For all our uproar about Barack Obama doing nothing about repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, could he actually be less guilty in all of this than we thought? A shocking report says it’s actually the Human Rights Campaign — already among the most critized members of Gay Inc. — who told him to wait on ending DADT. What?
Rather than push for ending the military’s policy on expelling gays, “leading” gay rights group HRC is said to have pushed for the White House to instead focus on hate crimes legislation and bills like the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Jason Bellini reports that “multiple sources” revealed Sen. Chuck Shumer actually told other gay leaders that HRC recommended not prioritizing DADT, in favor of the other legislation.
HRC denies the charges.
However, if true, that means HRC director Joe Solmonese’s camp is at least partly responsible for the dismissals of folks like Dan Choi, since the organization isn’t advocating for gay soldiers’ immediate protection. Sure, HRC’s other agenda is worthwhile: hate crimes protection and ENDA deserve to be passed. But it comes with an enormous cost for equality. Is HRC insisting some gay people are more worthy of protection now, while others should wait?
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Huh, that sounds familiar.
For HRC’s sake, we can only hope this report turns out to be false. Just its one-time recommendation that a non-trans-inclusive ENDA was worth passing (a position HRC later acknowledged it would never stand by again), HRC stands to lose even more credibility if it’s found out to be brokering our rights behind closed doors.
Still assuming this is true, none of this lets Obama off the hook. He doesn’t have to listen to HRC (nor believe it has 750,000 membersand speaks for all gays). The president could instead listen to his moral compass — and his own promises he made to voters — that equality for all Americans, even the gay ones, is something he would see to.
UPDATE: Is this the same Joe Solmonese who just today was quoted by Politico saying, “No one believes that [anti-gay federal policies] will be miraculously changed overnight” and added that HRC is “frustrated at the pace of progress”? Because that, friends, would just take this hypocrisy to another level.
UPDATE 2: Read our follow up post here, with statement from Solmonese and Sen. Shumer.
ChristopherM
Well, it really shouldn’t surprise us. How many military members have thousands of dollars to spend at one of the glitzy fundraisers that pay Solomese’s salary? I wish there were a good way to communicate the fact that HRC does not speak for us.
Bri
Just in time. Joe Solmonese and Lorri Jean is talking about this on Hardball with Chris Matthews right now.
InExile
FIRE JOE SOLMONESE! CUT OFF THE CASH!
Bri
@Bri: *are (talking about this)
slider
I am not surprised one bit by what HRC did and that is confirmed in the tacit answer from the HRC official that the White House will wait to next year on DADT…..same old story….as we are told to shut up and sit back down in the back of the bus or better yet get off the bus so Obama can drive over us again and again as he did during the campaign and has done so when and since he was sworn in as President.
wondermann
Report back when you KNOW for sure
edgyguy1426
Up until yesterday HRC was given $10 a month deducted directly from my CCard. I cancelled this today and told them why.
Roy Pyatt
HRC sucks (not in a good way) and has for a long long time
Fitz
First “A shocking report”: can you give me a LITTLE detail. Whose shocking report? Secondly, if one thing had to come before the other then bills like the Employment Non-Discrimination Act ARE more important, since we almost ALL need employment, and SOME of that employment is via the military. Do you just look for stuff to get hot about without doing any critical analysis? How is your blood pressure?
InExile
Justice Delayed is no justice at all.
Prof. O. G. Whataschnozell
Does anyone remember how Bill Clinton almost killed his chances at a second term by bringing up healthcare and DADT?
I find it odd no one has asked the hypothetical question of what would have happened had Hillary won and what would she have done about it by now.
dgz
@Prof. O. G. Whataschnozell: are you kidding? that gets asked in almost every thread that has anything to do with Obama, and ruins it. crap, there goes this one…
InExile
@Prof. O. G. Whataschnozell: Hillary would have kept her promises, she is strong enough to stand up to anyone and would not be trying to pander to the religious right. During the campaign people said in a negative way that she did not even belong to a church, which I thought was a major plus! But the powers that be got their way and we all know how that turned out.
It is impossible to be all things to all people which is probably why “we” are not a priority.
Bill Perdue
Obama doesn’t listen to HRC, he listens to phobes like Joshua Dubois, his Minister of Pandering.
strumpetwindsock
@Prof. O. G. Whataschnozell:
@dgz:
You should probably just start calling it a “Hillaryism”, make it an automatic fail and be done with it.
DaveO
Ugh. Partnership rights and DADT will have actual, immediate impact on many peoples’ lives. The rest, nice to have, but not so much.
Rob
Has ENDA even been introduced in Congress yet? Why is HRC putting its efforts into a largely symbolic hate crimes bill, rather than pushing for swift passage of an antidiscrimination law that would actually have a concrete effect on a lot of gay people’s lives?
