I’m Joe Solmonese, and I Ignore Pro-Equality Candidates. Please Donate to the Human Rights Campaign.
To read Joe Solmonese’s vapid, patronizing defense of the Human Rights Campaign’s endorsement of the anti-equality incumbent Joe Lieberman, you would think there was no actual candidate in the race who supports full equality for GLBT people. You won’t find any acknowledgement of Ned Lamont’s existence in Solmonese’s writing at all. I wonder why?
Maybe Joe Solmonese (not to be confused with Joe Lieberman) doesn’t want people to know Ned Lamont said this:
LAMONT: I think we’ve got a federal government that is intruding into our private lives more and more every day. It was evidenced by the Terri Schiavo case, it’s evidenced by the appointment of Judge Alito to the Supreme Court, and it’s evidenced in terms of gay rights. I think if two people want to get married let them get married. We don’t want the government intruding into our churches, into our private lives. I strongly oppose the constitutional amendment that’s been bandied about every election cycle in Washington DC outlawing the right of two people who are in love to get married.
FDL: The Human Rights Campaign, the principle lobbying organization in Washington DC on behalf of GLBT rights, has come out in support of your opponent, Senator Lieberman. Do you have any thoughts on that endorsement?
LAMONT: What’ I’m learning about the political process is that, at the national level, there’s a real tendency to support the incumbents, but at the local level – here in the state of Connecticut and I think you’ll find this elsewhere – you have a lot of members who feel differently. I’m finding that on the union front and I think we’re finding that on the HRC front as well. Sometimes the national organizations don’t necessarily speak for their supporters on the ground level.
FDL: In summation, then, why do you feel that supporters of GLBT equality should support you in the Connecticut-Senate primary?
LAMONT: Because I strongly believe that rather than us having a federal government that tries to take rights away from people, we need a federal government that guarantees rights for people. Guarantees them a right to privacy; guarantees them a right to live their lives without federal interference. I think the Bush administration has been wrong on this. I think Senator Lieberman is too likely to mix religion and politics, and I believe that, when it comes to gay rights, that’s the next civil rights struggle, and rather than take away people’s rights, we should be fighting to guarantee rights.
Here’s Solmonese, justifying in a tone of aw shucks mock regret his organization’s craven support for an alleged ally of gay families who says, "I think homosexuality is wrong:"
Sadly, like most Senators, Lieberman doesn’t yet support marriage fairness. But he does believe that same-sex couples deserve protections under law. Obviously, the Human Rights Campaign is further along when it comes to marriage. But we don’t have the liberty, nor should we, of closing the door to a conversation about marriage that will continue over the next several years, particularly when that member of Congress is scoring 88 percent on our issues.
That would be a dangerous and reactionary path to take. While most Americans are not yet where we want them on marriage, our job is to build that support to a majority and we should not shut the door to those that don’t support it today. What would that do for us in the future?
"Dangerous and reactionary?" I think GLBT familes would call pretending that a popular, pro-equality candidate doesn’t exist is "dangerous and reactionary." To hear you talk, Joe, it’s as if you would have us believe Holy Joe is in North Carolina running against a Jesse Helms clone (Lieberman co-sponsored anti-gay legislation with Jesse back in the day, as you well know). You don’t "have the liberty," Joe? What, does someone have a gun to your head? Are you being held hostage? That would explain a lot, actually.
Let me tell you, Joe, what supporting pro-equality candidates in safe states might do for my family in the future: it might get us our damn rights. "Several years," Joe? How many decades do you want before those of us in your donor base call the Human Rights Campaign to account? How many black tie dinners from now? You’re doing a heckuva job, Joey.
It gets better:
I don’t know about you, but I think we’d all be better off as a country if we did more to find common ground. And there’s a lot of common ground I share with Senator Lieberman. In addition to his staunch opposition to the amendment, he is the lead co-sponsor of the Domestic Partner Benefits and Obligations Act. This critical bill would ensure that same-sex couples aren’t taxed on their health insurance benefits, as is the situation for spousal benefits. He’s co-sponsoring the Early Treatment for HIV Act. He’s been a strong supporter of federal hate crimes law for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans. He’s co-sponsored the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and voted for it in 1996.
Yes, let’s find common ground with people who grease the skids for anti-privacy Supreme Court judges like Sam Alito. By all means, Joe, let’s find common ground with James Dobson. That’s what we write you the checks for, right, to do the thinking for us poor simpletons? Oh, and by the way, has the Employment Non-Discrimination Act ever passed, even though it enjoys majority popular support? No? How about that! What about that Domestic Partners bill? Not that either? What good is your token scorecard when it only counts the votes Joe knows will never pass? When will the Human Rights Campaign actually score the taking of political risks on our behalf?
Solmonese lists a series of HRC accomplishments, and some of them have merit, but he lists no actual victories in changing federal law. None. Zero. Nada. Zilch. Sucking up to "centrist" sellouts who won’t fight for our equality has gotten us nothing but tokenism and manipulative contempt. The Human Rights Campaign has become part of the problem, not the solution. Not anymore.
I have a challenge for you, Joe (Solmonese, not Lieberman. . . I know, I get them confused, too). It’s an open book test. Come to us and answer the questions we asked Mike Mings last week. Come tell us about your scorecard system, and why it means anything. Come answer the questions Mings whiffed and never bothered to complete over seventy-two hours before we ran with the article. If you have the courage, come confront real questions about the Human Rights Campaign’s endorsement of Leiberman, instead of waving at straw men, as you do in your duplicitous defense.
I won’t hold my breath.
Meanwhile, GLBT people, their families and their allies should support pro-equality Ned Lamont.
UPDATE: An idea from the comments: Human Rights Campaign donors who are fed up might consider sending their money instead to Ned Lamont, and then sending Joe Solmonese or the Human Rights Campaign a copy of the receipt. Just a thought!
Related posts:
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
FITZ me, baby, one more time.
fristy claus
RITZ! FOOT!
Fitz!
I read the piece in Huffington Post and without knowing anything about Joe Solomomese and little about GLBT, it was obvious to me that he has sold out his folks for his comfy job. Bashing Howie Klein by this jerk was sickening. I’m sending more money to Lamont.
– So, how to get the message to the HRCs that their pandering to the likes of Holy Joe is going to cost them? I mean, while it’d be counter-productive to harm their fundraising efforts per se, as with PP and NARAL, when they fail to deliver their constituents should be made aware that the pathetic limp noodles who run their chosen advocacy group day-to-day are specifically failing to fight for the very cause for which they fundraise and take your support for granted.
As you point out: HRC may think Holy Joe is just dandy because of his token symbolic non-votes while he actively sabotages the goal of normalized rights for gays by helping Alito to the bench, but their members might well think differently (and force them to act differently) if they are made aware of the warped logic at work at HRC HQ in DC.
At the very least: locally we should keep an eye out for similar endorsements for state races and federal rep’s, and raise hell if the likes of HRC continue to support the lesser of two candidates on any given cause.
The Roots Project needs to mail a couple more copies of CtG to Mings and Solomonese, with the pages clearly highlighted or earmarked that address the single-issue groups and their fragmentation of progressive power.
Ditto for Sierra Club and LCV.
Gads, what kind of values do these people have if they won’t walk the walk when it’s so damned easy?
Another sweet post, Pach. I just don’t understand Lieberman’s Log Cabin Democrats any better than the Ken Mehlman’s of this world. The GLBT community in Connecticut deserves better representation.
