GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

When Will HRC Start Confronting Democrats?

by

As we have frequently pointed out on this blog, while HRC (the Human Rights Campaign) claims to be a “bipartisan organization,” it rarely, if ever, criticizes Democratic politicians. At the same time, its leaders regularly issue releases and statements attacking Republicans and conservatives. For example, HRC President Joe Solmonese took California Governor Schwarzenegger to task for vetoing legislation recognizing same-sex marriage in the Golden State, yet he and his associates use kid gloves when dealing with Democratic legislators in states across the nation who have voted for legislation codifying the traditional definition of marriage (one man to one woman).

Because of HRC’s readiness to attack Republicans for any hint of anti-gay sentiment and genrally leaves Democrats alone, it has become increasingly apparent that this group styles itself more as the gay and lesbian branch of a broad “progressive” movement than as a group committed to developing a bipartisan approach to gay and lesbian issues.

Troubled by HRC’s failure to take issue with Democrats who support the (Federal Marriage Amendment) FMA, a reader from Minnesota wrote to Solmonese to ask how he handles such Democrats. The reader shared the e-mail with me and I reprint it with permission:

What are you doing to confront Democratic Federal Marriage Amendment Supporters….. People like Stephanie Herseth (SD), Colin Peterson (MN) and Elwyn Tinklenberg (MN)?

The DCCC advised two Minnesota congressional candidates – Teresa Daly and Elwyn Tinklenberg to support anti-gay legislation (the FMA in the case of Tinklenberg) and the court stripping bill in the case of Daly.

When HRC starts confronting both Democrats and Republicans who promote anti-gay policies, rather than being a front group for the DNC/DCCC/DSCC, I will rejoin the organization.

We’re not the only ones who have noticed that HRC only seems to have problems with Republicans who oppose same-sex marriage. After all, this is the group which refused in 1996 to rescind its endorsement of then-President Clinton when, in the dead of the night, he signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DoMA) into law.

Comments

  2. The American Progressive (read Communist) movement is inseparable from the gay rights movement. Go to a gay pride rally, and what do you find? Hammer and sickle t-shirts. Tables distributing literature for the Workers World party, the Socialist Workers party, and the Green party. Keynote speakers encouraging us to rise up and strangle our capitalist oppressors. You won’t find much that is pro capitalism, pro Republican, pro Bush, or frankly even pro America.

    It’s the standard leftist stuff: America’s policies are the source of evil around the world, we have more to fear from American Christians and the Bush administration than from radical Islamic terrorists, and we must support Democrats uncritically because, well, they’re Democrats. (Actually there’s an even further left fringe that openly embraces Communisim and claims that Democrats and Republicans are indistinguishable tools of the ruling multi-national corporate elite.)

  3. Ok, who’s going to mention Kerry this time on this old issue?

    Thanks Dan for sticking the pitch fork into the pile of detritus and turning the compost over again and again.

    Has anyone figured out yet that Republicans have no positive agenda for any Gay issue?

  4. So really Chandler, why do you post?

    When do you have anything constructive to say? Or original, for that matter?

    Have you figured out yet that Republicans have a very positive agenda for gays and lesbians, in (1) lowering taxes and (2) fighting Islamo-fascists who want to kill gays and lesbians?

    Have you figured out yet that if the Islamo-fascists win, you will be killed? just like a gay teenager in Iran?

    Have you figured out yet that not having your financial independence violated by the government, and not having your ass blown off in a terrorist attack, and not having to subject yourself to Islamic Sharia and then be killed anyway, is significantly more important and gay-positive of an agenda than making you feel good with a Gay Pride proclamation and civil partnership laws that are officially named “marriage” (instead of civil partnership) in order to make you feel happy that certain people you hate are being pissed off?

  5. P.S. And that’s the answer to your question. I can cut-and-paste from now on, as often as you’d like:

    PRESIDENT BUSH has a positive agenda for Gay people and Gay issues. The agenda of making sure we don’t have to live under Islamic Sharia or Caliphate. Which is more and better than any left-wing or non-conservative Democrat can say honestly.

  9. Without endorsing TGC’s extreme images at all… I can’t help noticing that the same old, fat, ugly trolls are still trolling!

    The more shamefully, because of they way they have to hide their identities now.

