In Defense of the Human Rights Campaign
A TNG reader who has worked closely with the Human Rights Campaign submits this post.
With the stress of the last eight years still lingering and the scar tissue left after this election’s ballot measures still fresh, it’s natural that the LGBT community wants to find a reason for all these seeming failures. Unfortunately, the Human Rights Campaign seems to get the brunt of the blame. Distracted by the rich celebrities and powerful politicians that work with the HRC, the media tends not to delve deeply into discovering what the HRC does with the money they raise. I know that TNG has strong readership and support from the HRC, so I wanted to take the time to show the other side of the argument from Tuesday’s post that critiqued HRC’s efforts.
One of the interesting dynamics of the LGBT movement is that there are so many different national organizations working towards equality, and each focuses on a distinct, but integral, aspect of the fight. GLAAD works to combat bias in the media, PFLAG works to educate allies, Join the Impact does grassroots organizing, etc. The Human Rights Campaign’s focus is on lobbying and politics, which means (unfortunately) that HRC needs to abide by the rules of the political world. Fortunately, HRC is a large enough organization that it has the resources to branch into other aspects of the fight; those efforts just tend to get overlooked.
I’ll start with the topic that has been on everyone’s mind for months: the No On 8 campaign was not the best run campaign. While the No On 8 campaign focused purely on phone banking and fundraising, many at HRC didn’t feel this was the best approach. There had been many times in which the HRC field team talked with staff at the No On 8 headquarters about the need for a more active, visual component to the campaign. HRC knew it was important to give the LGBT community a face. That’s why, on top of giving millions of dollars of resources to No On 8, HRC organized the largest pre-election visibility events in California, to energize their base and give the campaign some media visibility.
The promotion of a non-inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act is commonly considered HRC’s other primary failure. Though the actions taken by HRC seemed to leave behind an entire group of people, they were simply playing the politics game. First, they wanted to make sure that they supported their political allies who had introduced the bill in order to come to them again this year and introduce a fully inclusive bill. Second, they wanted to get a sense of which representatives still needed to be educated on transgender issues. They discovered that many voted no because they thought they “didn’t have any transgender people in their district.”
Because of what they learned during the ENDA fight, HRC has begun training in forty “priority districts” to educate voters on transgender issues and how to help their elected officials support protections based on both sexual orientation and gender identity. The curriculum is focused on giving a face to the transgender community, specifically in religious communities. In fact, more resources are being directed toward transgender education than ever before.
If you would like an example of Milk-like situations in present day politics, take a quick look at the ballot measure on gender discrimination currently being debated in Gainesville, FL. You can check out the two Citizens for Good Public Policy ads here and here. The head of the campaign opposing this ballot measure is insistent that the campaign focus on emphasizing the fact that this ballot would also allow discrimination against pregnant women and veterans, while choosing to ignore gender identity (and these commercials). The HRC staff working with this campaign is committed to talking about gender identity and transgender issues in this fight. They know that it’s important to make this issue what it’s really about: discrimination against transgender individuals.
HRC has also recently joined forces with The Courage Campaign to help increase visibility of LGBT people in California. They are organizing Clergy Call, which includes a lobby day to give elected officials a chance to interact with hundreds of religious allies and show that there are faith leaders from all across the country that support equality for all. In addition, HRC is not just working on passing hate crimes legislation and ENDA, but working towards the repeals of DOMA and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, as well as supporting HIV/AIDS legislation and dozens of state level ballot measures dealing with adoption equality, same-sex marriage, and anti-discrimination laws. Even if it’s not all in one national bill, it’s all on the agenda.
24 comments:
"Though the actions taken by HRC seemed to leave behind an entire group of people, they were simply playing the politics game."
Seemed to leave? The Human Rights Campaign DID leave an entire group of people behind, and they failed to listen to the community. This position is indefensible and you are defending it.