That Solomonese post was incredibly patronizing and inane. The whole scorecard system is absolutely indefensible, but his rallying cry seems to be “Joe Lieberman…we could do worse.” WTF???!!
As Pach says, he doesn’t answer Howie’s charges at all. Lieberman obviously sent him to defend him, and of course any defense of Joe on GLTB rights is going to have to include a) apologies for Joe’s piss-poor record (to the extent that it’s even acknowledged) and b) a complete denial of Ned Lamont’s existence.
These people are calculating their stances in order to perpetuate their paychecks. If the underlying problems get perpetuated in the process, well that really is obviously a second-tier consideration, isn’t it.
Fah.
Great post Pach. Why are they trying to legislate against LOVE? Why do they hate LOVE?
The Wisdom of Solomonese:
Cut a loving couple in two and if no one objects, justice is served.
(Is it still too early, punaise?)
My eyes aren’t as sharp as they used to be. At FDL I never have to read between the lines. Hopefully, the rank and file of some of these single issue advocacy groups read this too.
Cancer and obesity can overtake and kill the host. Which one is Joe. (Doesn’t matter which Joe, Pach, they are harmbedextrious).
HRC is part of the same defeatist, skittish groupthink that has infected elite “progressives” in DC. It’s all black-tie dinners and rearguard actions for them. Why should we be surprised they support Joebag?
Pach, you really need to fix your spelling in describing HRC as the “principle lobbying organization in Washington DC on behalf of GLBT rights.” No principles in evidence here.
Queers for Ned!
If Bush is a chimp then Joe is a Zilch.
Old Rightwing Joe had better start flapping, because he is going to get pushed out of the nest.
-GSD
Solomonese makes a mistake in logic and in judgment when he assumes that because Lieberman supports the aims of the HRC, his opponent naturally would not. That’s the politics of contrariness that has infected the political process for the past thirty years or so.
It is not logically consistent that an opponent of Lieberman would disavow all of Lieberman’s positions. It is logically consistent that this opponent of Lieberman would share some of his views, but not all, and that supporting Lamont would not necessarily compromise the aims of HRC.
Logically, it only means that some important views of Lieberman’s, toward war and “bipartisan” support of right-wing causes (likely fostered by Lieberman’s own moralistic and priggish personality, rather than good sense) are at issue.
Lieberman scores an 88% on HRC’s scorecard. So what? Maybe Lamont will score a 100%. This thinking is typical today–stay with the half-assed, compromised sonofabitch you know, rather than go with the unknown you do not know.
In the meantime, we get wars we don’t want, Constitutional marriage amendment proposals we shouldn’t have to abide, and judges that obey not the higher cause of justice and individual rights, but the meaner goal of implementing right-wing ideology.
Nice try, Joe. Logically inconsistent.
Praying can be hazardous to your health. Women hit by lightning while praying for family.
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/9293414/detail.html
-GSD
We’re not shutting the door on a discussion of “marriage fairness,” whatever that is, Mr. HRC. We’re slamming the door on accommodationists and quislings who’ll sell us out for cocktail wienies without even throwing us a free pass to Blow Buddies.
Time’s up, Joe, gotta go.
Joe look on the bright side. When you get forced into retirement you can coast to glory and be the co-head of a think tank with Mary Cheney.
-GSD
This is one more example of the damage “single issue” groups do to the the party. Kos and Armstrong lay it out exceedingly well in “Crashing the Gate.” Read the chapter “This Ain’t No Party.” It says it all.
I left the following comment on the HuffPo blog:
“Are you unaware that Lieberman has an opponent who is far more GLBT friendly than he is? That Lamont not only opposes a “defense of marriage” amendment but actually SUPPORTS the right to marry for all?
“And yet you endorse Lieberman. Are you nuts, bought off, or just simply a fool?”
My guess: a combination of all three, with the emphasis on fool.
What the hell kind of bizarro bullshit is this? The road to equality is a “dangerous and reactionary path to take”? Who IS this guy? And don’t try to tell me he’s a gay-rights supporter, because he’s obviously not.
The most charitable interpretation of the logic is that they’re balancing a possible better challenger against not wanting to piss off the incumbent (since incumbents have an inherent advantage.) Unfortunately, the attitude betrays that either it’s become so rote that they’ve forgotten that’s what they’re supposed to be doing, or they know it sucks so they’re defensive about it.
But as Markos and Jerome pointed out, it’s a losing strategy when you’re in the minority. Unless there’s a credible threat of taking a chance on a better challenger, you never get more than “just good enough” out of any incumbent unless they’re already a sincere supporter.
Silly thing to think at a time like this, but I’m thankful for one think about the ‘Pugs (and holy Joe’s) position on GLBT.
It brings us together to fight against them for what’s right.
I’m glad you’re here Pach. And I’m glad to keep following and doing my little bit to help.
montag 9:37 p.m.
“Lieberman scores an 88% on HRC’s scorecard. So what?”
The problem is not just that Lieberman scores only 88 percent while Lamont might score 100 percent. The real problem is that the scorecard is fundamentally flawed, or Lieberman wouldn’t be scoring 88 percent. HRC should explain how much weight was given, for example (no small example) to Lieberman’s affirmative vote to KILL THE FILIBUSTER OF ALITO’S NOMINATION. It wasn’t just a case of not voting for something we wanted–he could have had the decency to abstain–it was a case of actively facilitating the elevation to our highest court of an archconservative who we may have to live with for the next 30 years. It was a case of sabotaging efforts of people like Kennedy and Kerry to protect our Constitution. How many points did Lieberman lose for that, Mr. Solomonese? I’d say it was worth more than 12 percent. Did they even score the cloture vote? We want to know.
God I’m sick of HRC. Actually I’ve been sick of em since the day they started with that pussy-ass, closeted name.
Teddy 19 – aw, Blow Buddies – reminds me of my friend Chaz (who finally got too middle-aged for BB and moved to Palm Springs). Actually, also reminds me of Chimpy and Droopy.
neurophius 25 – the FUCK YEAH. Exactly what I would have said if smarter and more articulate.
I am straight, but I always look at this issue to see if a politician is real or not. It’s clear to me from the above interview that Ned Lamont is the real deal. I live too far from Connecticut to vote for him or volunteer, but I’m donating right now. By the way, I am also an orthodox Jew, so please don’t equate Lieberman with all of us.
Sharkbabe 10:22 p.m.
Thank you, Sharkbabe. I think you express yourself very well. I am always interested to hear your viewpoint.
Morris Sheppard — absolutely. Ever since the whole Alito confirmation vote, the fundamental flaw of interest groups has been a real eye-opener for me.
“Meanwhile, GLBT people should support pro-equality Ned Lamont.” So should NON-GLBT people. Anyone who cares about human rights should support Ned Lamont and NOT support the ill-named HRC. I’ve been supporting HRC for 5 years (and I’m not GLBT myself), but I just withdrew my membership over this Lieberman endorsement.
Thanks, Pach, for telling the truth again and again.
Well, look at the bright side. All the bigots in Connecticut will be confused about whom to vote for. “Gays like both candidates, so which do I hate more? Help me, Rush!”
neurophius @ 10:15 pm (#25) – We’ve said this before in regard to women’s groups and some environment groups. There’s something fundamentally wrong when Lieberman does so well on their scorecards. They apparently don’t count all the backroom manuevering and public statements that have hindered those causes in the last few years.
I’m not saying they deliberately game these things, but I sure think they aren’t too motivated to take a hard look at some folks like Lieberman.