    Having nothing to do all day but spew pure negative energy and, indeed, track mud into Bruce/Dan’s house, must be an appropriate or satisfying existence for their life form, somehow.

  11. Chandler, once again, you make a comment which attacks Republicans rather than addresses the issue of our posts.
    Comment by GayPatriotWest
    ==========================

    You trot out this topic with predictable regularity. Your gleeful attack on the HRC is ongoing. The point is, is that you are talking about a gay political lobbying group. You are expecting a 100% gay, all gay all the time level of approval from those that HRC endorses. That is unrealistic.

    If you applied that to any Gay positive Republican organization, they too would fail. One, because they don’t exist and two, the standard is unrealistic.

    You dismiss as anti-gay politicians that are anti-gay marriage, pro civil union, pro domestic partnership benefits and pro gay adoption.

    In a complex world your thoughts are quite simple.

    So go ahead and make simple, faulty statements that your minions base their simple faulty conclusions upon.

    Again, as Clararato said, it’s about the entertainment.

  13. Of course, Chandler, I trot this out with regularity. Because you simply don’t address the points I raise.

    And please show me where I dismiss as “as anti-gay politicians that are anti-gay marriage, pro civil union, pro domestic partnership benefits and pro gay adoption.” Because I don’t do that. Not in this post. Nor in this blog.

    If, as you claim, I make “faulty statements,” please identify this statements. Since you regularly trot out such claims without reference to my actual writings, it’s no wonder I repeatedly repeat the point that you repeatedly attack Republicans rather than address our points.

    You seek to dismiss my ideas by accusing me of such things as simplemindedness, yet despite spending hours at this blog commenting, you still have shown no understanding for our ideas.

    I made a point in this post, questioning why HRC doesn’t attack Democrats and you choose to attack me on something totally unrelated.

    I’m not sure what you’re trying to accomplish, but you do provide evidence to support my contention that many critics of gay conservatives have little (if any) concern for our views and ideas. That you are more interested in attacking us than taking issue with our arguments.

  14. You dismiss as anti-gay politicians that are anti-gay marriage, pro civil union, pro domestic partnership benefits and pro gay adoption.

    So do HRC and other “gay rights” groups — when those politicians are Republicans. Case in point — Arnold Schwarzenegger.

    Instead, they choose to promote as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” politicians who push state constitutional amendments to strip gays of EXISTING rights (Massachusetts) and block potential rights (Missouri, Ohio, Michigan, Oregon), INCLUDING adoption and partner benefits, and spend millions of dollars of donations on those politicians — all because they’re Democrats.

    In short, Chandler, this has nothing to do with GPW holding Democrats to an unrealistic standard; it has everything to do with calling you on the hypocrisy of yours.

    Simply put, when you can demonstrate that your definition of “gay-positive” depends on something other than party affiliation, we’ll care. However, that would require you to call Democrats who support the FMA and antigay state constitutional amendments the same names you do Republicans, and that will never happen.

  15. And please show me where I dismiss as “as anti-gay politicians that are anti-gay marriage, pro civil union, pro domestic partnership benefits and pro gay adoption.” Because I don’t do that. Not in this post. Nor in this blog.
    ================

    In this instance you reprint those sentiments made by others and then endorse them.
    A delightful linguistic slight of hand.
    No you never make statements like these: you just endorse them.

  16. “Again, as Clararato said, it’s about the entertainment.”

    I call bullhockey. I didn’t say it’s about the entertainment. (You may have CHOSEN to MISUNDERSTAND me as saying that, but that’s a different matter.)

  17. And Dan is right, of course – If you want to serve a constructive purpose (though we know you don’t), you ought to try addressing the substance of what he said sometime, not changing the subject.

  18. Chandler, don’t put words in my mouth. I don’t endorse the viewpoints of the letter-writer, merely show that this individual is critical of HRC as am I. I reprinted the entire e-mail out of courtesy to that person not because I agree with every word of it.

    Moreover, this individual didn’t accuse any Democrats of being anti-gay per se merely of advocating “anti-gay legislation” and “anti-gay policies.”

  19. Whatever the faults of individual Dems on gay rights, the Dem party as a whole is a better bet when you want lip service to gay equality. A Dem party free from fear of the Religious Right would very likely have already legislated gay marriage in most states.