The Human Rights Campaign put forth a substitute ENDA when they got spooked by one lawmaker. They then lied to the LGBT community by saying that they were supporting the original bill. When they got caught in that lie, they then took a step back and lied to the LGBT community by telling them that the were supporting a substitute bill but that they weren't opposing the original one. That was a lie.
HRC bullied lawmakers to support a substitute bill. They threatened to withhold campaign contributions if they voted for the original bill, and then they threatened to mark their scorecard ratings down if they voted for the original bill (and then they DID mark them down).
I used to be a supporter of HRC, but I watched this whole process unfold on Capitol Hill. I saw HRC lie to lawmakers, lie to the LGBT community and lie to their donors and members.
The good thing about the whole ENDA fight is that HRC has been dramatically weakened on Capitol Hill. No one takes them seriously. Lawmakers are now listening to their local LGBT communities instead of HRC.
HRC is bullshit. Don't give them a dime.
While I can't speak to withholding campaign funds, HRC I would like to say something about the scorecard. There are seven members of the House that voted for it fully inclusive, but not for the bill without gender identity. They did it for a good reason, but because doing a congressional scorecard can be difficult if you take into account reasons, they made it very clear to these seven that they only go by vote.
However, if you read the intro to the 2008 Congressional Scorecard (http://www.hrc.org/documents/Congress_Scorecard-110th.pdf), you can see that HRC gave credit where it was deserved. "In addition, seven members who are strong supporters of the LGBT
community — Reps. Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.), Rush Holt (D-N.J.), Michael Michaud (D-Maine), Jerrold Nadler
(D-N.Y.), Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.), Nydia Velázquez (D-N.Y.) and Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) — voted against
the bill because they were disappointed that it did not include transgender protections."
Like it said above. "The Human Rights Campaign’s focus is on lobbying and politics, which means (unfortunately) that HRC needs to abide by the rules of the political world." One of the rules of politics is that you have to be sneaky and hide your true intentions from the other politicians you're talking to.
Honestly, most of the work done to either get pro-LGBT legislation passed and anti-LGBT legislation stopped has been due to the HRC. It's been hard to make progress b/c of the administration, but at least the fight didn't move backwards like it did in the Clinton administration. Much thanks to HRC.
You have to admit that HRC is an important (yet definitely not the only) part of the LGBT movement.
The point is that HRC went to Members of Congress before hand and said "vote for the limited bill and pull your support for the original bill or we will mark you down."
HRC is a federal lobbying organization. They have a $30 million budget and only three lobbyists. Why are we being asked to spend $10 million on each lobbyist? They're approach has failed. Its time to reform (which they won't) or move on.
Just wanted to chime in here with a link I posted in a comment today before this post went up...
I criticized HRC on here earlier for doing little more than cocktail party fundraisers, but in the last 24 hours they achieved a bona fide, non-"behind the scenes" victory.
HRC quickly mobilized mass opposition to a disgusting AFA "infomercial" that a TV station in Michigan was considering airing, but now will not.
Here's the press release.
See? I can be nice. :)
It was not "vote for the limited bill and pull your support for the original bill or we will mark you down." It was "we understand that you don't support the limited bill, but we need to support our allies in congress. Just understand that if you don't vote for it, we'll technically have to mark you down on the score card."
As for lobbyists, they have 3 official lobbyists, but that's not all they use their money for. Millons go to campaigns and ballot measures, millions go to resources like coming out guides and pamphlets about marriage equality, sending staff all across the country to work on local issues. After the education, HRC organizes hundreds of people from all across the country to have one-on-one meetings with their members of congress.
Do research. Look at the website. Ask questions. That's how you find this stuff. Don't just repeat what you hear.
First off, thank you to the original writer for what is clearly a well-informed and well-written post.
I think one of the key things to keep in mind is just what s/he said: that HRC is a political/lobbying organization. Many may feel a stronger tie to grassroots groups, and we've finally entered a time where grassroot campaigns can and have made very real, instead of symbolic, contributions. The grassroots portions of the Obama campaign and some of the Prop 8 organization come to mind immediately.
