A correction

A comment left by Sean Bugg:

Just wanted to clear a couple things up here. First, Metro Weekly did not launch any sort of personal attack on Chris Crain. I, however, did make a couple of off-hand cracks about him on my personal blog. I totally understand that it can be easy to conflate my personal writing with the magazine when I'm the editor, but the post you attribute to Metro Weekly was written by me, on my own time, on a web page and domain that I pay for on my own dime.

Second, it might have been helpful to directly link to the post of mine you questioned. It's funny, in it's own way, because pro-HRC folks have been writing me claiming I'm insanely pro-Sullivan, and vice versa. Obviously, I need to be clearer when stepping into a hornet's nest.

I've already posted a reply to Chris on this issue on my site: http://seanbugg.typepad.com/buggblog/2007/03/since_you_asked.html

One last thing: I'm curious what you mean by "embarrased that we are mired in gay marriage and Don't Ask Don't Tell"? Do you mean you're embarrassed that movement hasn't been made on those issues, or that those issues are at the forefront of the agenda, as opposed to other issues?

First of all - Sean, I am completely in the wrong. Sean did write this in his own blog. Metro Weekly had no doing with this.

I apologize for the error and the link is embedded in the blockquote above.

I, having no dog in this fight, feel that personal history and professional disagreements are peripheral to the discussion at hand - the HRC is the point. The personal attacks are, perhaps, unavoidable, however I think that the pressing issue should be kept central.

Chris came up with a list that seemed pretty reasonable (Note Chris has some links embedded in the list - surf over to his entry for the details):

1. HRC focuses too much on champagne fund-raisers and not enough on its mission.
2. With the sizable resources they take from the gay community ought to come sizable scrutiny.
3. Tim Gill offers an attractive alternative for gay donors.
4. The Globe story highlighted how HRC has devoted too few resources to fight state amendments and too much on electing Democrats.
5. HRC should not come out so early and often for the other HRC, Hillary.
6. HRC should be truly bipartisan where it can in supporting candidates, which means sticking with pro-gay GOP incumbents. (I wrote editorials back in 1998 defending HRC's endorsement of Alphonse D'Amato and clearly it hasn't hurt them or gays with Chuck Schumer).
7. HRC has handled the blog backlash badly and acted almost Bush-like in claiming its critics are helping "the enemy."

In Sean's posting, he had issue with some of the points and agreed with some other points.

So we have grounds for a discussion and as Sean noted, there is a lot of superficial agreement on the issue.

I think the list offers a key point, in and of itself. For those who are concerned about the HRC's role in the community, we can now discuss a cogent set of points and think about what steps ought to be taken. Personal drama aside.

With a list, a group can define what change needs to happen. I'm a fan of direct action. I'm thinking of walking with a sandwich board or holding large sign in front of HRC HQ and passing out flyers in front of the HRC store in Dupont...it'll be a nice way to enjoy the Spring weather, any maybe meet some hotties.

Now onto the last issue I raised about gay marriage and Don't Ask Don't Tell. I am embarrassed that we have been led into two areas that are LONG shots. Gay marriage is not palatable to the masses (in particular out in fly-over country). Gay servicemen play out in a similar fashion. Both policies are patently unfair - this has been clear from the beginning of the discussion. The Equal Protection Clause covers gay marriage so completely that there should be no issue.

But there is massive resistance. MASSIVE. And I still have no protection but I am supposed to be behind this effort (now) to force gay marriage through the courts (which makes it like abortion - a very profitable fund-raiser and an unsolvable problem since it is now beyond a legislative approach). And are gays in the military a bigger issue than gay kids not being able to afford and education because they got kicked out of the house or cut off by parents. Is suicide among gay teens (and older folks for that matter) not a real and on-going problem that WE, the community, can start to address.

My problem is that we can get domestic partnership through. Marriage will not go through the legislature, period. Gay marriage is poised to become the new abortion (i hate that sentence but unfortunately it is true). And Don't Ask Don't Tell can only be solved by legislation (cleanly) and it is also a non-starter at the moment - judicial fiat is not a solution in this case either. ENDA has the potential to be a non-starter too based upon what gets put in the legislation (and I would LOVE to see which points are non-negotiable).

My embarrassment is that I, and my fellow average gays, are living our day-to-day lives and it is not clear that the HRC (which is supposedly leading the charge (from their website description)) is actually concerned with my more pressing needs. A functional and imperfect Federal law providing legal protection is more important than the ideal of Gay Marriage which is being waged state-by-state. Sadly, domestic partnership is boring and far less controversial. Gay Marriage is a big deal and gets lots of press and raises lots of money and so on. But I still sit without any protection at the Federal level. How long will HRC whore the little ones with no protection while trumpeting the highest virtues of equality - Gay Marriage. We live in the tyranny of the masses - that is a Republic.

And the silent majority does not want Gay Marriage.

And I'm happy to take a smaller, less than perfect victory, that protects me somewhat - than a larger, more perfect vision, that leaves me exposed. That might be seen as a lack of virtue - I'd call it minimizing my risk.

And Don't Ask Don't tell MUST be legislated. But is it among the most pressing matters of the day? Is there nothing else that affects more people and is achievable in shorter time (legislatively speaking?). DADT isn't fair and neither is being denied access to marriage. But if a scientist can see the myriad of problems with GM and DADT (and potentially ENDA) while there is a panoply of more pressing needs that must be addressed - then how can I not be embarrassed?

Embarrassment is a legitimate emotional response to such a misreading by our leadership of the political landscape.