JDI
Gay Inc. needs to be SHUT DOWN starting now. I just read about this story on towleroad and am inclined to believe. HRC is a scam as far as I’m concerned.
Captain Freedom
Joe Solmonese needs to be tarred and feathered in the streets! Better yet, let’s send him to Iran one-way…
Lee
Here’s a link to the Hardball video page:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/#31111399
Matthews can be an ass but he pinned down the slimy, self-serving $300,000+ a year Solmonese whose lower lip is so big because it’s swollen from trying to talk out of both sides of his mouth at the same time. [Lorrie Jean, despite her culpability re 8, nailed all the appropriate asses to the wall.]
Matthews got him to say out loud THE most important thing re DADT…HEY BARRY! Forget using the lame excuse that you have to wait for Congress…issue the Executive Order that the Congressionaly mandated law about “national emergencies” empowers you do NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Little Joe tried to keep his name on the White House cocktail party list by squirming in the opposite direction by repeating the PHONY, DECEITFUL BULLSHIT about Clinton’s moving too fast. Experts agree: he didn’t move too fast he moved too slow and that Obama’s doing the EXACT same thing.
Note, that he also repeatedly jammed in a plug for how much HRC is ALLEGEDLY working with the administration about gay stuff…even tho his excuse er explanation for why Obama ISN’T “stop lossing” gay discharges he admitte was just a guess.
Joey: you either are a player or you’re not.
[img]http://www.leonardmatlovich.com/images/626_LetThemServe_sldn_org.jpg[/img]
Dabq
Say it isn’t true, Saint Hillary would never do such a thing to her most loyal and vocal supporters, never LOL!
Gino
Repealing DADT should be a bigger priority than gay marriages. My opinion.
Synnerman
They are smart. Healthcare reform and the economy are far more important and if those important issues are scuttled because of gay marriage or don’t ask, don’t tell the gay community won’t have ANY allies in the foreseeable future.
Dr. Pedantic
DADT is a matter of national security. We can’t afford to be kicking people out of the military while fighting two wars. And Obama will probably never have the political capital again that he has now. He should spend it. This is nothing like the Clinton situation. It is more than 17 years later, we are at war, and Obama, who wasn’t old enough to serve in Vietnam, isn’t mistrusted by the military as much as Clinton the draft-dodger was. Colin Powell and others who were in favor of DADT are now against it, and it would not take much for Obama to do something. Even if it was just to save Dan Choi. That he did nothing shows how much of a “priority” we are.
As for how busy he is with the economy, healthcare, etc., remember that during the campaign, Obama said that a president has to know how to multitask. He keeps punting on marriage equality (having been in favor of it when running for statewide office in IL), letting Dick Cheney move ahead of him on that frong.
Is HRC complicit in Obama’s inaction? I have no idea. But let’s not forget that ultimately, Obama has to be held accountable, and responsible.
InExile
@Dabq: You are correct, Hillary would not!!!
TheBigotBasher
Got to admit I misread this title originally and thought why is Hillary Clinton getting involved in this?
timncguy
@Synnerman: Issuing a “stop loss” executive order to end the firings of DADT while we wait patiently for congress to repeal DADT would cost Obama no political capital at all. Over 70% approve of the repeal of DADT. And, it would take all of 10 minutes to issue an executive order, no slowing down any ofthe work going on with the economy or healthcare.
I didn’t hear anyone complaining that the executive order for embryonic stem cell research should have waited until the economy and healthcare were handled. There are just as many right wingers opposed to stem cell research as for ending DADT. That didn’t stop Obama from fulfilling that campaign promise. He didn;t worry about riling them up over that issue. Why worry about DADT when such a large majority support repeal?
GJR
@timncguy:
Exactly right. And he didn’t seem to have a problem today going to the center of the Muslim world and trying to mend fences, stating publicly that we tried to overthrow Mossadecq in the 1950’s, a major reason for many over our problems with Iran, critisized Israel, saying they need to close those damn settlements. Somehow he can be completely bold when he wants to. It’s just when it comes to the queers is he so afraid to act…
Ben
Everyone take a breath. We have 4 years (probably 8) with Obama to get major work done. We need to prioritize and thread the needle of increasing gay rights carefully. Sad, yes, but politically wise.
Repealing DADT is done. Just a matter of time. Like everyting else on our plate.
timncguy
@Ben: some of us in the LGBT community aren’t that young anymore. We’ve been working for equality for 40 years now. Eight more is TOO LONG when the dems control every part of the government and Obama, the leader of the party made promises during the campaign.
I don’t expect it to all happen overnight. But, i do expect to see Obama beginning to execute the plans that he promised during the campaign in order to get our money and our votes.