They also need to take a stand when the issues are this clear. They have power, too. Lieberman can’t win without their endorsements in the primary, and they’re bound to be helpful in the general. That gives them power over Lieberman, and if he wants to hold some “disloyalty” over their heads, they can make his political life fairly difficult if he wants to have any influence in Congress beyond his one vote.
The HRC just lost one million dollars for making the same mistake in the CA-45th. They endorsed Rep. Mary Bono (R), who scored 84% with the Christian Coalition, and completely ignored David Roth (D), who supports gay rights 100%.
http://www.thedesertsun.com/ap…..60343/1215
Joe S. said they were right to support Bono because her district was solidly GOP. JoeTrippi.com says Roth could upset Bono, the conditions are right.
http://www.joetrippi.com/
two rhetorical questions:
- why does Hillary Rodham Clinton have a scorecard?
- what does Aravosis have to say about all this?
Cujo359 #32:
I’m not saying they deliberately game these things, but I sure think they aren’t too motivated to take a hard look at some folks like Lieberman.
I am. I don’t have the reference handy, but there was an article (in TAP, maybe) about how what’s included in the scorecards is adjusted to make sure the “right” people come out positive.
the Lamont dynamic: Ned’s Kinetic Cut
Whenever I see HRC I think Hillary Rodham Clinton. The funny part is this thread makes sense either way.
OT-
Is it just me, or isn’t it eerily quiet on the Plame front? Given the recent spate (Rove decision in a couple of weeks, Amitage Woodward and probably Novak source) of info, it sure seems strange than there has been no noise from anywhere on either of those fronts.
I feel the earth moving…
Redshift — I would love to know where that article is.
Cujo — the scorecard thing is fucked. I started looking into Holy Joe’s claim to have a 90% lifetime positive rating from NARAL, and how he arrived at that was so screwed up it would’ve taken me all day to explain. Basically NARAL doesn’t weight the votes — Leiberman DID get credit for voting against Alito because they didn’t count the cloture vote. Plus he took years during the Clinton Administration where they’d have one vote a year and Joe would vote in favor of it, thus giving a 100% positive record for the Clinton years, and balancing it out against years like last year when he cast votes over and over again to put reactionary, anti-choice judges on the bench. It’s bullshit.
Anybody who wants to do an expose of the whole thing, you know where I am.
Redshift @ 10:55 pm (#35) – Lacking evidence about internal workings, I tend to take a black box approach. Your explanation fits that pattern as well as mine. This article you mention, did it have some examples of how these organizations work – anecdotes about how they drew up the scorecards, that sort of thing?
What an irony interest groups are these days.
The Republicans are slavishly servile to their corporate/religious interest groups and actually invite lobbyists onto the floor of Congress to write in their own pork meal-tickets.
The Democrats, by contrast, spend most of their time taking their people-powered interest groups for granted and the balkanized world of liberal interest groups can hardly get the time of day.
In the GOP case, the tail wags the dog.
In the Dem case, the tail is snubbed so short the dog doesn’t even notice it’s there.
And it won’t stop (i.e. either case) until the whole lot of ‘em are taught a lesson, which is yet another reason (among a great many) why a Lamont win would give establishment Washington a much-needed kick in the ass.
Jane Hamsher @ 11:02 pm (#39) – You have to wonder how meaningful a lifetime rating would be for any politician. I bet there are a few of Abramoff’s buddies whose legislative rating on Indian affairs would have changed over the years. As you noted, politics change, people change their views, and sometimes the needs of whatever special interest we’re talking about change. “What have you done for us lately” is as good a question as “What did you do for us ten years ago?”
Huckermill @ 11:06 pm (#41) – The religious right seem to think they’re being taken for granted, and they probably are to some extent. When the other party won’t give you the time of day, you don’t have as much power than if they will. Business has power because the Democrats are willing to court them as well (something about all that money), so they tend to get whatever they want.
Let me state at the outset that I, a gay man, support Lamont in his primary against Lieberman. But it is NOT because of the two men’s stands on gay issues. It is because Lieberman has been dangerously wrong on the Iraq war and far too much of a Bush apologist.
On gay issues, I’m not convinced that there’s so much of a difference between the two candidates. About the only difference I can discern is that of support of gay marriage. Even then, I’m not sure exactly what Lamont’s position is. he states:
“I think if two people want to get married let them get married. We don’t want the government intruding into our churches, into our private lives.”
Well, the government DOES intrude into our private lives when it establishes benefits based on marital status. Is Lamont taking the libertarian view that the government should not recognize and confer benefits based on marriage? Right now, gay couples can get “married” but that marriage is not recognized by federal or most state law. Lamont seems rather vague on what he would do as a Senator. Would he actively seek to overturn DOMA and legislate recognition of SSM at the Federal level? If so, then he clearly is far better on the issue than Lieberman as well as VIRTUALLY EVERY OTHER Dem Senator with the possible execption of Feingold. If not, then what’s the practical difference between him and Lieberman on SSM? They both oppose the FMA which for me is the line in the sand for Senators.
As for the HRC scorecard, IIRC it is based on legislation that DIRECTLY involves a gay issue. As odious a choice as Alito was for the SCOTUS, the vote on his nomination did not directly involve a gay issue. I happen to think such scorecards are useful as a guide to politicians’ positions on various issues. I am quite capable of weighting various issue positions – gay and non-gay related – on my own and I suspect most other gay people are too.
Aravosis can kiss my hetero female ass.
He lost me over his McKinney meltdown. It was unprofessional and ugly. He blanked out on the cloture vote, little realizing that if these fuckwits are taking down women’s rights, gay rights are gonna take an even bigger beating. The Alito cloture just wasn’t “feasible” to him. Here, Ari, have some more cocktail weenies. You didn’t get enough when you were spooning with KlownFace Harris.
He can rot in hell, along with HRC.
Pachacutec, if you’re still awake and with us, thank you for your efforts on this front. Your initial “Mike” article exposed HRC, and your deconstruction of Mr. HRC’s response shows their shamelessness. Ned’s already got the right sound bite for this issue, as well: local people, not national bosses, rule. He’s so damn polite, too!
And to our straight allies — commenters and lurkers — thanks for your support. It’s swell to hear folks (Jokercub 27) say this is the lodestar issue of our time. It’s mine, but that’s because it’s mine. For straight folks to see this as the issue by which they judge a politician — that means a lot.
==========
Had enough?
==========
LJ @ 45 -
But what if he quits processing uranium?
Teddy 46 – ditto. This is a huge issue for us and I’m so happy Pach is writing about it so eloquently.
And by “us” I mean liberals, straight and gay.
Ned Lamont just comes across as the real deal, and why anyone wants a candidate who is good to go with govt regulation of a person’s private affairs when there is an alternative who is willing to keep govt out of personal decisions – I don’t get it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
OT – several below threads, cbl Re: the rawstory librarians link. Of course I didn’t keep my eyes averted. *s* I’ve watched some earlier progress on that case and it makes you grind your teeth.
For some general background, here’s a story from the Anarchist Librarians (apparently we didn’t do as well on the war on anarchy as I once thought. If only we’d bombed the libraries more heavily.
http://www.infoshop.org/alibra…..4094638520
People forget how tough librarians are at their core. If you’re doing serious time for major crime, a librarian girlfriend is your best shot at freedom.
http://www.heraldsun.news.com……02,00.html
Anyway – the rawstory article is one of DOJ and Gonzales’ many shining moments – I guess you could call them Constitution lites. While the AG does his sales pitch on the Patriot Act II, impressing upon us all that, just like always – just like before the Patriot Act – there will be no wiretaps without warrants, he also goes on to mention that library records just aren’t an issue.
