HRC take note.

The WSJ had a summary of an article from the Atlantic Monthly that I thought was particularly insightful on our current state of affairs. I bring this up given that the HRC is going to have a Gay journalist event next Tuesday at the HQ. I hope some of the blogosphere will be there to see the "new directions" that the gay organizations will be taking in the new, and more favorable, political climate.

The WSJ summary of the Atlantic article:

In the 2006 elections, a group of gay millionaries helped marshal a series of local and state victories over politicians with an antigay agenda. Their work, organized outside of the traditional network of gay interest groups, went largely unnoticed, even by some of the defeated candidates, reports Joshua Green.
The campaign was the brainchild of tech mogul Tim Gill, the founder of software company, Quark Inc who sold his stake in 2000 to focus on philanthropy and gay rights advocacy. Mr. Gill knew that most antigay measures originate in state legislatures, and he also hoped to blunt the careers of antigay politicians before they reached the national stage. Mr. Gill enlisted a group of wealthy donors to focus on local and state contests. Crucial to their strategy was avoiding going through national party organizations and gay rights lobbies, and to keep contributions small to avoid arousing suspicion among their opponents.
Mr. Gill compiled a list of 70 races where antigay candidates appeared vulnerable. Using the list, Mr. Gill and his allies distributed $3 million in contributions to dozens of state legislaitve, judicial, and gubernatorial races around the country. In some caes, the contributions amounted to 20% of a candidate's campaign funds, enough to tip the balance in a tight race. Fifty of the 70 targeted candidates were defeated.
Mr. Gill plans to expand his list of donors and candidates for the 2008 elections.
Mr. Gill is willing to deal with both Democrats and Republicans. "Just because you're conservative doesn't mean you're antigay", he says. In his home state of Colorado, he forged an informal alliance with Republicans who supported domestic-partnership rights while generally opposing gay marriage. But in a measure of the obstacles, Mr. Gill still faces, the pro-domestic-partnership proposal was rejected by Colorado voters, 53% to 47%.

I only want to bring this up as an adoption of the Christian Conservative movement from the 80s which is applied to gay rights. Domestic partnership is a transition towards gay marriage and, while not perfect, it is palatable to alot of Americans. Gay marriage is not. And what does the HRC do? Only talk gay marriage (developing it as a money-raising wedge issue) and give Lance Bass and Reichen Lehmkuhl a visibility award.

Our dear Mr. Gill had a success rate of over 70% in his endeavor. Question: What was the success rate of the antigay marriage initiatives in America over the past 6 years? Answer: Almost complete success for the antigays. HRC - wake up and see that grass roots organization is the way to go (Howard Dean got a fantastic start in 2004 based upon the masses). Why would Tim Gill (clearly intelligent in the ways of the world) intentionally avoid using the HRC (and other ancillary organizations) to defeat antigay politicians? Answer: Because the gay advocacy, as it stands now, is not effective.

Let's repeat this point, Gill has a >70% success rate in defeating the young Santorums. This strategy promotes politicians that will support domestic partnership. The HRC has had no success at all with its Andrew Sullivan-esque slavish devotion to gay marriage.

I can only hope that HRC will take this lesson to heart. Listen to what the people want, and more importantly, what they need currently! Hint: It is not gay marriage, not right now. Another hint: It is getting us the homos some rights (not full representative rights). The Equal Protection Clause is being ignored, and will continue to be ignored for the short term, and everyone "in the know" knows it. But we live in a democracy which is tyranny of the masses. And we don't need gay marriage (promoted by the judiciary, and not the legislative branch) turning into the endless Roe v. Wade sort of political football. If the masses will agree to give us some rights that we can benefit from now and use as a Trojan horse down the road, we should take this imperfect compromise as this would protect us now (at least partially - which is better than nothing at all).

This incremental approach is far from ideal - but it is far more effective than an all-or-nothing approach of the HRC. I'd love to think that the HRC is being ideal - but I think differently. I think that HRC is playing political games with your money and wasting it in the process (for cocktail parties for the upper echelon of our "activists", a.k.a. lap dogs). We, the American homo majority, need protection. We do not the HRC-based idealism at this point - it is allowing these "activists" to be effectively inactive while also drawing a pay check.

I only hope that we will see a more judicicous use of the HRC Visibility Award next year. This award ought to be merit-based. It ought not be some version of the MTV music awards for the gay world.