It wasn’t the community that FORCED Obama to say he would be a fierce advocate and use the bully pulpit to promote equality. Those words came directly from him without us twisting his arm to make the promise.
The Gay Numbers
If it were just hate crimes I would have a problem, but practically speaking either DADT or ENDA help us with any law suits regarding equality issues at the federal level. Both are premised on creating a protect status regarding sexual orientation. To a less degree so does hate crimes, but ENDA has a more direct connection to discrimination based on the ideas of suspect class status. It is something that lawyers arguing cases (a la Boies/Olson or the DOMA Clause 3 case) can use to say to courts “Look, here’s evidence that the law protects gays, and, therefore your decision is not going that far out on a limb to grant similar protected status.” The real question is the passage of the laws. If that happens, I am kosher. If not, I am pissed. By the way,t he same approach regarding DADT can be used as a end run around the political process ot use the Courts. It’s not a big leap from ENDA, for example, to a court saying that if we in political procress provide heighten status to gays for protection- then why is not the same for the military? All these things are connected.
timncguy
@Ben: tell that to the pilot with 18 years service, just two years short of retirement, who is getting booted out NOW, when Obama could stop his firing.
sam
lol
employment discrimination act?
isn’t that the very crux of what DADT is?
😛
daftpunkydavid
i hate to be defending HRC on this one, but if it is indeed true, i also think it is smart politics. i don’t know that it is politically possible to get everything that we’ve been asking for (and that we deserve, and that we should not be asking for in the first place). and until someone convinces me about that, i will believe that the slowly but surely approach is probably best. it doesnt mean that we will wait forever, it just means that we are smart enough to realize we don’t want to give fodder to the haters so they can use it to put another bush/cheney/ashcroft/gingrich/musgrave/santorum and the like back in power for a decade. that would set us back ages. and trust me, no amount of protests would force those guys to lift DADT, DOMA, pass ENDA or repeal HIV+ ban on travelers/immigrants
oh and i heart lambda legal and national center for lesbian rights. i heart the aclu. i give money to all of them. the little that i can.
but i think we also need an hrc. at least for now. do the need to change? probably. but that’s no reason enough to get rid of them altogether. consider what espa is doing in new york; or nhftm in new hampshire, or glad in ma, etc. this is no easy work at the (liberal) state level. imagine what it is at the (not liberal) federal level… we need to be patient people. assertive, watchful, but patient nonetheless.
it’s politics people… POLITICS. like it or not, that’s what we have. politicians promise to change the way things are run. sometimes they do, most times they don’t. either way, so long as we can’t pass an omnibus bill through this congress, addressing ENDA, DADT, DOMA, the ban on HIV+ travelers/immingrants, etc., we are gonna have to prioritize. and if this report is true, i do believe this prioritization is as good as any i’ve seen. think about it this way: would you rather have to wait 4-6 years and get where you wanna be or have to suffer through another decade of anti-enlightenment fanatics like huckabee, bush, gingrich, etc?
people, we have to be patient. assertive, yes; watchful, yes. but patient nonetheless. and smart about not repeating errors past.
Percival
I completely share everyone’s outrage, so please don’t misinterpret this comment as complacency or apathy.
The way our government is set up, we simply *do not* have the kind of clout, as ordinary citizens, necessary to affect rapid, radical change at the federal level.
I want everything everyone else does, but we have to work within the system we live. I think that nothing except an extremely cataclysmic and unforeseeable event will cause the kind of change that we all want to see. Again, believe me, I hope that this kind of event happens sooner rather than later.
But until then, we have no choice but to yes, remain visible and keep the movement’s momentum going, but also trust in our elected officials and the gay rights group that have this supposed “access” to the White House. I believe that major change *will* happen by the end of Obama’s term – we just have to remain persistent and patient.
daftpunkydavid
@Percival: well said.
Percival
@daftpunkydavid: I have to confess that I only skimmed the comments before posting my own. Yours and mine pretty much get at the same point. Tip o’ the hat to you as well, sir.
Lee
I believe we DO have the “clout” but we’re afraid to use it.
Gay money and volunteers are important to the Dems. If we withheld both in adequate numbers they would turn on a dime, no pun intended.
Too many of us fear letting a few Repugs win, at least on a state level, to risk it however.
The other alternative is returning to ACT UP nonviolent civil disobedience. But the anger is not there in sufficient numbers…yet.
My posts merely hope to change that.
Percival
@Lee: I think the fear of letting Republicans gain any ground on the state level may be justified – it looks like that’s where the current momentum is. Or at least in the area of marriage equality.
timncguy
@Percival: the issue of “fear” of republicans could work to our advantage if the dems in power actually believed we would do what we threaten. If they were convinced losing our support would cost them, then logic would say they would work to do something to KEEP us in their camp.
