As the Senate debate on the Marriage Protection Amendment (MPA) looms, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) seems more interested in attacking Republicans than in promoting a conversation likely to increase public awareness (and understanding) of gay and lesbian relationships. As I write this, its website features an unflattering picture of the president next to the words, “VOTE NO!” It seems that HRC is trying to relive its failed 2004 campaign slogan, “George W. Bush, You’re Fired.”
Despite the changeover in leadership since then, HRC’s new leaders also seem to be afflicted with a serious case of B.D.S. (Bush Derangement Syndrome). They’d rather attack the president than debate an issue of concern to our community. If they’re to do more for gay and lesbian Americans than take our money and pass out blue and yellow decals for our cars, they need to focus less on attacking the president personally and more on taking issue (as I have done) with the constitutional amendment he supports.
In a release earlier this week filled with angry slogans and tired rhetoric, HRC President Joe Solmonese called it a “disgrace” for the President to publicly make his case expressing his support for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Solmonese accuses the presiding of “further divid[ing] this country and put[ting] the far-right extremists’ interests ahead of the American people’s well-being,” If he really wants the president to move on to other issues, Solmonese would instead have issued a more diplomatic release, making a solid case against this amendment.
The president seems to be reiterating the case he made for the amendment just over two years ago. We know where the president stands, but all we know is that Joe Solmonese opposes the president. Seems he too wants to avoid divisive issues. I wonder how Joe would feel if a Democratic president used a Rose Garden address to oppose pro-life proposals. Would he fault him for dividing the country by putting the interests of the abortion lobby ahead of at the American people’s well-being?
He might better be able to argue his case for “abortion rights” than he could make one against a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. For while Solmonese acknowledges “Mary Cheney’s comments against using the Federal Marriage Amendment’s push for political purposes,” he gives no indication of having read that good woman’s book. Had he read that most excellent memoir, he would be able to quote (or summarize) her conservative case against the amendment and use that sensible argument as a means to persuade the president to change his mind.
But, HRC seems more interested in pleasing its Bush-hating base than in engaging opponents of gay marriage in a debate on this important issue. I’m not the only one to wonder at their eagerness to dodge this discussion. Andrew Sullivan, a man with whom I’m frequently at odds, calls the group worthless since it has “barely been detectable in the battle” for gay marriage (via The Malcontent’s Robbie). The Washington Blade‘s Chris Crain writes:
Rather than actually defend gay families and make the case for gay marriage, HRC continues to argue that the American people don’t — and shouldn’t! — care about marriage equality for gay couples.
As the Senate prepares to debate a topic which should be of concern to gay Americans, all HRC can do is repeat standard left-wing mantras. It seems that, just like his predecessor, Joe Solmonese is more interested in using HRC as a vehicle to attack the Bush Administration than as an organization to improve the condition of gay Americans in civil society.
If HRC really wanted to get some benefit for our community out of the latest debate, instead of attacking the president and his social conservative allies, its leaders would do, as Log Cabin has done, and remind people that this is the one issue where, “since being sworn in,” the Vice President has “publicly expressed disagreement with the President.” As I’ve said before, that’s a pretty strong argument against this amendment.
To make it, it would mean showing this leading conservative in a positive light. I guess then it’s more important to HRC not to show what a good man Dick Cheney is than to use his words to make the case against an amendment they (like him) oppose. Just another sign that HRC prefers to the Democrats’ “lapdogs” than advocates for our community. Gotta have those priorities straight.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
PLEASE FORWARD:
In light of the Mormon church lobbying Congress to ban gay marriage, I
encourage everyone to contact their senators and rep. to let them
know that you think Mormon Temple marriages ought to be banned
constitutionally because those secret rituals are kind of creepy and
not very much in keeping with traditional marriage.
(This is a rhetorical argument to make a point, people. Don’t get too
worked up about it.)
For more info about this lobbying effort to ban Mormon Temple
marriage (and to find your reps’ email address), go to
http://www.sissel.cc/blog/2006/05/lobby-congress-against-mormon-marriage.html
Another reason to <3 Dick.
They’d rather attack the president than debate an issue of concern to our community.
That’s generously assuming the liberals can debate an issue of concern.
It may be, but it’s a poor argument, rhetorical or not.
Its difficult to see the Presidents recent actions on the issue as anything other than a crass cynical political ploy, regardless of his personal feelings on the matter.
