Blade covers for HRC

I am about caught up after my trip to the Midwest. I have to teach some classes next week in NC so I worked on those all day yesterday. Bubba took Chaka to get his cast cut off and Chaka now has a walking boot. And what does Chaka do to celebrate? Run on down to Larry's Lounge for afternoon cocktails - love Chaka. Alas, I could not join as I was busy making slides about comparative genomics - I secretly love teaching. So Bubba met Delicate Flower, C.B., and Shaggy along with Chaka for drinks at the new hangout. Larry's doesn't have alot of stairs - so while Chaka is still in recovery, we will need a single story watering hole.

Well I finally read this week's Blade editorial from Kevin Naff and I was not surprised so much as I was disheartened. The nation's oldest gay and lesbian newspaper is going to bat for the nation's largest gay advocacy organization and the editorial is really a bit limp-wristed.

This editorial might be summed up as:
"Yes, the bloggers have a point about X, but you cannot blame HRC totally for failing in some aspect of this."

So I'm going to handle one point in the editorial.
Andrew Sullivan has a nice discussion about the editorial. He was the primary blogger that was mentioned and his responses are succint and on-point.
Mike Petrelis discussed the salaries at some length and the lobbying costs.

My two cents is going to go towards this idea that the bloggers are criticizing HRC for not getting legislation passed.

Sullivan and others have faulted HRC for failing to successfully lobby Congress to pass pro-gay laws. Some of that is deserved, some is not."

No one can hold HRC responsible for Congress' actions. That is just silly. The point that many in the blogosphere have made is that it is hard to see HOW HRC is lobbying and WHAT they are lobbying for and WHOM they are lobbying and HOW much they are spending on such efforts and WHERE can we go to see the raw data about this. These are issues of transparency that should be intuitive for a non-profit.

A paragraph later.....

But just as it is unfair of HRC to take all the credit when things go right, it's equally unfair to assign all the blame when things go wrong. The reality is that no significant gay rights legislation was going to pass the Republican-controlled Congress of recent years.

Forgive me for this - but when did Kevin Naff become the definitive source of what would and would not happen in the Congress? Take this declarative statement to its logical end. If this is true (of course it isn't), then why should we do anything when Republicans are in the majority. Or for that matter, if the Democrats are less than 60 in the Senate (to get around cloture).

The point that I have made again and again is that Gay Marriage will NEVER pass the legislature cleanly in the next decade. Most gay people know that and readily admit it - and straights are the same way. And currently the gay marriage fight is being waged in exactly the wrong place - the courts. Similarly, is DADT going to make it through Congress? I mean really, is it? That is why is keeps popping up in the courts.

Give the legislature something that they can pass and give them a little political cover to do it, and miracles can happen. But it has to be baby-steps and it has to be palatable to the lawmakers. Fairness is one issue and piety is another - so use the fairness issue to advance some goals for domestic partnership. Striking at the heart of people's piety with Gay Marriage is almost like a frontal assault. For a group of people that might total 2% of the voting population, a frontal assault seems like a scene from the film 300.

Major gay legislation does not have to be wrapped in all of this idealism and lofty goals to be effective. Gay rights legislation can be small and simple steps that improve people's lives. And with HRC's very small lobbying monies (glad to see the numbers popped up) - a small victory approach is the only viable stance. Repeated small victories over a decade taken as an aggregate are effectively "major gay legislation".