If they don’t, then either they don’t believe we will follow through, or they don’t believe they need us or our money to win.
The Gay Numbers
This is not about clout. It’s about strategy. Clout can only take you so far. Strategy- being smart- realizing how prior civil rights battles was one- is what a lot of people are missing in this conversation. That’s not too surprising given the lack of knowlege of history in our society or of basic literacy about civil rights movements. As I said,t eh value here of such a strategy, if it is true, is that it would impact DADT and DOMA and everything else. One door, because of he underlying questions, opens the other. I hate to say it, but as I have said before, reading many of the comments here, I am struck by the lack of basic understanding of civics. That ENDA, for example, is premised on exactly the same question as DADT seems to go above some fo the people’s head here. I once again repeat what I said elsewhere- this is the NAACP strategy as far as I can tell. The idea is to dismantle the de jure discrimination in such a way that destroyes the logical and factual underpinning of the position. By dismantling the separate but ewual with regard to ENDA, for exampl,e you open the door in other areas such as DADT and DOMA. Please look up the history of the black legal civil rights movement.
Chitown Kev
@The Gay Numbers:
Well said.
daftpunkydavid
you know, something else we forget is that politicians will play politics with political things; they will not, however, play politics if something is beyond politics. if we cast this problem as the moral imperative that it is (equality under the law, justice – period), then there’s no republicans versus democrats. which is why it’s so good to have the conversation at the national level of two heavyweights like olson and boies; our lawyers from lambda, nclr, aclu, hrc, glad, etc have done amazing work over the years in front of courts; but none of them had the clout of these two guys… so i’m hopeful more and more brian williams questions will come, so we can put the feet of our elected officials to the fire and hld them accountable and challenge their policies and change and their minds til they see this as the simple question of equality that it is. once that’s done, our job will be over (or almost).
Chitown Kev
@The Gay Numbers:
I’ve been studying that history.
2009 HRC = 1940 NAACP. That is, they have the access as the elite of the community but they have, to some extent, been co-opted by the political establishment. Grassroots movements (the SCLC) deal and petition to the establishment but retain an oppositional stance.
David Mixner made this comparison recently and he was right on target.
There is the beginning of a grassroots movement forming out of the ashes of the Prop 8 debacle. We’re just going through some growing pains, that’s all.
Chitown Kev
@Lee:
I believe the anger is there in California.
Percival
@The Gay Numbers: I completely agree with you. As I said, I think we should trust the legislators and gay rights leaders whose job it is to strategize on our behalf.
Meanwhile, I think the purpose of the rallies and marches should be focused more on changing the hearts and minds of other every-day people: look at California. I think a lot of the gay rights organizations here have been doing a tremendous job of reaching out to people who are on the fence on the issue of marriage equality.
@Chitown Kev: @Chitown Kev: I think you are both right. There is definitely a mood of anger and urgency here in California. Unfortunately, there is a disconnect between the grassroots component of the movement and the political establishment at the moment. Here’s hoping this can reconciled in the near future.
Percival
@Percival: Uhm, don’t know what happened there. There can be only one Chitown Kev.
kevin57
HRC is a morally bankrupt organization.
Off with their heads!
timncguy
@The Gay Numbers: we don’t need to wait to get ENDA first in order to undo DADT. Obama is ON RECORD as saying he will repeal DADT. The public supports repeal of DADT by more than 70%. There is no political danger here. With one swipe of a pen Obama could issue a stop loss order RIGHT NOW to stop firings under DADT while he gets on his BULLY PULPIT as promised and instructs congress to get their butts in gear and repeal it through legislation.
Of all the promises Obama made to us, DADT is the easiest to make good on.
The Gay Numbers
@Chitown Kev: I am not only discussing HRC. Therefore you analogy is useless. The key element here is to ask ourselves what is going to produce the results we want in the fastest manner possible. That’s the reason I suggest the black civil right LEGAL history. That’s the key element. How one piece affects and in turn shifts another. Scalia, who is big old homo hating shit head on the S.Ct., would understand my logic because he realized that was th eimpact of overturning Bowers with Lawrence- to name one case- that illustrates the legal and legislative chess board here. I am not going to get angry merely because HRC may or may intend such a strategy when I can see how such a strategy may nevertheless play to our advantage considering the caseses coming up including DOMA Clause 3 and the DADT case that Obama did not fight against.