Oh, and guess what — those NSLs that people are gagged from ever mentioning on pain of going to jail – no one has complained about them. That hmmmumphphphmmmmph noise is just a show of appreciation for the gag shoved down their throat. Tastes like chicken.
So here you had librarians, itching to talk to Congress about the provisions affecting libraries and if they did have any experience with those provisions at all – they were gagged from speaking about those experiences (was it good for you? hmmmmmumphphphmmmph) and from testifying before Congress.
Did Congress grant immunity? Nope. Did DOJ say – aw, com’on, we didn’t really mean to gag you from participating in the legislative inquiry process – just from revealing your surveillee’s name, so let’s work out some groundrules and let you testify? Nope.
Instead, DOJ went to court with the John Doe gagged librarians – lost (you know when the lady with black plastic rim glasses, sensible shoes, and GAG shoved in her throat out-articulates you, the argument is a bit dicey) – but very promptly appealed so as to continue their gag through the whole of the Patriot II debacle.
Never allowed to speak apparently = no complaints in the Ashcroft/Gonzales DOJ. Of course, there is also the “complaints = state secrets” and the “the actual word complaint was not actually used, actually=not a complaint” and the “fingers in my ear I can’t hear you, eyes scrinched I can’t see you = must not have been any complaint” and finally the “if the President says the word complaint does not mean complaint for purposes of construing whether or not there has been a complaint than legally a complaint does not = complaint” rule of construction.
They drug it all out this long, and are still dragging out parts of it, all to keep a few librarians from being able to say anything about how their libraries have fared under the act’s provisions – and whether or not there was any misleading going on when Gonzales repeatedly assured that library records were all being obtained cooperatively and voluntarily –
sec 215? What sec 215? Sure we absolutely have to have it, but it’s not like we use it. We’re way too busy engaging in wholesale rummaging through phone calls and emails without warrants to go to the library. Besides, seeing that much information sitting around, none of it stamped classified – gives me the heebie jeebies. Don’t worry though – we’re taking care of that.
I’m so proud.
I am sorry. I love this website. I admire REDDHEDD’s writings. Jane’s writings have inspired me only as have Mark Twain’s. I find Pachacutec writing’s divisive. Pachacutec who should non GLBT people support?
trggyth – were you allowed to fly over here?
*g*
rocksaw @ 11:32 pm (#50) – Well, as Jokercub said earlier, I’m straight and I favor Lamont for this reason as well as others. As far as I’m concerned, it’s not just a homosexuals issue. It’s an issue about freedom, and about the way we want ourselves and our fellow citizens to be treated. Quite a few of us in this country aren’t white, Christian, or heterosexual. As far as I’m concerned, they should all have the same rights straight white Christians do. Or straight non-white Christians, or gay non-white atheists. Gay marriage is one of the things where gay people don’t have the same rights straight people do.
So I really don’t see why this should divide heterosexuals and homosexuals. Pachacutec thinks that Lamont supports gay rights better than Lieberman. If that just doesn’t matter to you, use your own judgement. Like Ian S. said, there are plenty of reasons to support or not to support a candidate. Click on the “Lamont” link on the left hand side of this page to read what else Lamont supports.
rocksaw…you are certainly entitled to your opinion about any posts on this site, but I’m confused about why you need direction from any one else to decide who you should support? Something tells me you have already answered your own question.
If it’s helpful, this middle-aged, straight, married guy believes that a candidate’s answers to GLBT related questions are an excellent indicator of how they are likely to respond on other privacy issues.
Go Ned!
RGB — same here. Straight woman, GLBT rights are very important to me.
Hi Mary, don’t know if you’ve vamoosed yet, but liked your comment on the last Late Night about fear of terrorism. I answered it, so take a look if you haven’t seen already.
And goodnight to everyone. I’m about outa here.
Buyouts in the WaPo newsroom. Hurray, Ombudswoman Howell is not listed — more good times, Jane!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..02206.html
TeddySanFran @ 12:10 am (#56) – I didn’t recognize any of the people listed. Apparently, none of the truly annoying reporters and editors are leaving. Not that I’m surprised, mind you.
Pach, thank you for such a fantastic post, I wish I lived down south in Connecticut, so I could vote for Ned. Or that, here in the frozen wasteland of New Hampshire, we had anyone besides Sununu and Gregg
You nailed it with that line right there.
Great post — thanks.
I saw Solomonese’s post on HuffPo (and also #21’s comment which warmed my heart). I am glad that HRC is getting some heat on this. They deserve it. Next time they want a donation I’ll tell them that I sent it to Ned instead. I don’t understand why any pro-privacy group ignores the cloture vote. If Roe is overturned, won’t it take Lawrence with it? Why this wasn’t an over-riding concern for the 25% or so of the LGBT community that voted for Bush in 2004, I cannot fathom.
Are you implying Jim Carry is gay?
Kak, is that figure right, that 25% of the GLBT voted for Bush, for a second term?
If so, WTF?! What drugs were they on? Was there a sudden outbreak of Gay amnesia that I hadn’t heard about?
*head explodes due to complete frustration*
rocksaw #50 – Perhaps you find Pach’s writing “divisive” rather than thought provoking – the writer’s hallmark – because you haven’t had time to carefully reflect on the context of the instant post. Pachacutec’s previous posts and comments on FDL are worth searching & reading for countless reasons…not least because he has informed passionate thinking skills and a healthly sense of humor. I could be wrong, you could be a troll from the darker side but I’m in a good mood and willing to give you the benefit of doubt on this fine late night evening.
Rayne at 7:
The Roots Project needs to mail a couple more copies of CtG to Mings and Solomonese, with the pages clearly highlighted or earmarked that address the single-issue groups and their fragmentation of progressive power.
No, I think this is a case for personal visits. If you are a contributor, it would be especially effective to go to a local chapter and raise this issue.
END THE DAMN WAR!!!!!!!!!!1
Joel at 13
The HRC is sometimes called the “Human Rights Champagne”.
They haven’t successfully lobbied for one piece of pro GLBT legislation on the federal level.
Pentimento– exactly, I quit them back in the 90s over some similar boneheaded stance, and they’ve been known in gay progressive circles as “The Human Rights Champagne Fund” for years.
Teddy and Cujo (56 & 57), I’ll miss D’Vera Cohn’s occasional reports on the pandas at the National Zoo.
(I always keep http://animal.discovery.com/cams/pandavidr.html and http://animal.discovery.com/cams/pandavidr2.html up in other windows, so I can check in on Tai Shan and Mei Xiang when my last nerve’s getting jumped on. Sometimes hafta bat equally-intrigued cats out of the way to see that little fuzzball, but he and his momma have saved my sanity many a time this last almost-a-year.)
Lots of great comments here, I don’t think I can add much.
But what people in general, not just GLBTs, should keep in mind is that Lamont fully supports the Constitutional right to privacy. As he has stated, this extends to your bedroom, your hospital room, and your church. He supports it in the manner it was intended, to keep government from interfering with your lives and your happiness.
It amazes me still that our country was founded upon a document that guarantees the pursuit of happiness as one of it’s primary goals. It’s a testament to our founding father’s evolved set of values.
Only in the interceding years have politicians tried to screw with that concept for cheap and temporary political gain.
OT… but isn’t it time for a full court press on the AP for series of lies being told by John Solomon in his stories on Harry Reid?