His statements are misleading I believe. From his morning Radio address:
Unless the wording of the amendment has changed, it is vague enough to prohibit recognition of civil unions and almost any other kind of arrangement as well. Which makes sense, since that is the stated goal of those that wrote it.
If the amendment passes, it would invalidate the “will of the people” if say, the people of California decide to approve gay marriage by referendum. It’s designed not to just curtail gay and lesbian freedoms but everyones. Its purpose, no matter what the President says, is to cut off debate, not begin it.
While this was not “the” issue that convinced me to be a “Bush-Hater” (His penchant for water-boarding did that), you cannot overlook just how damaging this could be.
Essentially what the President and the Amendment are saying is that a gay or lesbian marriage is invalid. That means the relationship itself is invalid. And if the relationship is invalid, then so is orientation. It does not take a neutral stance toward sexual orientation, it proscribes it.
So while the amendment itself is bad enough, as a precedent it could turn back every gain that gay and lesbian Americans have made toward recognition of their equality as human beings over the last 50+ years.
The State Sodomy laws were, and continue to be, used as support for injustices ranging from harsher prison sentencing rules for gay men to child custody cases, to discrimination in employment and housing.
To have a basic invalidation of gays and lesbians written into the highest law of the land, as is the nature of this amendment, could eventually provide a legal justification for any state, city, etc. to proscribe and limit the freedoms of gay and lesbian Americans.
This, in the end is what the President is supporting.
I wonder how long it will be until:
A). The usual apologists for Bush’s actions will run forward, and
B). How soon they will start blaming gays and lesbians themselves for the amendment instead of the people who actually wrote it and have are supporting it.
From Martin Gillespie, gop.com:
On the eve of next Tuesday’s Senate vote on the Marriage Protection Amendment, Democrat Party Chairman Howard Dean has lobbed a rhetorical grenade at Catholic voters around the country by calling the Marriage Protection Amendment “discrimination”, as well as “hateful, (and) divisive”. It is hard to believe that the Chairman of the National Democratic Party would speak so disdainfully of an initiative that is so strongly supported by a majority of Catholic voters and Catholic organizations such as the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Knights of Columbus.
But such is the status of today’s far-left Democratic Party. This latest Dean flare-up is another clear reminder why so many Catholics have left the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party of our grandfathers’ time has sold out to the far-left of our society while now supporting partial-birth abortion, higher taxes and a redefinition of the millennia-old definition of marriage. Worse yet, they have sought to impose this extreme liberal vision for America through the courts, while circumventing the legislative process.
Take Action!
Help the Republican Party in our effort to defend this sacred institution and send a message to Congress that Catholics strongly support marriage as one man and one woman. Take a stand by signing our petition today: http://www.catholicsformarriage.com.
Thank you for continued leadership and support.
Sincerely,
Martin Gillespie
RNC Director of Catholic Outreach
“If he really wants the president to move on to other issues, Solmonese would instead have issued a more diplomatic release, making a solid case against this amendment.”
Does one need to constantly make a case against killing pussycats and puppies, too? And where’s George Bush’s ‘solid case’ for the amendment? Maybe one of the PatriotPolice will lay it out.
Jimmy, it would be nice if instead of attempting to bait us, you would actually address our points — and at least acknowledge HRC’s failure, not only to make a case against the amendment, but also to acknowledge the Vice President’s opposition.
If you had bothered to read our posts, you would know that we have disagreed with the president on this amendment. We are willing to take on a man whom we generally support. You don’t seem willing to challenge HRC. As the title indicates, that’s what this post is about.
Your inclusion of the letter from Mr. Gillespie has little (if anything) to do with the substance of the post. But, then, when have your comments ever had anything to do with the substance of our posts?
I guess you’re so obsessed with the president — and our general support of that good man — that those are the only things you’re capable of addressing.
No, it would not. And as I recall, the people of California voted by a large margin that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and the representatives spat in the voters’ faces by trying to push gay marriage through the state legislature.
Unless the wording of the amendment has changed, it is vague enough to prohibit recognition of civil unions and almost any other kind of arrangement as well.
The MPA says only that the Federal and state constitutions should not be construed to require that marriage be granted to anything other than a male-female couple. It does not explicitly prevent, as do some of the state amendments, anything else.
If the amendment passes, it would invalidate the “will of the people” if say, the people of California decide to approve gay marriage by referendum. It’s designed not to just curtail gay and lesbian freedoms but everyones. Its purpose, no matter what the President says, is to cut off debate, not begin it.