So. HRC is not going to be your grassroots organization. Does this make it less important or less effective? I don't think so. Is HRC perfect? Nope. But I'd challenge you to find one polictical action group that is.
The bottom line is simply this: throwing trans folk under the bus is simply unacceptable, period. No money from me for HRC.
The ineffectiveness of HRC is not trans dependent. Trans issues are not gay issues and are no more relevant to gay rights than pollution control.
That said there are myriad ways in which HRC is ineffective to its core gay constituency. Resorting to the trans issue is an impoverished argument because, whether you agree with their stance or not, they have a valid reason for rejecting trans issues in their lobbying platform.
Anonymous said: "HRC bullied lawmakers to support a substitute bill. They threatened to withhold campaign contributions if they voted for the original bill, and then they threatened to mark their scorecard ratings down if they voted for the original bill (and then they DID mark them down)."
Anonymous, can you please site evidence of this? An article or accredited web-post?
The difficulty with this situation is that is simply not a black and white issue but many of our diverse communities are trying to make it one. The HRC is an enormous organization. The largest and best funded organization fighting for LGBT equality and acceptance in the country. They do and facilitate an enormous amount of good nationwide. Without the Human Rights Campaign our movement simply would not be in the powerful position it is today and our local communities would have much more difficulty than they already face creating safe environments for us to be out and proud. (It goes without saying the the HRC is obviously not the only organization that has had major influence in the changes of the past 40 years but that is not the point of this discussion.)
It is a shame that the HRC made such a blundering mis-step with ENDA. I have my own personal views on the matter that I will try to keep aside, but let's examine some facts:
(1)While the mutilated ENDA Bill was unfair and wrongly excluded members of our community that desperately need this protection, it held a 0% chance of being enacted into law. The then-President had made it clear that he would not sign the bill.
(2)In less than 24 hours after moving forward with the incomplete bill over 350 LGBT organizations had come out of the wood work to support trans-rights.
(3)While the bill was under deliberation by the House, the vote on the bill was stopped not once... not twice... but four times by this newly formed United ENDA Coalition. An amazing feat for anyone, especially a cadre fighting for minority rights.
(4) When the bill finally did come to a vote, the political score card of our legislators who sponsored and voted for the bill was marked positively for LGBT equality. (While the bill is highly controversial within our own community, one of the reasons Rep. Frank wanted to move on the bill was to increase visibility of LGBT support on the Hill. Albeit a misguided opinion, Frank also believed that there would be a larger showing of support if the bill used the traditional language of exclusively "sexual orientation" that his fellow congress-men and -women were familiar with. We must also keep in mind that, while we are supportive of all-inclusion, our legislative representatives are generally uneducated on what that looks and sounds like and it is our responsibility as constituents to change that, not Mr. Frank's.)
(5)Since 2007, a surprising number of organizations (including representatives of the HRC) have conducted lobby visits on Capitol Hill to do the proper work needed to educate our law makers on gender identity and expression so this exclusion can not and will not happen again.
(6) Two words: Diego Sanchez
(7) As a result of this flash-point, Trans-People are much more equally represented than ever before. Do we still have a long way to go? Yes. Are we pointed in the right direction? Yes. Are we thankful to the HRC for (as I've so often heard) "throwing trans people under the bus" so we can get to the point we're at today? Absolutely not! Should we in turn go after the HRC and their employees with baseball bats for past transgressions? ... well? What do you think?
