And, did you notice the "T" invisibility in this address?  No shock there either; I think this may be another education issue. I have to say the money quote from the speech that made me laugh out loud was the President running down a string of accomplishments and one he referred to was how he invited the homos to the Easter Egg Roll. Yep I can take that to the bank here in NC and do something with that bit of equality.  BTW, the Bushes had gay families participate in those festivities as well, the first time they just didn't want them photographed with Laura. The second time seemed to be pretty irrelevant.  Oy. Funny and sad, but it's progress, right.

Ironically, I give President Obama points for having the cojones to state that we are impatient -- and should be. He's man enough to say to continue the pressure, whereas the messages delivered by Joe Solmonese and Barney Frank in the past few days have been protective of the President and scolding of the grassroots and the LGBT Netroots. It's quite a stark disconnect that says more about our professional advocates than it does about the President.  

An aside -- I think the major schism between our orgs and the grassroots and Netroots  has reached a perfect storm with this weekend. The juxtaposition of this dinner, where we see a different view of progress, as ovation after ovation for the President suggested full support of the Patience Agenda, versus the people attending the march. Many of those marching on Sunday don't have the access to power or fat wallets to be considered for courtship by the Obama's 2012 team and the Dem party.  

Open Thread - HRC Dinner and Presidential Keynote

by: Pam Spaulding

Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 19:35:40 PM EDT

We also have a widget for you to watch the speech via livestream on CSPAN 1 (either Windows Media or Real Player). President will be on around 8PM, but you never know how these longish, talky events will run.

While I may physically be in Austin, I'm going to be right there with you all virtually courtesy of SiriusOutQ's live coverage of the event doing commentary there. I'll be checking in the chat room to see your comments as well, so it will be an interactive affair.

Joe Solmonese clarifies the 2017 message delivered in HRC e-blast

by: Pam Spaulding

Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 14:38:55 PM EDT

 As I said, the original message as delivered left it open to a whole lot of interpretation, particularly as an accommodationist position that we can afford to sit back and give the current President a free pass on progress through the end of an imaginary, assumed second term in office.

As I asked in my post, "Is HRC telling people to sit hands folded for Obama re: progress until 2017?," it was a  "what does he really mean" moment; IMHO, he couldn't have possibly meant to telegraph that message in the context of what is going on this weekend. I asked you all what you thought the intent was in the e-blast as well. So this is his response. Again, I'll leave up to you whether it clarifies or "clarifies" matters. I am glad, however, that it was acknowledged the language used was, to be charitable, murky.

The following is from HRC President Joe Solmonese in response to reaction to his weekly message published yesterday:  I’ve seen some reactions to my weekly message, that I gave the President a free pass not to fulfill his campaign promises until 2017.

Here’s something from what I wrote that the authors didn’t include in their pieces: “I predict great things coming out of our work with this President, but that does not mean that I am satisfied today. Our community cannot be satisfied so long as DOMA is on the books and an inclusive ENDA is not.“ I am not satisfied.

 (NOTE FROM PAM: I published the text of the email as received; the text referenced above is not in that document. It may be elsewhere, but not that e-blast.)

HRC is not satisfied.

Our community is not satisfied and that’s why thousands of LGBT people and our allies are in Washington this weekend to demand more.  

That’s our position. Stopping here would mean losing. But stopping here is not what we intend to do.  

We are pushing for much more. It is our job to dog them, but it is also our job to make sure that success is possible. As I wrote, “To do the work, we have to work with our supporters in Congress and with the Administration.

Whatever you think of the Administration’s first nine months, you don’t pass laws by sitting out. You pass laws by sitting at the table.”  Do I believe we’ll have a good track record by 2017? Yes. But the President can’t deliver on his promises alone. It will take all of us working together.

I was an ardent supporter. I am a fervent admirer. And although things haven’t moved as fast as one would like, I have no doubt that he is doing what he can in a very perverse atmosphere to accomplish goals which we all want.  

I am as eager as anyone else to have action on the various pieces of legislation – some of which are a generation old – like ENDA (the Employment Non-Discrimination Act). ENDA has been in the Senate for a literal generation.

 ...I am almost 77 years old. I don’t have time to wait. And I don’t see any reason why anyone in this room – whatever their age – should wait for things having to do with fairness and justice.