TPMMuckracker has the details….
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/ar…..arry_reid/
GREAT POST Pach….as always.
Joementum & Co. may think we’re fools, but he’s going to be in for a big surprise come November when he finds himself unemployed.
By not to worry.
My sources tell me that Lieberman is at the top of Bush’s shortlist to replace Donald Rumsfeld as Defense Secretary, who is expected to resign at the end of the year.
I have to wonder what is more dangerous: Joementum in the US Senate or in the Bush cab-in-not?
OT – It’s the first day of hurricane season and the NOLA levees haven’t been completed. That means that Chimpy broke the promise he made the the Mmurkin people that the levees would be completed by the start of hurricane season. This, however, is not really a surprise being that he has broken many promises, including the one where he promised to uphold the Constitution of the united States. You know, the one he made while his hand was on the bible.
Our do-nothing government spent 75% of the time since NOLA was destroyed figuring out who to blame when they should have been hard at work solving the problem at hand and getting the city cleaned up and protected. I guess that would be asking too much.
Just in case anyone was confused, as it seems some were, I changed the last sentence to be more inclusive.
Weird how that works, but I think it makes the sentence better, so thanks for the comments! I put this piece together very quickly late at night, rapid response style, so I think the slight change is better.
To me this is a no brainer.
We shouldn’t be ammending the Constitution to take away anyone’s rights.Ever.
I’m part of the last generation to get actual civics and political science classes in middle and high school.We had to have classes in those subjects to graduate high school(in 1978).
The Constitution should only be ammended to EXPAND rights,not take them away.Or did my Federal Government teacher lie to me?
I’m getting to the point where when I look at “special interest”groups and see ones built on a totally corporate structure(Sierra Club,anyone?),with CEOs and wealthy boards of directors,I shy away.When it all becomes about getting money and access to cocktail weenies,why the hell should I throw more money at that?
I’m an American.I may be a straight,white,suburban Mom(not a soccer mom or a security mom,yuck)but I don’t have to be a genius to figure out that taking away ANYONE’S rights is downright dangerous and un-American.It’s also morally wrong.How some of these pandering assholes sleep at night is beyond me,I guess when you have Ambien you don’t lost much sleep.
The weird thing is, I wrote a comment at HuffPo before even writing this post, and yet, it does not appear online.
I dropped my HRC membership back in 1998 when HRC endorse D’AMATO over Schumer in the NY Senate Race. Schumer, as much as a schumuck as he can be, has ALWAYS been a friend to the LGBT community. D’Amato has a LONG history of gay-baiting. But the HRC, at that time, wanted to look “moderate.”
Seems like they’ll sell out their base to keep those DC offices. I haven’t given them a dime since then and won’t! Then again, you need to really distrust a supposedly queer rights organization that can’t even say to words “Gay, Lesbian,” etc. Talk about self-loathing!
Morning all …great post Pach… Thanks….and as usual.. fantastic insightful comments….God I love FDL in the morning
What can I add about these 2 sellouts…and other piss in a pod like them ?
Lets call them JoeJoes
The country is going to hell in a hand basket and we want to waste precious legislative time to pass an anti gay marraige amendment??How embarrassing for the repubs…They deserve to lose big time this November.
Pach –
Well done.
I’m going to try a generalization — which may well be off base — and suggest that recognition of same-sex partnership is a human rights issue in conflict with the movement to limit personal rights.
Jane, and all others above are correct in associating womens rights with same-sex partnership. They’re very similar. Ditto general civil rights. Elizabeth Birch, the former ED of HRC understood this, and acted accordingly (if imperfectly).
The reactionaries want to return to some pre-Roe, pre-Griswold, pre-Brown world that they view as “close” to the Founder’s intent. And it’s clear from the Federal judicial appointments — especially Roberts and Alito — that individual rights, human or property, are antithetical to their view of the U.S. Constitution and law.
It’s bullsh!t. The strength of the United States comes from the extension of individual rights, and the rule of law protecting protecting them.
HRC abandonned the pretext of trying to advocate for civil rights for sexual minorities (and by association, civil rights for all excluded parties, including women and ethnic minorities), and now is a fundraising organization with patina of activism — largely for affluent, urban white gay men.
Speaking as an affluent, urban, progressive gay white man, HRC hasn’t seen one of my dollars in five years. And won’t. Ned will. Planned Parenthood will. Other groups supporting a human rights agenda that is inclusive will.
OT:
Bobby Kennedy, Jr. will write in Rolling Stone today (not up yet) that evidence shows high-level Republicans succeeded in a scheme to steal Ohio 2004.
But, gosh, what do you hear from that darn liberal media? ***Crickets***. Nothing in Pravda on the Potomac, nothing in Izvestia on the Hudson, nothing over the wires.
Bradblog is the only one who has it.
How odd. Or not.
jayackroyd (64) — How about both? I think a visit from a single donor or two isn’t going to make the impact that both CtG as well as personal visits will have. Better yet, in advance of either, these guys should be emailed/snailmailed a copy of the posts wherein the copies of CtG were delivered to Congress.
That way they realize this is BIG, and not just a couple of annoying people in their face.
I’ve already got a discussion queued up with Sierra Club in state as well as a discussion with other HRC members. To some extent I think this is a problem with figures at national level and with highly local offices; I’m damned near positive the local folks in HRC in my area will see it our way because they are also the most active folks in our Dem club, live and breathe CtG.
Pach, do we have folks in CT on the Roots Project who can take the next step?
scory (80) — it is a human rights issue as you described, but as a straight, progressive woman with libertarian leanings, I have to say I believe the obstruction of same-sex marriage is government interference in the rights of all citizens to freely associate and form contracts. Marriage cannot be recognized as a spiritual or religious contract since doing so enshrines religion in law in violation of the First Amendment (this does not stop religious institutions from having a recognition of marriage as something more). However, marriage can be recognized as a social and civil contract, wherein two persons contract to care for each other. What compelling interest does the state have to interfere in a contract of this nature? Is procreation a state interest — ever?
I disagree with your comment in regards to the extension of rights; the founding fathers believed that citizens already possessed all rights, beyond those delineated in the Constitution. The Constitution is really a list of prohibitions against government encroachment on the innate rights of citizens; it is the delineation of the limits of government that insinuates the rights of citizens. Note Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. We the people retain the innate right to form contracts amongst ourselves; legislation only provides the means by which we have agreed as a society to conduct the terms of that contract.
You are right that this is yet another encroachment of the government into the rights of individuals, not unlike government interference in medical decisions (Schiavo, abortion) or contracts between citizens and communications providers (NSA spying). We must put a stop to this persistent government overreach, and fast. What I cannot understand is the blindness of the religious right and their fervor to prevent gay marriage; once the state interferes with one form of marriage, they are permitted to interfere with other forms of marriage. That is the real threat to the institution of both marriage and government.
I’m sick of the “finding common ground” phrase. It has completely lost any real meaning. Too many people today who say we must find “common ground” are knowingly or naively participating in the chipping away of rights that we already have.
Rayne: Connecticut Bob is in RP, but the networks in CT that the CT bloggers can reach are larger than what the CT Roots Project group can currently activate. I can assure you, activists on the ground in CT are aware of this issue and the posts back and forth.
I just emailed HRC, for what it’s worth. I always hope that my well-reasoned, semi-grammatically correct email will get somebody’s attention. Obviously, I’m frequently disappointed.