It's difficult. It's really difficult. If the HRC doesn't get positive input for what the trans-community wants and needs from them in a forum of equal discourse with justifiable consequences for any under-the-bus-throwing that happens in the future, I don't see how we can move past this. The HRC is not going away. It just isn't. It will continue to represent the LGBT community in the future. It is our responsibility to insure that we are represented well. I am personally dismayed that the small handful of people that were responsible for the ENDA debacle were not held accountable by the HRC membership and the community at large. Instead of making a strong push to oust them, members simply stopped giving and moved their support elsewhere. The even more abysmal point is now it is too late to hold them to task and they are still there. Like we have done on Capitol Hill, we must educate our leaders to keep us moving is a positive direction. It is completely understandable if some people just can't bring themselves to donate to the HRC over this incident. I don't blame them. There are many other excellent organizations actively fighting for Transgender Equality. Please give to them.
It is approaching two years since ENDA started to move. We have a progressive congress that is going to pass the Hate Crimes Bill any day now. We have a President that will sign it. It is time to work together. This hatchet needs to be buried... and not in anyone's back. Let us unite as the proud and powerful movement that we are.
---------------------------------
"It seems there is something about anonymity which brings out the worst in us. If you doubt that, come with me into the often-weird world of Internet chat rooms and message boards."
~ Pat Sajak
HRC's Workplace Project has done more to improve the landscape for working transgender and gay employees than any other organization in the country. From teaching corporate America how to work with someone transitioning in the work place, working with insurance companies and employers alike to design trans-friendly benefit programs, working with employee resource groups to enact trans-inclusive nondiscrimination policies and also doing education about basic trans-friendly issues. Do you really think name brand companies like Kodak and Nike would have gotten there on their own without help from a smart, professional organization that was willing to work with them to get to a better place? The HRC Religion and Faith program is also pioneering efforts to get more and more faith leaders to a good place on all GLBT issues – trans issues first and foremost on the list.
Programs like these make real-time changes in peoples lives, they help push political and legislative progress forward, and frankly these types of change happen much more quickly than the legislative ones. The $10 million per lobbyist line of argument is short sighted and poorly informed of the facts.
As a former employee, I know that HRC isn't a perfect organization - but I do know that I sleep better at night knowing that our community has a smart, mission driven and dedicated organization that tries to walk the line each day, balancing the passion, agenda and emotion of the GLBT community with the trepidation, pragmatism and political realities of Capitol Hill. It's easy to be an idealist while sipping whiskey at the Blackcat - a past time I myself enjoy quite a bit -- but by light of day, drawing a map that gets you to that ideal place via modern American politics takes some doing.
Writers on this website have taken cheap shots at HRC on a range of issues - for having its own building (have you read the business plan? do you know how many millions of dollars the organization saves each year by owning instead of renting, not to mention the symbolic importance of having a visible presence of the nation's GLBT community four blocks from the White House?), to marketing the logo of the organization on sweatshirts and other merch (if you're not into wearing the logo, don't - but for lots of GLBT and straight folks, it's a visible symbol of the community, our work and belief in equality - and visibility like that in a community whose members are often born into a closet is a valuable and important thing). Anyway, as a regular TNG reader, it seems like a lot of the complaining about HRC is not as thoughtful or insightful as most of the other commentary that I enjoy here.
Finally, I’ll say Milk made me cry too. But, I also cried the day that HRC brought more than 200 clergy and faith leaders, representing every state in the union, to Washington to lobby congress for hate crimes legislation and ENDA. When all the clergy were gathered together in the cold early spring morning, waiting for a photo op and press conference to begin, they spontaneously, without any organizing or prompting started singing “We Shall Overcome.” Gus Van Sant made a beautiful movie about Harvey Milk, a man often criticized in his own time for not being activisty enough or for allegations that he traded political pragmatism for his ideals. There are parallels here that we can all learn from. I’m not saying that people shouldn’t criticize HRC when there are well reasoned, educated differences of opinion and approach, but the often petty and cheap shots against the organization aren’t serving our community well at a time when we have great potential to move significantly closer to our shared goal of legal equality.
My name is Donna Rose and at one time I was deeply involved with the organization as the first and only transgender board member, as the National Co-Chair for Diversity, as a speaker at dinners and functions around the country, and as a member of the Business Council. My departure over ENDA and subsequent events need no further explanation at this point.
