ENDA’s Unlikely Bedfellows
Hmmm… unfortunate and yucky choice of words for the headline. But it is an accurate description.
Andrew Sullivan lays out the case for John Aravosis that GayPatriot has been saying for over three years. The Gay Left villifies those that stray from their political plantation.
This ad hominem attack on anyone’s views who veers from far left orthodoxy is routine among the professional GBLTXYZers who mau-mau the rest of us. John Aravosis is an almost pathologically partisan Democrat, a gleeful outer of insufficiently correct closeted public figures, a blogger in the mold of Atrios … but he still can’t be oppressed enough to be valid for the gay left. Hey, John. It’s wake-up time. They hate you too. Welcome to the club.
As for the matter at hand, the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act, I was told two decades ago that this was the non-negotiable number one priority for gay Americans, that gay people couldn’t afford to fight for marriage equality or military service or anything else until this vital law passed.
I was told to shut up about everything else in order to support this central goal. The Human Rights Campaign raked in tens of millions of dollars over twenty years with this message (while the private sector, with HRC’s help, actually enacted many legal protections for gay employees, and while the debates about marriage and military service transformed the movement, in the face of HRC’s opposition). But now … not so much. The transgendered movement is so important that it’s worth subjecting gay people to many more years of employment insecurity. Not so urgent, after all, is it? Gay people in red states without employment protection have to wait while pomo lefty activists in cushy gay lobby jobs preen about p.c. purity.
I’m with Andrew for the first time in a long time: Welcome to The Club, John. We’ve been waiting for you both to wake up and smell the Gay Left Vitriol.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
19 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Again, to shamelessly borrow from V the K:
Munch. Munch. Discard unpopped kernel. Munch.
Somehow, it seems only fitting that Dr. Moreau is being torn apart by the very creatures he created to hurt others.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 12, 2007 @ 4:29 pm - October 12, 2007
If there was any doubt as to HRC’s motivations, it was made clear to me by this sequence of events:
ENDA early drafts include transsexuals
ENDA looks like it might get near passage, transgender removed from protected classes “because it might prevent passage”…points to ADA for justification.
ENDA fails to gain any traction…HRC drops back and punts
Gender activists continue to lobby for transinclusion.
HRC decides they’d like the tranny money too, decides transinclusion is A Good And Noble Thing, now that it doesn’t matter so much
HRC collects piles of cash for years. (Phase 3: Profit!)
ENDA revives with Democratic Congress, HRC decides they like how things are now, thanks.
It really sucks to be lesbian, transsexual *and* conservative. It’s hard to know who to be more pissed at.
Comment by MaggieLeber — October 12, 2007 @ 5:07 pm - October 12, 2007
Actually, the solution might be for the Human Rights Coalition to change their name to the Gay Rights Coalition…that way they’d only have a slightly smaller constituency, and wouldn’t have to take flack for supporting nondiscrimination legislation for humans who might not be gay.
Might hurt the pocketbook though. That would never do.
Comment by MaggieLeber — October 12, 2007 @ 5:15 pm - October 12, 2007
Maggie-
The correct name of HRC is actually the Human Rights “Campaign”. IF ONLY they thought like a “coalition”, maybe we’d all be better off.
In any case, your suggestion is a good one. But HRC is also adamant pro-abortion and finds itself involved in the Jena 6 incident…. so they definitely have illusions of grandeur for themselves. If the name fits….
Comment by GayPatriot — October 12, 2007 @ 5:58 pm - October 12, 2007
Great post. Agree completely.
Comment by torrentprime — October 12, 2007 @ 6:54 pm - October 12, 2007
Ah…I stand acronymically corrected.
But that’s the thing…if they were more honestly named, they would have a clearer mission but a narrower income base. What really bugs me is the hypocrisy.
Interesting to read some background on this and learn that the ADA–other legislation that HRC brags about– almost didn’t happen because an amendment excluding HIV-positive food handlers was introduced…and folks insisted on HIV+ inclusion. But transsexuals were expendable in that case too.
Comment by Maggie Leber — October 12, 2007 @ 8:57 pm - October 12, 2007
[Yawn] more conservative whining.
Comment by Ian S — October 13, 2007 @ 1:28 am - October 13, 2007
[Yawn] more conservative whining.
In bed by 12 and home by 1, I see.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 13, 2007 @ 4:21 am - October 13, 2007
I love all this constant whining about the HRC. For all the drivel that appears here about it ad nauseam, the facts are clear: There is no existing conservative group that works to advance the status of equal rights for gays in this country. Log Cabin has tried (and failed) because it has pretty much come to the realization that Republicans/Conservatives don’t want to hear from gays; the party as a whole (and of course I don’t mean all individuals here) is more than content to continue to attack gays as one of the last groups of people it can blame for all the ills of America.