David Mixner is wrong when it comes to the legal and legislative strategy, but he’s right about the activist strategy. He’s discussing the activist element,b ut he ignores the legal and legislative element. One strategy should not be the same as the other. What activist can do in the street is not how the gay rights movment should pursue its legal or legislative strategies. These are the failures here I think of misundersgtanding what part of history is relevant to what. The Legal Defense Fund stratergy and legistlative strategies that lead to the brown v board and later the Civil rights Act are instructive- not what activist in the streets were doing.
I will be blunt- I do not trust most peo here to understand the complexities of the multiple pieces on the chess board. I am just understanding it now myself from a half ass comment by of all people Dustin Black who mentioned a national civil rights strategy that was later reinforced by Cleve. The idea is that there are a lot of underlying similiar issues about equality at playhere. One win in one area necessarily impacts another in terms of what arguments one can make legally and in terms of legislation. That’s why the right fights so hard, for example, agains the hate crimes bill. Why? because it shifts the debate toward a special status for gays nder the law. It opens the door for arguing that we should be protected in the law in other ways as well.
The Gay Numbers
@timncguy: . My point is that we should not wait for Obama to do anything before creating strategies taht will produce the results we want whether it is through Obama, the legislative process of the courts. All of them impact each other but are different strategies. Convincing Obama may be hard on DADT, but if he’s agreed on EDNA and hate crimes, that necessarily helps DADT when it comes to the pending court case. Do you see my point? Learn to play chess rather than see this as personalities that you want to do what you want.
Chitown Kev
@The Gay Numbers:
Well, you had better know the legal strategy better than I, Numbers. 🙂
And I think that the NAACP was (and is for that matter) much more so about legal strategies as opposed to SCLC and especially SNCC.
OK, now I have to look up the legal strategies shit; I hate to NOT know these things. Thanks.
Dammit.
timncguy
@The Gay Numbers: Convincing Obama to get rid of DADT shouldn’t be hard. Don’t you recall the ONE WORD answer Gibbs gave when asked the question at the start of the admin. When asked if Obama would repeal DADT as promised, Robert Gibbs answered “YES”.
The strategy we need is to EVERY DAY keep reminding Obama of that promise and that one word answer until he realizes we aren’t going to back down.
The Gay Numbers
@timncguy: The problem you have is that you think there is one strategy when I advocating several. If we can get DADT through public pressure fine. Let’s do that. If we can get something that will lead to DADT repeal through other means as well. Let’s do that. My point is I can ot get angry over one strategy or another because I realize that it will take more than one. I can understand the value of looking at different approaches to address the same problem rather than thinking of it as a single solution.That’s why I keep mentioning chess. Look at the moves and what they will produce in the game rather than focusing on your win on one strategy- namely pressuring Obama. You can still keep that strategy while pursuing others. I am not makin gan argument in favor of HRC’s decision. I am making one in favor of how if we can get ENDA and hate crimes with Obama’s backing- I will take that, even as we try to pressure him through other avenues regarding DADT. We can use an ENDA win to achieve the end of DADT eventually as well. THus, seeing it as more than one strategy or all our eggs in one basket. I do not know if this is HRC’s thinkig. I doubut it in fact. But i see the value of realizing that being angry when we can gain something from this is not the best course of action.
vernonvanderbilt
Here’s the thing, okay? Doctors have no financial incentive to heal people, cops have no financial incentive to prevent crime, and lobbyists have no financial incentive to satisfactorily resolve the issues they purport to represent. I cannot fathom the possible reasons for people to not realize this.
Why on earth would Joe Solmonese want to gain full, true equality for all LGBT people in America? He’d be putting himself out of a very lucrative and high-profile job in the process. I wouldn’t be surprised in the least if HRC helped further the delay on DADT. I’m not saying they did, just saying it wouldn’t surprise me.
If this turns out to be the case (and we may never know the facts in this matter, unfortunately) then we can only blame greed for our continued subjugation. Seriously…take any social ill in the world today, particularly America, and if you trace its roots back far enough, you’ll see that the first cause is a rich person. Think I’m wrong? Try it yourself with any issue you desire.
The more money you have, the more people you have taken advantage of, stolen from, stepped on, etc. You cannot get rich by being a good person. You can only gain wealth by being selfish, greedy, and in too many cases, evil.
Is Joe Solmonese selfish? Probably. Greedy? Almost definitely. Evil? I’ll be diplomatic and say the jury’s still out on that one.
But I’m not liking his chances of innocence.
The Gay Numbers
@vernonvanderbilt: Why do you insist on personalize this rather than asking whether its a good thing in its own right? Do you think ENDA is important? Do you understand what the legal consequences of having federal rights granted? Does this article change the value of winning those battles even if they are not the one you thought we would win? None of my questions ask what do you think of HRC- becaue about them being crap- I would agree, but at the end of the day i don’t know if that’s the same as asking swhether this is good or bad for us or not.