I think you've missed a couple of important points that need to be stressed. First, you mention that the organization's focus is on "lobbying and politics". That's only partly true. HRC is actually two organizations in one and while the political part of the organization certainly is involved in those endeavors the Foundation is much more involved in the day-to-day efforts that affect GLBT lives: the Workplace Project, the Coming Out Project, the Religion and Faith Project, and other such efforts. At a time when we necessarily found ourselves in a defensive political posture we were making huge gains through our Foundation efforts.
One of the things that I stressed to the board before we made our unfortunate decision was that the larger question we were being forced to answer was whether we had become more than simply a political organization as we had led people to believe, or whether at the end of the day the rest was simply window dressing for our political decisions. The decision to split our community answered that question.
I also feel the need to stress the fact that it's not simply what the organization did over ENDA that remains so divisive - it's how it did it. The organization had made a very public board policy to support only fully inclusive federal legislation so in order to pursue this hollow victory it had to break commitments that it had made to an entire community and that Joe Solmonese himself had reiterated only weeks before. It is unfortunate that the weeks and months since then have brought very little in terms of reconciliation and many of us have come to recognize that HRC will do what is best for HRC, not what is best for the people it purports to represent.
HRC penalized supportive legislators who voted against ENDA because it did include trans-people. In my way of thinking, it's inexcusable for the organization to demerit leaders who were willing to uphold a higher standard of equality than they were. Courage? Integrity? Principle? The fact that the organization punished our friends over this demonstrated to many of us that none of those higher ideals apply in this organization.
Some of us are idealists who believe that those who pose as leaders in the Human Rights movement are necessarily held to a higher standard of accountability and principle than in other endeavors. My complaint isn't about the building, or the logo, or the fund-raising, or the elitist aura of the organization. I have defended all that in the past and in my mind those things cloud the main issue. My complaint is purely and simply one of credibility and principle. Although it was admittedly dealt a bad hand over ENDA the fact that it folded on both counts speaks volumes and THAT is the reason why so many of us have turned away.
Donna Rose
Over the years I have refined my position on HRC to this: it is my hope that all gays, bis, transes and lesbians make themselves aware of the wide diversity of glbtwhatever organizations that are out there, and that they consider the efficacy of each organization in their decisions on which organization to donate to.
We are not represented - nor should be represented - by one group alone. Frankly I'm kinda creeped out by how many gays are so willing to blindly throw their money at groups without checking up on annual reports, expenditures and results of such organizations. Some of this information is not available from certain lgbt organizations, but I'll let you find out which one that is.
In other words do your homework before you donate. Unless it is just that snazzy shiny bumper sticker that you're looking for that shows how much you care (and totally tags you when you're on the freeway so that cute guy in the other car knows he's cruising the right guy).
Jimbo, have you ever gone to their website and typed "annual report" into their website. If that's too much, here you go: http://www.hrc.org/about_us/7036.htm
Your welcome.
In fact, HRC won a very prestigious award this year for how well put together their latest annual report was put together. Check it out.
First, let me say that I am relatively new to LGBT activism, and I am still trying to figure out where I fit in to the equation. So, I have a lot of strong opinions, but most of my activism is in a different arena.
Second, there is not one single mention of efforts to reach out to communities of color in the original post or any of the follow up comments.
Third, of course HRC is going to respond and take action when they get publicly called out on something. A few years ago I sent them an email pointing out that they were praising the Cracker barrel at the same time the NAACP was calling for a boycott because they were not seating African Americans or making us eat food pulled out of the garbage. They ignored me. I sent the letter to the Blade, and it was published. All of a sudden I was getting emails from people at HRC. Then I got a condescending call from someone there letting me know that they were going to speak to so-and-so, who is the head of organization X. The person spoke to me like I was an idiot. I said, "Hey, you know what? I actually know so-and-so. I will call him myself."
