DADT Blog Swarm: Contact HRC, Demand That the Largest Gay Rights Group to DO ITS JOB

Comments

1
Done. And enjoy the vacation!
2
Of course knowing how things work, a month after DADT gets repealed they'll institute a draft. Oh well, c'est la vie.
3
Copy of the email I sent in in case anyone doesn't know where to start--

To Whom It May Concern,

My name is BLANK, and I am a twenty two year old working and voting woman from CITY, STATE. I am writing to the HRC today because as one of the most powerful, well-known and respected organizations calling for equal rights for LGBTQ Americans, you are in a position to have the most influence on whether DADT is repealed this year. The Democrats in both the House and Senate have shown that they don't take a great deal of action unless facing pressure from Pres Obama or the possibility of losing constituent votes. Please, speak up! Tell the President that there are millions of Americans who are sick and tired of the way their fellow citizens have been treated by the law. You have the pull and the audience. Please, take a stand with the rest of us, and say that you won't accept anything less that a repeal of DADT this year. I know DADT is just a minor step on the long hard road of battles that need to be fought before LGBTQ people are treated equally, but we can win this. Be brave, and speak up.

Sincerely yours,

NAME
4
Thanks orlando, that was a great start for me, I really appreciate it.

Message sent!
5
A draft?

Really....that would happen after a repeal of DADT but it would have nothing to do with endless wars and occupations for nearly 10 years (not to mention the actions and bases all over the world).

I could see a draft being blamed on ending DADT but that misconception will survive only with the help of people like YOU.
6
While I'm all for marriage equality, I have to say I don't really understand why the battle is over DSDT.

Alright, so integration of the armed forces for blacks/women preceded wider social acceptance and political recognition of their civil rights, I know the argument.

But why do gays/lesbians (otherwise a pretty progressive bunch) so desperately want to be a part of the nation's most conservative institution? The American military-industrial complex is a billion-dollar-a-week machine, whose most measurable output reads in 'brown people killed per 19-year-olds sent home broken'.

I suppose you've got to draw your battles where you can - and maybe images of corn-fed, all-American gay soldiers will inspire the nation towards greater tolerance. But do you think the Fundies are just going to put down their torches?

Is participation in the sausage-factory between American foreign markets and client-state dictatorships* really a right you want to stand on?

*Hussein, Pinochet, Somoza, Ferdinand Marcos, et al.
7
I love to hear from my GLTB etc etc friends!
But please, cards and letters are prefered.
Letters with checks inside are preferred most ;)
It's really been cold up here in DC and we need something to toss on the fire.
If your letter includes a check please note that Prominently on the outside so I won't throw it in the fire, otherwise I can just toss them on without having to open them...
Baby, it's Cold outside!
8
Well, I have been harassing them for the last year on the subject of DADT, but for you I'll do it again.

Enjoy your holiday.
9
What the heck, by all means, let's risks more blue dogs jumping ship, let's risk more moderate discontent, let's handover in a silver platter to the repubs the Senate seats of Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Nevada, and North Dakota. Now's the time for the President to waste more political capital on this issue.

Now's the time to get all selfish ! ...... Now's the time to lose the Senate! ...... Now's the time HRC !
11
Can I just say that I'm annoyed how the two most heteronormative causes (marriage and millitary) have taken over the gay rights movement? And STILL the conservatives oppose it?

It seems like Progressives compromised their values and Conservatives never had any to begin with.
12
I agree # 6 makes a fair point. As a pacifist I don't understand the desire to serve in the armed forces, yet I recognize the need for them, and I do believe that it is immoral to discriminate. So I choose to stand on the side of equality, honesty, and integrity.

That said, message sent.
13
More of this silly idea that phone calls and emails make a difference – they don't.

I'm curious, what "pressure" can HRC apply on politicians? What will they do tell the President they're upset or unhappy? The President doesn't already know this?