But I’ll keep trying. I believe we’re in a struggle for the soul of the Democratic party, and simply sitting there, doing nothing has become intolerable for me.
And believe me, I’m a big fan of simply sitting there…it took 5 1/2 years of massively inane leadership to finally get me off my butt and start working for the cause. We may lose, but at least I’ll sleep better now, and 100% Ambien-less too!
Pach – true, we are aware; there’s a lot going on right now sort of behind the scenes. I expect things are going to shift into high gear within a week or so.
And please don’t call us “Rots”.
heh
Pach @ 76 -
Moderation at HuffPo can be painfully slow sometimes.
Good Morning Everyone,
Lambert Strether – I too hit the RS & Bradblog sites early – gimmee, gimmee, gimmee
also went over to Advocate site for any Ned Lamont references – nada – I know it’s ‘early’,
in the process, but Ned’s statements on Marriage Equality & Privacy are stunning in the current climate and merit a mention -
This is a great post, well up to Pach’s usual high standards.
For me the issue is very simple: liberty is indivisible. That is why, although I’m not a woman, I support, without qualification, a woman’s right to choose what to do with her own body, and also why, although I’m not GLBT, I believe that GLBT folks should have exactly the same rights as the rest of our citizenry in all areas of their lives, including the right to serve in the military, and the right to marry and enjoy all the legal benefits conferred on marriage.
Jane is absolutely right here too. If you consent to limitations on another’s rights, you are also consenting to limitations on your own.
Go Ned!
OT: The following links are great to follow the 2004 Election fraud at Wikipedia, in case it hasn’t been posted yet.
2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2…..gularities
And this is the Talk page to discuss disputed changes and additions to the above wiki entry:
Talk:2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T…..gularities
How many decades do you want before those of us in your donor base call the Human Rights Campaign to account?
Screw that!
I live in Connecticut and have been a supporter of HRC for over 7 years.
Not anymore.
When I read (on FDL the other day) that HRC was supporting Lieberman, I sent an email to Joe Solmonese voicing my disgust and my inability to further support his organization.
I then went out to my car, removed the HRC equality sticker that was next to my “Ned Lamont for US Senate” sticker and sent it back to HRC with a simple note telling them where they could stick it.
I encourage everyone else to do the same.
CT Bob: D’oh! Fixed.
MNW: Good for you!!!
Holy Joe’s rejoinder: Torah, Torah, Torah!
Leviticus 18:22: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”
Of course, Leviticus 25:44 permits the possession of slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. (Does this only mean Mexicans in our case? Or can we enslave Canadians as well?)
And Leviticus 19:27 expressly forbids men from trimming the hair around their temples. (Perhaps this explains Holy Joe’s hirsute stylings.)
Pach (85) — thanks for the reply. You’re all over it, as usual.
Pach – awww, you fixed it. It was funnier before.
CT Bob – Proud member of the CT Rots Project!
#84 – Absolutely correct. There is no such thing as common ground anymore. The Rethugs have seen to that with their scorched earth extremeist rhetoric. Now what we have is a constant tug of war with a frayed rope stretched across the tar pit of political extinction;
both sides with their heels dug in and hoping they won’t be dragged under. It’s the Dems who keep getting slimed. We need to STAND UP forcefully for our GLBT brothers and sisters. Grab some rope and pull.
The problem with the left has always been we are boutique voters. We all have personal issues that drive is. We have to understand that every civil rights issue is our issue! Every Constitutional guarantee is precious.
Mary at 50
Actuallu the whole comment. What glorious, spot on snark.
Well, I hate to say I told ya so but…. in the thread earlier last month asking us to name date, # of indictments and the people indicted by Fitz, I said there would be no indictments in May. Now unless it somehow turns out that Leopold was right all along — and that’s looking less likely by the day, I’ll collect my complimentary free gigantic cup of coffee and be on my way… :)
Oh, one more thing. Let me step out on a limb and say there will be no indictments announced by Fitzgerald in June either. No, IANAL but I did staty at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
Good morning!
Lhp question at 119 on Chafee thread: ‘I don’t know about the Sierra Club, but a lot of these not for profit issue advocay groups ar 501 c 3 charities. If they only endorse Dems they can lose their tax status and be considered to have violated campaign finance laws.’ Misspellings preserved to prove it’s really lhp :)
Sierra Club is a 501(c)(4) which is NOT tax deductible, they are allowed to advocate public policy. I am the head of a 501(c)(3) and believe me we are very careful about any involvement in the political sector.
Sierra has a couple of smaller entities which are tax deductible for people who want to provide support but need the deduction. Feeling an EPU coming on.
Howdy lhp! Didn’t know you were on. If my remarks about spelling are getting on your nerves just say the word, and they will cease.
Here is the biggest irony of all: it is straight marriage that is a threat to gay marriage, not the other way around.
I just cut my monthly donation to HRC. I don’t care how long a supporter Lieberman has been with the HRC, the quotes you provided are clear and unequivocal. It is clear that Lamont will advance GLBT causes without equivocation. Where should i send that money now? Firedog, you do an amazing service. What i have learned most from all of the political blogs has been this myth that being a moderate or centrist is the best place to be. People just sell out or they don’t advance the cause, and then the other side of course has no restraint, no fear, and will do everything in their power to destroy your cause. In those battles, that old weight scale falls heavily to the right.
thanks firedoglake,
Peter
God, thank you, Pach. I wrote HRC after their endorsement explaining why Lamont would get my membership dues this time around and every time thereafter. I guess lesbians don’t get raped, and the cloture vote didn’t count on the scorecard because, well, because the HRC thinks we’re idiots? Like NARAL and PP? Talk about treating your constituency like an ATM.
Lambert at 81
First thing this Am I went to look for the article on the Rolling Stone website and did not find it. I thouht I was doing somethig wrong and not navigating their website correctly.
I wonder how long it will take?
Peter: Good for you. Please consider giving that money to Ned Lamont and send Joe Solomonese the receipt.
Great stuff, Pach!
“Common Ground” is what is sought after an election to choose between multiple candidates. To govern, one must reach out to the whole constituency, not only those who support you.
“A vision for the future” is what is must be laid out in a campaign. Lay it out in a way to reach a broad swath of the electorate. Lay it out in a way to make the contrast between you and your opponent clear. Lay it out in a way that if you are elected, folks will look back in two years and be proud to say “Yeah, I voted for you.”
Campaigning and governing are two different things. You really run into problems when you confuse the two. Save the common ground for governing!
Note: I’m not the same guy as Peter . . . though we have a lot of common ground, apparently!
Scory at 80
When I was in law school, our Dean was a person who had contibuted an amicus brief in Roe v. Wade. I was his research assisatant for book about the changes in law since Roe.
During that long summer in the law library i learned an ironic factoid. Except for the City of New York, Abortion was completely legal in all the colonies (soon to be states) at the time of the founding of our nation.
If you want to go back to life and law as it was at the time of the founding, women get ALL their reproductive rights.
New thRedd
Egregious,
I fully acknowlege my many deficiencies as a typist and proofreader. Which is why in my professional life, NOTHING, goes out that has been typed by me.
And why I try to minimize email to clients or judges. Too humiliating.
Another compelling post, Pach. It serves as a reminder of how compromised people have become from so many years of hearing nothing but wingnut bigotry and prejudice. Lamont is gaining traction because of the work of people like you and Bob Adams.