Mark
Shock: Queerty writers have never had to coddle favor with legislators and are unaware of the processes involved with bringing legislation up for a full Congressional vote.
Shock: Queerty writers know nothing whatsoever about the background with respect to ENDA and the removal of the trans part of that legislation. Utterly unaware of the background.
Shock: Queerty writers have apparently never visited the Halls of Congress or lobbied to get laws passed or to bring them out of committee.
Shock: Queerty writers are apparently unaware that Christians run a huge portion of DC and are not particularly fond of gays. Read between the lines there, folks. READ BETWEEN THE LINES.
Shock: things take time and consensus.
Shock: Making HRC ‘responsible’ for the removal of a translator and a pilot from the military is irresponsible in itself. You can blame Clinton for that one.
vernonvanderbilt
@The Gay Numbers: Perhaps I should clarify something: I don’t really give a shit about DADT, in the grand scheme of things. Marriage equality, ENDA, getting rid of DOMA…these are all much, much more important to me than DADT. Does that mean DADT isn’t important? Of course not. It’s vital that openly GLBT people be permitted to kill the enemies of the capitalist/political system of America. That’s just good business.
Personal feelings aside, if HRC is trading our deserved (and long overdue) rights for continued access to an administration that can barely be bothered to mention us in public, much less actually do something for us, then they are traitors to the cause. Joe Solmonese is a piece of shit. He has sold his soul for filthy lucre, and he’s working as hard as he can to sell all of us out as well before the ball drops and he is swallowed by obsolescence.
As far as I’m concerned, any instance of a member of the GLBT community giving approval to a delay of equality, especially someone who makes (lots of) money off of our struggle, is one instance too many. We can call it “politicking” or “strategizing” or whatever benign euphemism sounds best to us (read: not me) but the fact of the matter is that it’s only a political game because the people in power in our movement allow it to be played. Until we start nailing bastards to the wall, efficiently and mercilessly, regardless of party or political leanings, we will continue to be pawns in a money/power game. We could stop being doormats for the moneyed elite if we’d simply stop volunteering for the job.
Chitown Kev
@vernonvanderbilt:
Here’s where I disagree with you slightly.
It’s not as if discrimination will cease to exist once all of this legislation is passed and signed. Therefore, there will always be a need for a group like the HRC (just as there is still a need for other civil rights orgs)
Now it would have to be pared down a lot and Joe S. probably won’t be able to command the huge salary, HRC may have no need for their lavish headquarters, and things of that nature.
galefan2004
Seriously, the world is going to hell. Every single country other than ours still hates us. Our economy is in ruins. Our military is in a never ending war, and the only thing we can be bothered to worry about is DADT? I mean, seriously, all DADT really does is ask someone to stay in the closet for the years that they serve in the military. We are kidding ourselves if we think there aren’t various public jobs, that aren’t in the military, that do the EXACT same thing. Try being a teacher in a school in the middle of the Bible belt and then coming out the closet and see how long your job lasts. I had a teacher in high school who killed himself after struggling with this sexuality versus his profession for a good 20 years or more. It sucks, but sometimes we have to make choices. Our choices are between serving in the military and being out and open about our sexuality. I know that forcing someone to hide who they are sucks, but seriously, this country is at war right now and the last thing we need during a time of war is an undermining of morale. The truth is, this is America, this is not Canada. We still suffer from bigotry and stupidity. We are still guilty of it as well.
Alec
@galefan2004: That’s apathy for you. “So you suffer, so what? We all suffer” is not a solution.
The point is that no one should have to make the choice and there is no reason for continuing to force men and women to do so, whether they’re public school teachers in the Bible belt (ENDA) or soldiers (DADT).
galefan2004
@Alec: You couldn’t be more wrong. Its not apathy what-so-ever. I never said it was appropriate. I never said that DADT was acceptable. I never said that the lack of ENDA was acceptable either (although this is a careful issue because the very last thing we need is a gay version of affirmative action). What I said was that this country seriously has more problems than rather or not I can go join the military and be open about who I am. When I chose to join the military I make a decision to not be gay for the next four years. That is currently the way it is. That isn’t right, but it just is. Sometimes, we just have to accept life the way it is. The focus of this country should be on fixing the economy and ending the war in Iraq. When those two major issues are taken care of then the emphasis should be on improving the rights of minority citizens. Until then, I would much rather be in the closet at work than not be able to find a job because they don’t exist. I would much rather be in the closet than dieing on the battle field as well. When we stop seeing a loss of more jobs than will ever be created and the end of needless deaths in Iraq then it is time to worry about rights.
Alec
@galefan2004: There will always be excuses, though. We can *always* state that something needs to be prioritized.