Fourth, I am underwhelmed. The post and the thread is indicative of a race to the middle. It's amazing to me that so many people seem to be so comfortable with mediocrity. I recently had an exchange on TNG with a guy who was saying the ordeals with which LGBT people deal is equal to "terrorism" and "apartheid." If that is the case, where are the marches and demonstrations? It is well within HRC's mandate to rent a couple of buses and drive people up to Maryland to support lobby day. It doesn't matter if we aren't from MD. We can just stand around so that when state legislators and Gov. O'Malley look out their windows, there are a shit load of people staring back at them.
Just when I think I understand, another layer is revealed demonstrating that the pathology of victimization runs way deeper than I ever thought possible.
Two more quick points:
5) I would be embarrassed to admit that there are a bunch of national organizations working on DIFFERENT issues. Did the author forget to mention the huge projects on which the national organizations are coordinating?
6) As the most visible national LGBT organization, what is HRC doing to help LGBT kids growing up in the fly over states know that they are not alone?
re: Ed
Could not have put that better myself. Great analysis.
Yeah but which is it Ed?
If we invoke the civil rights struggle for American Blacks we're told we do so out of ignorance, that it is vastly superior, more important and does not compare to ours.
If we do not acknowledge that vital history we're told that we ourselves are bigoted, complacent and stupid.
That last exchange you mention about "terrorism" and "apartheid" is a good example. Yeah, many fags are complacent suckling at the tit of a consumerist capitalist-democracy meant to distract us...and like good little boys they'd rather have iPods and appletinis. But when fags who aren't that naive speak up their comments are diminished and dismissed.
I couldn't agree more about Cracker Barrel, the buses and the race to the middle.
Footnote:
Ed, I admire your work on this blog and your commentary. You and I have had some great exchanges and I look forward to more. Your thinking is, as I see it, necessary to future of this hamstrung community. I look forward to reading more of your posts and comments.
This is the original author here. Ed, if you'd like to hear more about that type of stuff, make sure to read the websites of all of these organizations. I only decided to discuss what was brought up in the original because this isn't a political blog, so I didn't want to bog down everything with pages and pages of details. HRC is doing more than ever to expand their outreach to communities of color. They're creating programs to better educate students across the country as well as pulling togther resources for LGBT families through the Family Project.
As for you fifth point, I'm proud of this. The LGBT movement is so large, that we don't have just two organizations doing everything, we have each organizations doing what they know best. HRC doesn't know 100% how to work with educating parents of LGBT kids. They do a great job, but PFLAG knows a lot more about that situation. GLAAD has done much more with watching the media, therefore, they can accomplish more in that area much faster. On the flip side, most national organizations are not as equip to do the lobbying in congress or distributing resources and education to millions, so that's what HRC focuses on.
As multiple people have commented, do research. Don't expect that information to just fall into your lap on a blog post. If you're curious, look into it. I never trust what I hear from blogs, but if it catches my interest, I'll look more into it.
My main problem with HRC is that I've never gotten the sense that they've changed their position on endorsing and supporting non-crappy (but not good) Republican incumbents over genuinely good Democratic challengers. The endorsement of Al D'Amato in the NY Senate race a few years ago is the prime example. I wouldn't be unhappy with them endorsing a good Republican against a bad Democrat, but sucking up to an incumbent Republican just because he's not actively doing hateful things is just not good enough -- especially in states where we have an actual chance to replace that incumbent with someone who will be a genuine ally.
Hi Original author,
I've been on the HRC site. That's where I originally found the press release praising the Cracker Barrel.
One thing that I have learned from working in DC for so long is that you can never assume what someone else doesn't know. Because as soon as you do, they have a ton of stories they can share about the work they did with HRC when they worked on the Hill. Or they can tell you about conversations they've had with HRC staff, and a lot of other really interesting stuff. Oh, like the times they met Elizabeth and Winnie, or the time they worked with Elizabeth's partner Hillary to put on an event during CBC Week.