What is the messaging you see?

Is HRC telling people to sit hands folded for Obama re: progress until 2017?

by: Pam Spaulding

Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 22:28:32 PM EDT

In one of those "what does he really mean" moments, Joe Solmonese sent out an HRC e-blast to supporters that suggests he's willing to cut the President slack until he leaves office in 2017, after an assumed second term in office.

The missive could also be interpreted as cheerleading the passage of hate crimes as sufficient progress to celebrate for now. If this the message that is being telegraphed as the party line, it proves the org is definitely not in touch with the grassroots discussion out there about what the President needs to say tomorrow night.

Hate crimes is an accomplishment, but what would affect LGBT citizens most profoundly is if the President would state imminent movement on ENDA, or even DADT repeal. That's real progress. Surely he can say something about the battle going on in Maine to reverse marriage equality. None of this mentioned in this e-blast. And cutting slack until 2017, if that's indeed the message, means yet again, that those who have the luxury to wait (they have non-discrimination measures where they live and work), don't understand the day-to-day peril working LGBTs live under in terms the vulnerability of being fired or losing the chance for employment because of sexual orientation or gender identity or expression.

That said, don't go by me; you parse this document and see if there's some other way to interpret this missive, passed along by Americablog.

More below the fold, including a snippet of The Advocate's Kerry Eleveld column, "View from the Hill," about the dinner.

Muliti-tasking: will be on SiriusOutQ's live coverage of the President's speech at the HRC Dinner

by: Pam Spaulding

Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 15:40:32 PM EDT

SIRIUS XM Radio will broadcast extensive coverage of the National Equality March in Washington, DC this weekend including live coverage of President Obama's keynote address at the Human Rights Campaign National Dinner on October 10. The Equality March is an event organized to fight for equal protection for LGBT people in all matters governed by civil law in all 50 states.

Political and cultural commentator Michelangelo Signorile will kick off the coverage on his daily call-in show October 9 live from Washington, DC beginning at 2:00 pm ET. Scheduled guests include Lt. Dan Choi of Knights Out; activist Urvashi Vaid, Executive Director of the Arcus Foundation; and David Mixner, former LGBT liaison to President Clinton. Mixner originally conceived the National Equality March. Both Mixner and Vaid are scheduled speakers at Sunday's Equality March event.

OutQ News will present a live special covering President Obama's keynote address at the Human Rights Campaign National Dinner beginning at 8:00 pm ET on October 10. OutQ will air the speech live in its entirety, and OutQ News Director Tim Curran and his guests will offer reaction and commentary. Scheduled guests include blogger Pam Spaulding of Pam's House Blend and Sean Bugg, co-publisher of Metro Weekly, a gay and lesbian newsmagazine in Washington, DC.

WaPo: Obama's HRC speech will focus on 'incremental advancements as evidence of progress'

by: Pam Spaulding

Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 00:49:46 AM EDT

Oh man, if this is the stale message that the President is going to serve up to the dressed-to-the-nines crowd at the HRC annual dinner, how will they react? And how will that reaction compare to that of the marchers on Sunday? Via the WaPo:

[W]ithin the gay leadership in Washington, established politicians and a freshman class of bolder legislators disagree as to whether the Maine campaign should be central to a larger federal push for equality. Those frustrated voices are lobbying Obama to include a reference to the Maine referendum in his speech. Any failure to do so would be the last straw for many gay activists fed up with the small-bore approach of the Obama White House, the Washington-based gay lobby and the Democratic Party's gay elders.

(A Democratic source familiar with the White House's thinking on the speech said Obama will stress incremental advancements as evidence of progress.)

Sean Bugg:

Incremental advancements? Like, say, appointing gay ambassadors...just as Clinton did back in the 1990s? Or offering domestic partnership benefits to federal employees...except those aren't actually full benefits because federal law bars providing full benefits to gay and lesbian partners in order to "protect" marriage, and where the hell has the Obama administration been on removing that law as it pledged to do? Or any of the other little micro-initiatives that dot the Obama list of accomplishments on LGBT issues, initiatives that are all super in and of themselves, but do nothing to address the fundamental inequality forced on us by federal legislation and policy?

Sean closes with what we're all thinking -- "If that's what we're about to get served up as dinner on Saturday night, we should be sending that dish right back where it came from."