I really can’t figure out why the right wing bothers to live in America anymore. They’re so completely against democracy, liberty, and freedom and justice for all. They’d rather shred the constitution, approve domestic spying, trample on the 1st and 4th amendment, impose their so-called religious beliefs on everyone, support known liars as their supreme leaders, surrender all their money to corruption, write discrimination into our laws, and cower in fear. They’d rather spend all their time trying to dig up dirt about people rather than listening to them and respecting the ideal of equality. American values, not so much.
rayne @ 83
Thanks for the detailed response! Yes, but. I agree with the principle that the Founders thought that citizens possessed all rights. However, their view of what constituted a citizen was somewhat more, ehm, narrow than is ours today. When I wrote of the extension of rights, I meant to the people who were excluded by legislation or practice.
cheers, SC
lhp–Just shows you think faster than you can type. We observe you are a jet-fast typist, so you clearly think much faster than the rest of us. QED.
The HRC is beyond mere uselessness. it’s an active impediment to the Gay Rights movement, and has been for years.
Gay Rights weren’t fought for to make life lovely for yuppie scum like Joe Solomonese or Adam Nagourney.
It was fought in the streets by drag queens tons toughter than the cops whose asses they beat in style.
DO NOT GIVE ONE PENNY TO HRC!!!!!
new thread – old levees
Testify, David E.!
I find Pach a uniter not a divider and this is a hot button issue. Where do these knuckle dragging freeping Gooper FASCISTS get off putting cops in peoples fucking bedrooms for fucks sake!
And don’t get me started on the ‘ war on some drugs’ either – thats just more fucking cops in poor peoples fucking living rooms and kitchens.
FUCK the FASCIST FILTH! GET these filthy FASCIST FUCKS OUT OF ALL OUR LIVES PLEASE!
Thank you ladies of the lake.
ah yes! I do recall S.T.A.R. : Street Transvestite Action Revolutionaries … they provided ‘Security’ at some early gay meetings back in the day …
“Free is free. Nothing else is.”
iron ranger (#84):
common ground we still need. we also need liberal and conservative. the meanings of those two words have been debased and distorted far more than the term common ground. we do need to reclaim this language. we must not let the wingnuts continue to torture those words and hold them hostage.
we must find common ground with people who do not hold identical views to our own, and we must continue to find common ground among all members of the FDL community. a number of people here push to the edge of acceptable thought and expression from time to time. this is part of what the FDL community stands for, but when this happens other members of the community usually speak out and either chastise them or gently try to reign them in. if we don’t all seek common ground, not only amongst ourselves but with the nation at large, we will never achieve anything for America. We will just talk amongst ourselves in a kind of collective navel gazing and lint fondling.
Read a discussion of the risks associated with the netroots effort to unseat Joe Lieberman…here:
http://www.thoughttheater.com
Well, the HRC thinks you’re stupid, that’s for sure. They think you won’t notice that they don’t give a damn about any gay person who makes under $100,000 a year. They think you won’t notice that they have never passed any legislation in Washingon.
They think you won’t notice that all the money they continuously beg for goes exclusively to dry clean their tuxes and ball gowns for the cocktail weenie party in D.C. They really hope you don’t notice that they are a 100% useless orgnaization.
“
ah yes! I do recall S.T.A.R. : Street Transvestite Action Revolutionaries %u2026 they provided ‘Security’ at some early gay meetings back in the day %u2026″
Marsha P. Johnson was a fierce revolutionary — MURDERED by the mob!
Chris Durang has cancelled his HRC membership!
farender #121
Oh God, it’s going to be fun the next time I am having a “finding common ground” moment with someone while visions of “collective navel gazing & lint fondling” dance through my head. I like that better than the mental image someone had of american sheeple as just floating balloon heads.
Reclaim language is right. A Santorum sort might say he is center. A Liebermann sort might say he is liberal. On the nuts & bolts issues, I think most americans are on common ground…talk has to get past the liberal, conservative, center terminology that wingnuts have orwellianized. Rove & co shouldn’t be the only game changers in town.
Dixie Chicks hitting #1 in such a short period of time says volumes about where the majority of americans are really at. That beats the best polls out there.
HRC courted high-end and corporate donors to fund the glitzy headquarters on 17th/RI in DC. In doing so, they seemed to lose focus of their more pedestrian base. Kind of like Holy Joe himself. Human Rights Champagne Fund indeed.
I’m an old gay rights agitator/marcher from the late 70s/early 80s. I didn’t cut my teeth on the two-kids-in-the-back-of-the-SUV-gay-in-the-suburbs model (not that there’s anything wrong with that, of course). I came of age during getting hell beat out of you on the streets, kicked out of your home, denied jobs, and standing at the bedsides of heartbreakingly beautiful, wonderful, charismatic, and loving brothers dying from AIDS. Local organizations stepped up then. (Thanks again, NY GMTF).
HRC is too fancy for me. I give $$$ to local organizations and to progressive candidates (around the country) who will advance liberal values at the federal level THROUGH THEIR VOTES IN CONGRESS. I want Congressional votes that support liberal causes. Screw moderates. Sitting quietly at the back of the bus has not advanced the ball a lot in my lifetime. Man, I SO miss ACT UP!
As to Alito, sad, sad, sad and wholly expected that his was the deciding vote that took 1st Amendment protection away from government whistleblowers last week. They got to be celebrating that at the White House. So thanks for that cloture vote, Joe. We’ve got Sammy for the rest of our lives.
So you go, Ned! We’ve gotten ENDA, DOMA, DADT (higher discharges from Armed Forces now than then) on HRC’s watch. You get the dough they should have earned through aggressive advocacy. And since they haven’t . . . rock and roll, man!
The fact is, the old testament says it’s a sin for a man to lie with another man, as if with a woman…so fuck the old testament – the source of most of the world’s problems today.
Oops (#127). We didn’t get ENDA on HRC’s watch. Sigh.
nicely said Rayne@83
I’ve always felt marriage is a religious term, so let religious bodies define marriage however the heck they want – the government should only grant civil unions and not be in the business of marrying anyone.
The HRC, like other high-profile “leftist” organizations (Sierra Club, NARAL etc.) on the cocktail circuit, is terrified that if they don’t come out in support of mainstream freaks like Lieberman and he gets elected, he’ll tell ‘em “fuck you” when they come a-callin’ asking for their rights. They’re afraid that if they support the obviously more desirable Ned Lamont and he loses, they won’t get Holy Joe’s (deaf) ear afterward. Talk about self-fulfilling prophecies.
Imagine the incredible impact these organizations like Sierra Club, HRC etc. would have if they, en masse, came out for true grassroots-ers like Lamont? Unfortunately, they’re too timid, pampered, and really don’t have the guts to take a chance, even in these terrible times. They’re forever stuck in their dimly lit fear-box — unless, of course, we open the lid and pull their sorry asses out of it. Let’s get ‘em!
Ive always felt marriage is a religious term, so let religious bodies define marriage however the heck they want – the government should only grant civil unions and not be in the business of marrying anyone.
vivian darkbloom @ 130
The government grants CIVIL marriage…nothing more…nothing less.
I am married.
I am married in my heart.
I am married in the eyes of my church.
I am married in the eyes of my God.
Why should my marriage be recognized as anything other than what it is…a marriage?
Salmonese was on Air America this morningith Al Franken — who expressed astonishment that gay people can be fired with impunity.
WAKE THE FUCK UP, AL !!!!!!
It wasn’t possible to call in.Had I done so hey might have cut me off.
This is funny in a way.