    It is usually more comfortable in the Dem party as far as rhetoric goes but ultimately you have to think like an individual and see that your needs as a common citizen trump your needs for validation in the eyes of politicians. An empowered nation on the world stage and a growing economy trump all the pro gay marriage talk when socialism and political correctness are the price to pay for it.

    I’m American first and this country needs to be loved. My personal social ambitions are secondary.

  20. Chandler, I frequently agree with your positions. But not this time. Some of those state constitutional amendments about which John Kerry and John Edwards had kind words were not just anti-same sex marriage. They were also anti-civil unions and anti-domestic partnerships. But the Human Rights Campaign gave them a pass.

  21. I’ve decided to try out Chandler logic. Here we go. Chandler is a Serb. Serbs have comitted genocide, mass gang rape and ethnic cleansing. I have yet to see any evidence of Chandler specifically renouncing these truly evil crimes. Therefore I can only conclude that he is in favor of crimes against humanity. In a delightful linguistic slight of hand he has refused to denounce war crimes. One can only conclude that this means that even though he hasn’t made statements supporting Serbian war criminals, he just endorses them.

  23. Whatever the faults of individual Dems on gay rights, the Dem party as a whole is a better bet when you want lip service to gay equality.

    How?

    They had eight years to do something to push gays forward but instead we got pushed back. What kind of cowardly excuse is it to blame the extreme right? If liberals had the balls that they want us to think they have through their bloviating and actually gave a damn about gays, we would be further along by now.
    Similarly, we’re supposed to believe that liberals give a good rat’s a$$ about the poor, blacks etc. Then hurricane Katrina showed the country what their “caring” gets you.

  24. Let’s look at the 2 positions; Bush & Kerry and compare the stance on gay marriage:

    Bush: Ammendment to the US constitution to summarily ban same sex marriage in the entire United States.

    Kerry: Ammendment to the Massachusetts constitution that bans gay marriage only as long it provides for legal civil unions between same sex couples, guaranteeing them the legal rights afforded to same sex couples who marry in Massachusetts.

    So, in a one-issue world, the choice is clear for me. Obviously, we’re not a one-issue world. There are people here who support Bush because of the many other issues in the conservative agenda. There are people here who support Kerry because of many other issues in the liberal agenda.

    When I take the long view, for my personal, free choice of candidates, I still go with Kerry. His history of public service to the people of MA, support of civil & gay rights on many other fronts (he voted against DOMA by the way) made him my choice.

    A Happy Thanksgiving to all out there. Hope your holiday weekend is happy, healthy and safe.

  25. I emphasized lip service as the Dem’s main attribute. I agree they did nothing for us under Clinton. However, more progress would have been made and there would have been no Defense of Marriage Act without the religious right. Downplay right-wing sins if you must. Many of us vote Republican because we love America. Many of us can leave the Republicans if another America-loving party should arise to take the place of those dark-souled freaks running the other party today.

  26. #24

    Let’s look at the 2 positions; Bush & Kerry and compare the stance on gay marriage:

    Bush: Ammendment to the US constitution to summarily ban same sex marriage in the entire United States.

    Kerry: Ammendment to the Massachusetts constitution that bans gay marriage only as long it provides for legal civil unions between same sex couples, guaranteeing them the legal rights afforded to same sex couples who marry in Massachusetts.

    O.k. Let’s really look at it. Here’s what Bush said:

    “I don’t think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that’s what a state chooses to do so,”…
    “States ought to be able to have the right to pass laws that enable people to be able to have rights like others.”…
    “Look. If you’re interested in preserving marriage as a union between a man and a woman, there is one way to do so, without the courts making the decision. That’s through the constitutional process and obviously I think that’s the way to go, because I am concerned that courts are making this decision. This is too important a decision to have a handful of judges making, on behalf of the American people,”

    October, 2004

    That’s o.k. Kev. You’re a mindless tool.

    His history of public service to the people of MA,

    Does that include saddling Massachussetts and the rest of the country with the Big Dig while personally pocketing millions of dollars in kickbacks in the process like Uncle Teddy?

  27. In a recent City Council race here in Tucson, an organization affiliated with the HRC endorsed the Republican incumbents. This came back to embarrass them when one of the two incumbents sent out an 11th hour mailer with an obtusely anti-gay attack on her Democratic opponent, who happened to be lesbian.