It seems to me that there are a number of issues out there that gays, whether they are conservative or liberal, can agree upon – but no – the writers and supporters of this site frequently villify “lefties” as being the problem and responsbile for all the ill-will flung at gays. Let’s not forget that in the course of the gay rights movement in this country over the years, it has been far more liberal gays than conservatives who have taken the lead and stuck their necks out to work towards full equality in the country. There’s a heck of a lot more to actually working to a goal than sitting behind a computer screen and typing.
Comment by Kevin — October 13, 2007 @ 6:14 am - October 13, 2007
There’s a heck of a lot more to actually working to a goal than sucking Neo-socialist tit, throwing money and votes at them so they’ll come “listen” to you and tell you what a good little faggot you are, and demanding that the government take responsibility for making people like you.
Fixed it for you.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 13, 2007 @ 10:17 am - October 13, 2007
Is Log Cabin’s failure actually a result of Republicans not listening? Or more due to the fact that hanging out in that granfaloon we call “the Gay Community” subjects one to the relentless socially normative pressure to think and act like a liberal?
My personal experiences while advocating for personal responsibility for queer self-defense in the Pink Pistols suggest the latter.
Comment by Maggie Leber — October 13, 2007 @ 11:03 am - October 13, 2007
Let’s not forget that in the course of the gay rights movement in this country over the years, it has been far more liberal gays than conservatives who have taken the lead and stuck their necks out to work towards full equality in the country.
Such as HRC’s endorsement of FMA supporters and their spending tens of millions of dollars to promote as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” candidates who actively push state constitutional amendments and proudly proclaim they have the “same position” as Republicans who HRC calls homophobic and hateful.
Now, Kevin, you have one of two choices:
1) Spin that supporting the FMA and state constitutional amendments, as well as bragging that you hold the “same position” as Republicans, is “working towards full equality” — since you and HRC and your fellow liberal gays are obviously doing it.
2) Admit that you and HRC don’t care about gay rights and only use it as a front for supporting Democrats and their unpopular leftist beliefs
Or I suppose you can start shrieking about concentration camps again.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 13, 2007 @ 2:47 pm - October 13, 2007
Maggie – score, direct hit! You’ve got Log Cabin’s number.
Comment by Patrick Rothwell — October 13, 2007 @ 8:55 pm - October 13, 2007
HRC does not oppose the amended version of ENDA, which gives the Democrats the required political cover to bring the bill to the floor. What’s not to like in that? They are walking a political tightrope.
Sounds like a good plan.
Now why do I get the sense that the indignation here is going to be much less furious when President Bush issues his expected veto?
Hmmmmm.
Comment by Chase — October 13, 2007 @ 11:54 pm - October 13, 2007
#14
So in other words, Pelosi’s going to slip it back in at the last minute. Oh and would you share with us Frank’s “self-defeating ideological purists” comments please?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 14, 2007 @ 2:23 am - October 14, 2007
NDT – the link you posted does not say that HRC endorsed Harold Ford – but Hillary Rosen – one of their leading people did give him money – she was doing that as an individual – and not for the organization.
Comment by Eva Young — October 14, 2007 @ 12:22 pm - October 14, 2007
I know that a lot of you conservatives and righties aren’t going to be believe this but some of us are liberal without being part of the extreme left wing. There is a whole spectrum to the left of Bush-Cheney.
Comment by HT — October 14, 2007 @ 5:35 pm - October 14, 2007
Eva, HRC does not get the “we weren’t involved” claim, not when Hilary Rosen is one of their leaders, on their board, and making executive decisions for them — and when Andrew Tobias, her fellow HRC leader and drone, is writing emails of support about it.
When HRC repudiates both her and Ford and kicks her off the board for supporting FMA supporters, THEN they can say something. But the chances of that happening are about the same as Rosie O’Donnell wearing a size 0.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 14, 2007 @ 11:50 pm - October 14, 2007
I have equal rights. You have equal rights. Your problem is that you think everything you WANT is a right. Its not. Your right to swing your arm ends at my face. Your right to be with whoever will have you is absolute. Your “right” to reach into my wallet and demand I subsidize it to make you feel better about yourself does not exist. Your “right” to force me to employ you doesnt exist.
I want people to be able to fire me because I’m gay or for whatever other reason they want. I want to be able to fire people for whatever F*in reason I want. Thats certainly what the founders intended, which naturally means liberals have done and are doing everything in their power to destroy it. Why do libs hate the constitution so much?
Its called the freedom of association, you see, it is part and parcel of the freedom of assembly and cannot be infringed by the federal government. (or state governments for that matter)
the “right” to force someone else to pay you? Could someone please show me where that one is again?
Comment by American Elephant — October 15, 2007 @ 5:31 am - October 15, 2007