In a weak labor market, there’s every reason to expect that gay people will have a much more difficult time obtaining employment, for example. Which makes ENDA all the more pressing (it is after all an employer’s market). Even when the Iraq war ends, we’ll still be in Afghanistan. Etc. etc. etc.
The *fact* is that the Democratic majority will probably not be this strong in 2011. That’s why movement is urgent on these matters.
Been Around
If you read the stories and listen to the people involved, I think it’s pretty clear that HRC signed on to a deal in which DADT repeal would wait until the second year of the Obama administration.
Whether HRC suggested it or whether they accepted it is another issue. Having spent a number of years in Washington political circles, I suspect more the latter than the former. I suspect that they were told that Obama would focus on the crisis issues, i.e., the financial meltdown, the wars, the Middle East, and health care, and not use political capital on divisive issues.
We’ve seen this in areas other than DADT. Look at the refusal to prosecute the torturers. It sticks in my craw in a major way, but the rationale is clear: Don’t pick big fights over peripheral issues. You might say torture isn’t peripheral, or that DADT isn’t peripheral, but in the larger scheme of things they ARE peripheral. The economy is on fire, and the wars are on fire. First things first.
The problem with all of that, though, is that Year 2 of the Obama administration will be 2010, the off-year elections year. Congressional approval of a DADT repeal will be difficult to pass that year, so I can easily see it being shoved off into Year 3. So, what do you do in the meantime?
To me, the answer is a stop-loss order. It’s not only do-able, but it would be a good on-ramp to repeal. Obama could do the stop-loss and then later point to the experience and say, “See? It worked. Now we can change the law.” Remember, DADT isn’t a policy, it is a law. Obama can override its implementation, but he cannot repeal the law. Congress has to do that, and you don’t snap your fingers and expect Congress to act. It takes time.
I think HRC is playing insider baseball with all the attendant dangers of co-optation, but I’m not inclined to form a circular firing squad just yet. What I definite do think HRC should be fighting much harder for is a stop-loss order to bridge the gap until repeal.
galefan2004
@Alec: I agree with you and disagree with you at the same time. Saying democratic majority is needed to work on gay rights issues is saying that all democratic candidates are in favor of every gay rights issue, and that is simply not the case. Also, I agree that there will always be issues that seem like they need to be prioritized. I guess, for me, I personally just don’t get the issue with DADT. If you remove it then you will have to rewrite something in its place or you will still have gays being thrown out of the military. Gays have been thrown out of the military for the entire time there has been a military in this country. So, what we are really asking for is a complete rewrite of DADT not a simple removal. I don’t see it as being a big issue because I am smart enough to realize that if I ever chose to join the military it would probably be better for me and the men I served with if I didn’t come out to them on the first day then get in the shower with them on the first night. There is much more that needs changed to end the bigotry that is DADT than simply speaking it away.
Alec
@galefan2004: Automatic discharge was the policy before DADT. The MERA is designed to both repeal DADT and prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
I’m not sure what the full vote count on DADT is, but even if some conservative senators and representatives opposed it (and I’m think Senator Nelson of NE in particular), the numbers will never be this favorable to at least try.
Alternatively, the Obama administration can issue its own executive order. That appears to at least be feasible, and it would require no legislative action. I also think it would be more likely that there would be legislative action to codify the executive order after it had been policy for a bit.
The Gay Numbers
@vernonvanderbilt: Except that’s not my question. My question is can you see the value of going after ENDA first? Not DADT ever, but ENDA first.
That the distortion you are making is based on a faulty understanding of how legislation gets made. Some times some things are going to be pushed first while others are not. It’s call politics.
I feel as if I am Harvey Milk here and you are Dan White. Dan White, as many of you here, refused to understand how one gets a piece of legislation into law. The old saying is that it’s not pretty. It’s like making sausage.
What an activist can do differs from what someone trying to get things passed can do. HRC is a lobbying organization. Not an activist organization. The difference is important because it defines the strategies that one uses to accomplish the goal.
I think part of the problem here is borne out of you expecting a one size fit all strategy. At hte end of the day I don’t care about HRC so much as i care about the we just need ‘easy solutions’ approach to what we all can do.
vernonvanderbilt
@Chitown Kev: Of course, you’re correct. Solmonese is still a shifty, conniving fraud. That’s all I’m really trying to say here.
@The Gay Numbers: Yeah, I kinda think I already said that, homey.
And I am so not distorting anything. All I’m doing is pointing out that the so-called “system” is a farce, not a democracy. Money buys votes and power, not always in that order. The way you make it sound, the current way of doing things is right because…well, because it’s the current way of doing things. I’m all in favour of working within a distasteful and soul-raping system if that’s what you must do to get things done, but I’m also in favour of pointing out as often as possible how fucked up that system is at the same time.