Lieberman is a chump and if I lived in CT, I’d vote for Ned in a heartbeat. But since the gay-marriage issue is so central…
I get why people want the LGBT community to have access to the same marriage/civil-union benefits that their hetero neighbors enjoy.
But at the end of the day, why do (hetero) committed couples get so many financial advantages over perma-singles like me?
Why does the LGBT community want to join a long history of government-supported social-engineering designed to disadvantage unmarried persons?
Political pandering to the “family” has been so long the norm that the larger and larger population of single people with no aspirations for gay or straight marriage are asked to keep going along with it.
Proportionally, someone who is married has government-sanctioned financial benefit over one who is not. And they use my tax dollars to balance it out (and every other unmarried taxpayer out there.
Fuck that!
(I have actually considered marrying my roommate, just to cash in on the benefits – but that’s CRAZY – no? Of course many people did it in the military when I was in – military pay is better is you are married. Singles pay for it. Why?)
I’m not a lawyer and when it comes to hospital visitation and the like – of course family (chosen or otherwise) should get the same great access regular married straight couples get – and everything else that only affects people with such a commitment.
When it comes to financial benefits conferred and whatnot, I don’t know that I will ever wholeheartedly be able to support anything that unfairly disadvantages those who do not choose (”semi”-permanant) partnership at all.
Last thought – as long as anyone is getting these unfair financial advantages – it’s unfair that LGBT’s miss out.
So double-unfair.
Sorry to throw such a meatheaded thread in this late in the game. This is my first post here I think.
FDL rocks!
Ok, just tried to post and it timed out – frustrating – lemme try again…
Long-time reader/scanner – first-time poster:
I’m all for Ned Lamont, although I don’t live in CT. Joementum is a coward and a fool.
Gay marriages should be as meaningless to our government as straight marriages. That’s between the people getting together.
But that doesn’t change my view on marriage and its government-conferred benefits. I’m against them – for EVERYONE – straight, gay, whatever.
I’m talking financial benefits here, more than hospital visitation and the like. If someone I shared my life with was in the hospital, I certainly hope I would be perceived as a welcome guest, despite the lack of an official “marriage”.
Promoting tax-breaks for “working families” is a way to pander for votes at the expense of the millions of taxpaying citizens who are unmarried by choice.
When I was in the Navy, people I knew were getting married left and right just to get the financial bonuses the government offered its married personnel.
Not being married was a PENALTY on your paycheck. Officers told us this was good and that families need this extra money. Like I didn’t?
Many weren’t in love – a lot of them were fairly up-front – we’re doing this for the money – we see other people – we’re getting an amicable divorce whenever the benefits no longer make sense.
Times are changing and demographics are changing – one of the biggies? Single people. Like the kind that don’t really see marriage as an avenue that fits their lifestyle – gay, straight, or otherwise.
I personally want to see all these benefits go the way of the buggy-whip. We should each be treated as citizens by our government – not as families in need of government-sponsored social-engineering.
Family, family, family.
What about me?
(ok, i know this is at the ass-end of the longest thread, so congrats for even getting this far)
NOW LIGHT ME UP!!!
MNW – if anyone is even still in here…
to clarify, a friend who is in the clergy once said he was astonished after ordained to find he had quasi-legal powers and felt it pushed the boundaries of church and state.
I’m glad you have peace of mind, but I live under the fear that perhaps one day (god forbid), even with durable powers of attorney, I or my partner may still have to call lawyers to acheive hospital visitation rights, much less make medical decisions.
Salmonese was on Air America this morningith Al Franken %u2014 who expressed astonishment that gay people can be fired with impunity.
WAKE THE FUCK UP, AL !!!!!!”
Ehrenstein (hi from DL) did you know Franken is friends with professional homophobe Gary Bauer? Oh Franken thinks it’s cute to be friends with reich-wingers, and act like it’s just a matter of disagreeing. He isn’t at all offended by Bauer’s homophobia, they just “disagree.” Franken is way too wimpy and centrist in general, but he’s always pissed me off on the gay issue especially.
He’s corrected gay guests when they’ve said they know some people hate the. Franken giggled, and cutesy’d it up by saying it’s just that people always visualize in couple in bed when they meet them. Yes homophobia is cutesy, isn’t it Franken (giggle). He makes me sick.
He was a guest on Rachel Maddow’s “Unfiltered” and complained that everyday Rush is saying liberals are about books teaching two daddies… and we’re not. Excuse me fuckface, liberals aren’t about books like “Heather Has Two Mommies” that teach tolerance for gays and their families? Not according to that weasel. God I hate him, haven’t listen to Franken for years. It’s mostly Seder, Hartmann and Malloy for me on AAR.
Agree about Franken, the epitome of the wishy-washy liberal. He’s an unfunny bore with shitty politics. But these so-called progressive straight white men can afford to be buddy-buddy with the likes of Bauer. Of course it’s just a political disagreement, nothing personal, because guys like Franken don’t suffer one bit from Bush’s policies and our corporate capitalist system. In fact they do quite well under the existing order.
I’ve never given a dime to HRC and never will. The only national gay organization worth any support at all is NGLTF — at least they have a commitment to grassroots organizing whereas HRC is a traditional political lobby that’s joined at the hip to the DNC. Solomonese’s sick-making defense of Lieberman also epitomizes everything that’s wrong about identity politics today. If a politician agrees to back HRC’s agenda he or she gets the group’s support, no matter what else that politician may support, e.g., the war in Iraq, censorship, unlimited transfers from the US Treasury to the State of Israel, etc. Those of us whose politics don’t stop at “gay rights” have always opposed this approach. I agree with the posters who’ve said they only give money to local gay groups that actually need and deserve it.
I don’t know how Al has survied in show business (which as I’m sure you all know is filled with gays and lesbians) for so long. My suspicion is we’re JUST TOO DAMNED POLITE.
BTW, President Low Normal is having a big “Defense of Marriage Ammendment” event in the Rose Garden on Monday — after which Mary Cheney and Heather Poe will be shot by firing squad and buried in the Rose Garden.
The HRC has always been slow to respond to the REAL concerns of the GLBT community. The leadership has time and time again supported half assed measures and actually believed the lies of politicians that clearly disliked GLBT people. The last time HRC has it’s head too far up it’s rump the membership had to agitate for a change in leadership. Looks like it’s time to do some shuffling again to get rid of the “DC insiders” who have forgotten the mission of the HRC
Mary Bono? Joe Lieberman over Lamont? This indeed was the last straw for me. I cancelled my HRC Federal Club membership ($100/mo) today and will send some more $$$ to Lamont.
Blacks did not win their long deserved civil rights by making nice with the folks in DC.. they took the streets. Making nice with the DC anti-gay crowd isnt going to get us our equal rights either.
I gave up on HRC a long time ago. When Clinton signed the DOMA the HRC continued to kiss his hinie because he was better than the alternative. In 2000, they spent valuable resources savaging the only candidate in the presidential race who proactively affirmed gay rights – Ralph Nader. Note – they didn’t organize political support for GLBT issues and they sure as hell didn’t make any demands on any candidates. Clinton fed them a shit sandwich and they smiled and asked for more. These pukes lost any credibility with me a long time ago. I sent them my checks when I thought that they were working for the advancement of GLBT issues. I stopped when I realized that their main priority was getting invited to cocktail parties with powerbrokers – and those swanky parties served as a substitute for real progress. Tell Joe (either one) that he will have to pony-up for his own cocktail dress – my checks will not be forthcoming.
Yes thanks for your honesty. That is very refreshing on the net these days.
G