Wrong, Gryph.
First, amendments can be repealed. Voters may submit for amendments to be passed that would repeal the MPA, as they did for the Eighteenth Amendment.
Second, your argument is hypocritical, since you reject the will of the people of California as was made clear by Proposition 22. You have supported both the attempts to subvert that by leftist legislators and by activist judges. Don’t even pretend that you care about the “will of the people”, because it is clear that you have nothing but contempt for it when it doesn’t go your way. That is what voters see, and that is why they are constantly bitch-slapping you and your leftist ilk down.
Essentially what the President and the Amendment are saying is that a gay or lesbian marriage is invalid. That means the relationship itself is invalid. And if the relationship is invalid, then so is orientation.
Since when did whether or not one could marry become the proof of legal validity?
No child in the United States is allowed to marry, but that fact doesn’t make them legally invalid. No brother and sister in the United States are allowed to marry each other, but that fact doesn’t invalidate any other rights they have.
Hysteria.
“First, amendments can be repealed. Voters may submit for amendments to be passed that would repeal the MPA, as they did for the Eighteenth Amendment.”
An absurd argument. How long did it take? Look at what happened to the Country while it lasted.
What is wrong with keeping marriage between one man & one woman? You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to see that males & females were made for each other and any other type of sexual encouter is purely for the fun of it & most of it is perverse! Yes, perverse!
I think the strength of marriage vows should be more legally binding. Afterall, what good is committing to someone for life if you don’t mean it from the beginning.
I enlisted in the HRC after I got out of the military. Once I saw what they were really like it didn’t take me long to cease my membership. What a bunch of queer people.
Under current law, gays are not denied a right to marry, find yourself someone of the opposite gender, fall in love and get married! I know we are not up to that challenge, kinda sick isn’t it… ewww. Then I guess you understand a little about how hetero’s feel about it the other way.
yikes
#13: “yikes”
or as Mr Ed might say “kinda sick isn’t it… ewww”. The amazing thing is that all the gaycons who post here will almost certainly say nothing about or to this wacko. After all, he’s bound to be a Republican and that’s all that really matters.
You’re right Ian. It’s the flip side of what NDT endlessly drones on about. “The “lib gays” care more about hating Bush , than they care about their own welfare”.
Simple minded.
As for poor Ed above. Well, 1950 called and it wants its’ closet queen back.
Are you freaking kidding me? No offense to Republicans, but, Martin Gillespie should really take a look at the platforms of both parties, the actions of both parties, and the concerns, and then compare each party’s ideology to Christ’s teachings.
Dear Ian & Hank:
I am not in the closet, I am a Democrat & I was born in 1956, not 50. Thanks for your true concern though. I just think we are opening a pandora on marriage & good lord, the institution is suffering enough without making it more of a mockery.
I do like the idea of civil unions. What is wrong with that idea? This could allow family members or just plain friends regardless of gender to reap a few of the benefits of “living together” or “partnerships” that we are seeking.
Why does it have to be about “SEX”?
Sorry Ed if I misunderstood your post. But the word “perverse” (twice!), kinda threw me.
And marriage does involve sex, no matter how “perverse” you may think it is.
I’m not sure Ed understands all of the argument about marriage. Different people have different view points. The fact is that the federal government recognizes only marriage, and not civil unions.
There are many rights (more than a thousand) married heterosexual couples receive with the issuance of a marriage license. Gay couples can get some of those rights through expensive legal paperwork (living wills, powers of attorney), but still are not afforded all of the rights married heterosexual couples have. The matter becomes even more complicated when gay and lesbian couples decide to have children, whether they be biological or adopted children.
If married couples divorce, an entire section of law can be applied to help with division of property, and custody fo children. In many areas of the U.S., if a gay couple goes through the equivalent of divorce, or at least in GA, one must go to probate court. Because there is no legal recognition of gay and lesbian relationships in many parts of the country, things can get messy.
Basically, the entire system favors heterosexual couples who make a lifetime committment through marriage.
This entire thread is a perfect example of what’s wrong with SOME gay Republicans. While many of us gay Democrats have been vehemently criticizing Howard Dean and National Stonewall Democrats, some gay Republicans would prefer to attack HRC than George Bush for his willingness to stoke homophobia for political gain. The central issue here is not HRC, which I’m no fan of myself. The central issue–obviously to anyone but diehard GOP ideologues–is a President’s disgusting willingness to use gays and lesbians as a wedge issue.