“I feel as if I am Harvey Milk here and you are Dan White.”
Really? Want me to put a bullet in your head then? Martyr complex much? Or is that just one of those nifty little tricks you learned from working within “the system?” You know, demonize anyone who disagrees with you on any level. That one.
“HRC is a lobbying organization.”
No shit. I said that in my first post on this topic. Spin the wheel, bub, pick another one.
The funny thing is, I’m honestly failing to see what exactly we are disagreeing on. I’m chalking that up to poor communication on your part, because I haven’t seen the point of any comments you’ve directed at me thus far, unless that point is to simply oppose me for the sake of opposing me. Or maybe my stating the facts about wealthy folks struck a chord with you? Enlighten an ignorant faggot, please, because I’m completely lost.
The Gay Numbers
@vernonvanderbilt: No thanks. The truth is I am not just arguing just to be arguing. But you certainly seem to be with comments like putting bullets in someone brain when you know that was not the point of the analogy.
The Gay Numbers
@vernonvanderbilt: Quick follow up: I also do not understand the value of bitching about something you claim to understand but then proceed to complain it is not something else. You say , for example, you understand democracies and HRC, but then bitch because they are not something else.
Cheesehead
I agree with several of the commenters that DADT repeal, while important, is not my number one legislative priority. ENDA and the hate crimes bill rank higher for me. But here’s the problem, ENDA is a very narrow bill. It only covers private employers with 15 (I think) or more employees. Alec’s example of a public school teacher in the Bible Belt wouldn’t be covered because ENDA doesn’t apply to public employers like states and municipalities. And forget housing, credit, public accommodations and public programs. You could still be denied a mortgage loan, a seat on an airplane or the ability to bid on a government contract because of your sexual orientation. ENDA is a shitty bill.
We have HRC to thank for continuing to press ENDA at the expense of a broader bill. Thanks Joe Solmonese! Thanks Elizabeth Birch!
Been Around
Cheesehead, it would be interesting to read a legal analysis with respect to whether or not the federal government has the power to mandate non-discrimination on state governments and their subsidiaries, i.e., local governments.
I think (but might be wrong) that the constitution is pretty clear when it comes to the limits. State employees, for example, cannot be required to join the Social Security system. (“State” also means local, because local governments are legally creatures of the states, not the feds.)
The rebuttal here would be the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I honestly don’t know if it’s enforceable against state governmenmts, but I don’t think it is. If I’m wrong about that, I’d love to know the specific legal theory behind it.
ENDA, by definition, applies to employment and not public accommodations. I think that once you get employment, it would be a lot easier to broaden it later on. Therefore, on that one I have to be on HRC’s side. First you get what you can get, then you go for the rest.
Been Around
I did some research on the question of federal authority to move against state and local governments under the Civil Rights Act, and the answer is complicated. It involves a detailed review of the 11th and 14th amendments.
The bottom line is that I think it would be difficult for, say, a Bible Belt schoolteacher to use ENDA to protect his or her job. The federal government is probably the one that would have to bring the lawsuit, and getting them to do it would be no small task.
Ian
I’m sorry, but I don’t see what the big deal is about?
This is politics people. You can’t get everything you want. HRC chose the most important issue, and that’s that.
I say good for HRC to have such great communication with congress. Not every advocate group does.
GJR
@Ian:
Um, let me explain what the problem is. The HRC has a history of having more gala events that actually doing thing that help the GLBT community. If this allegation is true, they truly were not speaking out on behalf of the GLBT community. I’m not going to quibble on whether a hate crimes law or the repeal of DADT should come first but making a big policy call without discussing it with other members of the community is not a good idea.
The shocking thing is, believe it or not, they could work on multiple issues at once. They could indeed have a hate crimes bill working and a DADT bill working. The results do not have to be at the same time. But when the Pentagon is giving press conferences that NO discussion is going on, that’s disturbing. When White.gov waters down the language on repealing DADT, that is also disturbing.
Obama has now given major addresses on relations with Muslims worldwide, one on race and numerous other issues. It is now time for a comprehensive address on GLBT issues, with real time lines on when stuff will START to happen.
Cheesehead
Been Around,
The answer is complicated and requires a reading of the Supreme Court’s convoluted federalism cases. States have sovereign immunity but municipalities do not. Without getting into too much detail, the Supreme Court has held that federal statutes banning discrimination on the basis of age and disability in public employment do not overcome a state’s sovereign immunity. Cities, counties and local school boards are still covered by the those laws, however. But if the entity receives federal money you could make the receipt of the funds contingent on non-discrimination, which is what Title IX of the Civil Rights Act is all about for gender discrimination, and the Rehabilitation Act for disability discrimination.