    The HRC is wise to be exercise caution with regard to Republicans, given their willingness to pander to a vocal anti-gay constituency.

  29. 26: Sorry, but his words don’t wash and it gives further creedence to my previous comments. You now show that GWB says the same thing Kerry said, except that George still went so far to support an ammendment to the US Constitution to ban same sex marriage on a federal level. I notice that the proposal on the ammendment came in Feb 04 and the comments you quote came out on/about Oct 26 04. Did he then flip-flop…er…rescind his call for the constituional ammendment? I can’t find any indication that he did. Also, I find it interesting that he made those statements at a time with 11 anti-gay marriage ammendments on state ballots, when (if you believe pre-election polls) they were being predicted to pass (of course we know they all did, sadly). As far as I know, there weren’t any pro-gay marriage initiatives at the time, were there? Did he advocate for people to vote against those anti-gay marriage proposals? Did the Gay conservatives get out in their states and ask people to not vote for these measures?

    You also bring up the “don’t let courts decide” fallacy. The more he tells this lie, the more Republicans are getting people to believe. I noticed that there’s no complaining over his running to the Supreme Court in the 2000 election and he got a ruling which worked in his favor. I also find it more laughable, because conservatives are essentially fuming over legal and just decisions made by conservative judges who were appointed by conservatives.

    Look at the MA Supreme Court ruling the gay marriage issue: They took the case brought before them, took a look at the MA constitution and simply said that state attorneys “failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason” to deny them (gays and lesbians) the right to marry (CNN, 2/4/04). That’s simple and straight-forward: No law exists that forbids a group of people from doing the same thing everyone else does legally, so give everyone the right.

    Personally, I have no vested interest in marriage..if 2 people love each other and define themselves as life partners, that’s the most important thing. Issue is though, that governments for millenia have involved themselves with granting specific and special rights to married people. What’s so wrong with we, as gays and lesbians simply getting the same thing that male/female couples in this country can enjoy?

    And as to your name calling: Well, I guess we all have the freedom to descend to name-calling, buy my response to you is sticks and stones.

    28: By the way, that’s not a nice thing to say….they certainly all aren’t.

  30. Also, I find it interesting that he made those statements at a time with 11 anti-gay marriage ammendments on state ballots, when (if you believe pre-election polls) they were being predicted to pass (of course we know they all did, sadly). As far as I know, there weren’t any pro-gay marriage initiatives at the time, were there? Did he advocate for people to vote against those anti-gay marriage proposals? Did the Gay conservatives get out in their states and ask people to not vote for these measures?

    Yes, gay conservatives did. You see, since money wasn’t being wasted on endorsing antigay politicians, it was being spent where it matters most — on repelling antigay initiatives.

    Meanwhile, gay liberals were pumping millions of dollars into Kerry’s promoting anti-gay marriage proposals and calling him “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”. Furthermore, gay liberals like Joe Solmonese and Emily Malcom were giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democratic supporters of the FMA like Inez Tenenbaum.

    As for “flip-flopping”, the FMA was never intended to ban civil unions, nor does it have the language to do so — unless the Missouri state constitutional amendment, which Kerry supported, does, because it’s very similar. The “flip-flop” here is gay liberals who say civil unions are antigay when Republicans support them and banning gay marriage is pro-gay when Democrats support it.

    As for quoting the Massachusetts Supreme Court, another fine example of liberal hypocrisy. Always ready to quote their marriage decision, but not on the bigoted and antigay “civil unions” plan that Democrats supported to deny gays rights:

    The bill (creating civil unions) maintains an unconstitutional, inferior, and discriminatory status for same-sex couples, and the bill’s remaining provisions are too entwined with this purpose to stand independently.

    You see, that’s what HRC supports — unconstitutional, inferior, and discriminatory status for gays. Why? Because that’s what the Democrats support.

  31. #29

    I noticed that there’s no complaining over his running to the Supreme Court in the 2000 election and he got a ruling which worked in his favor.