You know, it could also be really embarrassing if that person was friends with or knew individuals at a number of prominent organizations representing communities of color that HRC is not talking to at all.
Sometimes people don't have to read the website to find out what they want to know because they have other reliable sources. With all due respect, I'll go read the website when I want to be spun by HRC's communications department.
The funny thing is that you took the time to respond to my post, but you didn't really clarify anything. You made more ambiguous statements about these great programs HRC is working on around the nation. But there are tons of posts on this page from LGBT people telling you that we don't know what HRC is doing. That isn't a problem that is solved by reading the website and here's why. We see the parties and the VIP events. We see the multi-million dollar building and the merchandising. We see the ads in all the gay mags selling t-shirts and memberships, but why doesn't YOUR main demographic know what you are doing? Why do so many people have such negative opinions of HRC?
Let me pose my question this way. You said, " ... most national organizations are not as equip to do the lobbying in congress or distributing resources and education to millions, so that's what HRC focuses on."
If HRC has the resources to distribute resources and educate millions, then where is the MOVEMENT? If HRC can lobby Congress, why can't it figure out a way to coordinate the activities of all the national LGBT organizations? HRC has the resources, right? Or am I missing something.
I'm not being belligerent. I really don't know. I know what HRC says it does, but I don't see it. I admit I am new to the LGBT side of activism, but, this ain't my first rodeo.
If HRC is doing all the work you claim they are doing, where are the results. ENDA? DOMA? Don't ask don't tell? Marriage equality? Inclusion in hate crimes legislation? Again, I admit I am learning, but so far, HRC's claims to be working for the LGBT community remind me of President Bush's claims to have kept the nation safe from another terrorist attack after 9/11. There's not alot of evidence to support either's claims.
why can't it figure out a way to coordinate the activities of all the national LGBT organizations? HRC has the resources, right? Or am I missing something.
Ed, the answer to your question goes back a bit, to an underlying issue that HRC probably doesn't want to talk about but gets it into hot water. Most state organizations, that existed before HRC and continue to exist, often have their own priorities and don't at all appreciate HRC sticking its nose into what they consider their business, especially since HRC doesn't even try to co-ordinate first. Often HRC will support people, like D'Amato, who from HRC's perspective are OK but the NY State org the Empire State Pride Agenda loathed. The latter supported Chuck Schumer who has been far more gay friendly than D'Amato every could. Free State Justice, which then became Equality Maryland was absolutely livid when I was in college over the BS the HRC pulled in state elections. Support for people like Connie Morella may have seemed bipartisan but not when the challengers were really good Democrats, who really believed in gay equality. Many PA gays hated Bob Casey as governor and he returned the favor; they had to swallow their mutual distrust to get him to replace Santorum, but there are still lots of raw nerves; HRC came out early in support of Casey to run, even before things were decided.
HRC does not seem to try to co-ordinate with local organizations, which usually have built broad coalitions (unions in MD have been supportive of gay rights, and vice versa, but the HRC isn't felt to be union friendly), (often including the last consonant in LGBT without question) which require local knowledge the HRC doesn't possess. It needs to stick with being either a national organization or one with 50/51/52 equal partners on the state level. Planned Parenthood does this much, much better, so it's not as if it is impossible.
Thanks copp3rred. Finally an answer that makes sense. If the HRC supporters want to answer some of the questions without resorting to talking points, your perspective is welcome as well. I'm just trying to learn.
Thanks
Ed,
As it's been stated many times, very little progress has been made by any progressive organization in the country over the past eight years. Please let me know about any national pro-LGBT legislation that has passed through congress in the past eight years. If HRC is far behind any other organization I'll understand. However, check back in a year and see what HRC has accomplished with a new congress and administration (and now it looks like a new court as well).
Post a Comment