Nothing to see here. Move along, nothing to see. Pay no attention to the gas chanbers and ovens, they are only rhetorical.
chambers
While many of us gay Democrats have been vehemently criticizing Howard Dean and National Stonewall Democrats, some gay Republicans would prefer to attack HRC than George Bush for his willingness to stoke homophobia for political gain.
Stonewall, Howard Dean, and HRC aren’t saying anything different than they were in 2004, when you and yours pumped them tens of millions of dollars, unqualified endorsements, and chants of “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” even as their candidates pushed antigay legislation and amendments.
Given your record of supporting homophobia for political gain, I find your argument both completely hypocritical and quite amusing — especially when you attack people who have always made it clear that antigay legislation is WRONG, rather than your method of endorsing it when performed by Democrats.
First, “homophobia,” then “gas chambers.” What drugs are these leftists on?
Did I miss something? I didn’t think the president had a vote on the marriage amendment. It would seem to me that what he thinks one way or another is not as important as what we need at least 34 members of the Senate to believe. Bush made his case as to why they should stand with him. HRC chose not to make a case as to why they should stand with us. Neither the President’s position nor HRC’s ineffective strategy should come as any big surprise.
hank:
#19 Exactly, marriage involves sex, civil unions do not involve sex.
#20 Civil unions can be strengthened to provide the same benefits as a marriage and could bring into the fold those other relationships that DO NOT INVOLVE sex but warrant the benefit of a STRENGTHENED civil union equivalent to marriage.
And yes hank, looking at some of these GAY & Hetero web sites, these days, MOST SEX is perverse. Need more proof?, just ask any ER Nurse to describe a few of their “emergencies”.
Marriage should be about family and procreation, all other relationships should be strengthened civil unions.
I am anxious to see the votes on this issue…
Bush has given his speech but took it away from the Rose Garden, to lessen the impact and as a gesture towards the moderates. But in in his speech, he kept emphasizing that the vast majority of American voters were in favor ot the marriage amendment. Just yesterday Gary Langer of ABC released a new poll of voters that do not support what Bush was saying. GARY LANGER (ABC) June 5, 2006 —”An ABC News poll finds that most Americans oppose gay marriage but markedly fewer — especially those outside George W. Bush’s core supporters — would amend the U.S. Constitution to ban it. Among all Americans, 58 percent say gay marriage should be illegal, but fewer, 42 percent, say it rises to the level of amending the U.S. Constitution.” I am not a math genius, but even I know that 42 percent in favor of the amendment is not a vast majority. And one other point. GP, you bash the HRC for bashing the President instead of trying to influence the outcome of the Senate vote on the marriage amendment. But Lou Chibbaro Jr., June 5th, reported the following: “The president’s speech also came on the same day opponents of the MPA, led by the Human Rights Campaign, a national gay political group, held a rally and news conference on the steps of the Capitol. Those attending the HRC event brought with them what they said were thousands of post cards from voters across the country expressing strong opposition to the amendment.” The HRC was there…in DC…fighting passage of the marriage amendment. Where were you, GP?
Stonewall, Howard Dean, and HRC aren’t saying anything different than they were in 2004, when you and yours pumped them tens of millions of dollars, unqualified endorsements, and chants of “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” even as their candidates pushed antigay legislation and amendments.
Given your record of supporting homophobia for political gain, I find your argument both completely hypocritical and quite amusing — especially when you attack people who have always made it clear that antigay legislation is WRONG, rather than your method of endorsing it when performed by Democrats.
For your information, NorthDallasForty, I terminated my HRC membership in 2004 and was criticizing John Kerry, Stonewall Democrats, and HRC to anyone who would listen. In fact, I was criticizing John Kerry as early as 2003, including booing and hissing at him at a 2003 HRC candidate forum in DC shortly after his infamous claim that marriage (except his) is for procreation. So as it turns out, you don’t know what the f*ck you’re talking about when you call me a hypocrite. Bashing me isn’t going to get you a gold-plated invitation to the White House or make your president stop sh*tting on you.
For your information, NorthDallasForty, I terminated my HRC membership in 2004 and was criticizing John Kerry, Stonewall Democrats, and HRC to anyone who would listen.
In December, right?
I also notice you left the gay savior Howard Dean off your list. Too busy pumping him cash too?