    That’s because they had election laws to consider. The liberals weren’t trying to impose liberalism on the people nor were they able to look to the laws and unsigned treaties of other countries for their decision. They made the decision that Algore’s tactics for cheating were not going to be allowed. There was no way they could get around that.
    It’s not, as you ignorantly imply, that Republicans and Conservatives despise the Supreme Court. Just the activist liberal judges trying to legislate issues they always lose on at the ballot box.

  32. #32

    You see, that’s what HRC supports — unconstitutional, inferior, and discriminatory status for gays. Why? Because that’s what the Democrats support.

    An easier answer would be because they would
    A) be out of a job and

    B) they would be proven to be the liars they are.

    They wouldn’t be able to justify themselves and God forbid the American people realize that Republicans are not the sexist, bigoted homophobes the left wants you to believe they are.
    You’re supposed to be too stupid to figure that out.

  33. “Yes, gay conservatives did. You see, since money wasn’t being wasted on endorsing antigay politicians, it was being spent where it matters most — on repelling antigay initiatives”.

    Great, cause I’d be to see anything written/advertised on the subject; I’m very interested in seeing how this topic was portrayed by gay conservatives to the population at large. Also don’t say “endorsing antigay politicians” as if you mean to imply that all Democrats are anti-gay which somehow would make all Republicans pro-gay.

    “As for quoting the Massachusetts Supreme Court, another fine example of liberal hypocrisy. Always ready to quote their marriage decision, but not on the bigoted and antigay “civil unions” plan that Democrats supported to deny gays rights:”
    Sorry, you missed my point on that one…I was simply putting into context the basics of why gays and lesbians need to be treated equally under the law. No, I’m not happy with the whole “marriage vs. civil union” issue, but it could be a start on the right path. Look at the history of the struggle for rights that African Americans have had in our nation – literally centuries.

    I just think gay conservatives are mis-guided about gay rights when it comes to the political arena. The whole Texas party platform has been brought up, but are there any state Republican parties have mentioned gays in a positive way or even just say “we treat gays just like everyone else”?

    I’ll be frank, I think some of you have come up with this logic of “all Democrats as being two-faced on the issue of gay rights” as a way to justify the fact that you’re conservative and the more important issues for which you support Republicans aren’t tied to gay rights issues. You bang on other gays and the HRC for supporting Kerry when he says he’s against gay marriage, but how many gay conservatives dropped their support for Bush when he proposed the FMA? If I saw the Republican party leaders actually take a positive stand towards gay rights issues, then I’d sit up and take notice. Y’all have to live up to the fact that the stance that comes from Republican party leaders is anti-gay on a consistent basis (and no, I’m not talking about all Republicans of course, but what comes from the majority of the rank and file and your party leadership).

  34. No, I’m not happy with the whole “marriage vs. civil union” issue, but it could be a start on the right path.

    Actually, Kevin, the problem here is that gays in Massachusetts DO have the right to marry. What you and your fellow Kerry-bots call “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” is taking away that right and replacing it with “civil unions” that are, according to the Massachusetts Supreme Court, “unconstitutional, inferior, and discriminatory”.

    That’s not a “start on the right path”. That’s taking steps BACKWARD. And of course you’re happy with it; that’s why you and yours gave John Kerry millions of dollars to push it.

    You bang on other gays and the HRC for supporting Kerry when he says he’s against gay marriage, but how many gay conservatives dropped their support for Bush when he proposed the FMA?

    As in, didn’t endorse him? Do the words “Log Cabin Republicans” mean anything to you?

    As for the rest of your statement, I think this sums it up nicely:

    If I saw the Republican party leaders actually take a positive stand towards gay rights issues, then I’d sit up and take notice. Y’all have to live up to the fact that the stance that comes from Republican party leaders is anti-gay on a consistent basis…”

    Not really. You see, according to the Democratic definition, you can support stripping gays of rights on any level (DOMA, FMA, state constititutional amendments) and still be called “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”. If you followed the same set of rules in judging actions, it wouldn’t matter.

    However, this nicely illustrates the issue. As long as Democratic leaders pander to you, you’ll support anything they do, and they know this. They know that all they have to do to open Kevin’s pocketbook and fasten his lips securely on their ass is to flash the “D” after their name and make some remarks for which they will never be held accountable; once that’s done, you’ll even support their rolling back your existing rights.

    This is why I consider you and yours a greater threat to gay rights than anything on the right wing.