For politicians, LGBT-issues are not negotiable. They are based on the beliefs of their constituents. The 111th Congress never had enough pro-LGBT members to pass anything. Phone calls, emails, marches and now HRC wagging their well-funded finger at them will accomplish NOTHING.
The lesson from this "Blog Swarm" will be the realization that HRC has NO influence on LGBT-related legislation and neither do we.
There is no political solution to LGBT issues. The sooner we learn that, the sooner we focus on the real work of creating equality.
Obama knows the repeal of DADT is not possible with the Congress and all he promised was to "work with the Congress." Dick Cheney didn't say he supported the repeal of DADT, either. He said he was listening to the military and that the policy should be "reviewed." Welcome to many years of review, not repeal.

The votes are not there for the repeal of DADT or DOMA or ENDA. They never were there. You can lobby, shame and harass all you want – it doesn't work.
14
@6 Perhaps it is because it IS a typically conservative body that makes it an important place to introduce sexual equality -- not that the gay populace is by and large chomping at the bit to go to faraway lands, meet interesting people, and kill them (although certainly some are) -- but because it is such an inherently anti-gay community that acceptance of gayness there would be a significant inroads to gay acceptance elsewhere in white-bread redneck America.
16
I can't figure out who has the bigger ego: HRC or John Aravosis.
17
K@14 said, "not that the gay populace is by and large chomping at the bit to go to faraway lands, meet interesting people, and kill them". While I think it's true that most LGBT people don't want to kill anyone (I hope that's true of most heterosexuals as well) I do wonder why they want to serve in the military.

Just to be clear: I'm in favor of repealing DADT and letting LGBT people serve openly. It seems to have worked well in other countries. What I'd really like to know is why LGBT people want to serve in the military. Is it just because it's "an important place to introduce sexual equality"? That's a noble idea, but I wonder if for many there aren't more personal reasons. For me at least personal reasons could make a much stronger argument than simply wanting to confront and overcome prejudice.
18
The "real work" is changing minds. We need to re-define who we are. We have been branded by religion is wrong, sinful and deviant. It's time for re-branding and it's time to take opur message to our friends, co-workers and neighbors.

There is no political solution. WE must create our equality.
19
@13 DADT repeal and open service can be passed like Hate Crimes was last year. The White House should stop its calls for more study.

The only valid criticism I think #6 makes re DADT is that of pacifism, which I don't support.

@9, my 2 cents about Giannoulias re Kirk here in the Illinois US Senate race is that the more we can make it about issues (like DADT) and less about one party rule, etc., the better.
20
@#16..Baconcat...think of it as a battle of equals. Godzilla vs. Mothra, if you will.
21
The "real work" is changing minds. We need to re-define who we are. We have been branded by religion is wrong, sinful and deviant. It's time for re-branding and it's time to take opur message to our friends, co-workers and neighbors.

There is no political solution. WE must create our equality.
22
The "real work" is changing minds. We need to re-define who we are. We have been branded by religion is wrong, sinful and deviant. It's time for re-branding and it's time to take our message to our friends, co-workers and neighbors - not HRC and not politicians.

There is no political solution. WE must create our equality.
23
Giannoulias versus Kirk, I meant in #19

@18, ending the gay ban is wildly popular.
24
We hope your efforts bear fruit, and the democrats start pushing.
The timing will be very nice.
Obama has been fairly moderate-conservative in many of his policies and really hasn't provided much 'raw meat' to whip the conservative base up.
Throwing homosexual issues on the front burner just in time for the mid-terms will provide a ton of energy...
25

"Sometime you have to recognize that the President of the United States of America actually has some political capital at his disposal"


And, by golly, he needs to waste it to please a polarizing group.
26
@25: Yes, so let's send him to the prayer breakfast and tell him to give Uganda the green light to spend our money on their eradication policies.
27
@19 - The Hate Crimes Bill wasn't passed. It held the Defense Spending hostage. There IS a BIG difference.
28
@6 Why does anyone want to serve? Despite what you might think, some people feel a duty. Mankind has warred for thousands of years. It appears that as a species we follow the same behaviors exhibited by many other living things. It also seems that political systems and societies are measured how successful they are by how well they survive under threat from other's. People have clearly evolved by warring.
Also, it's considered o.k. for others to join for the access to a college education they get. If, as a gay person, all the years you invest in military service, including retirement, can be denied you, then why serve. And we clearly need all the able bodied people who can be an asset. Can we really afford to be so petty as a nation with two wars and a difficult future?
You may disagree with war but you can't disagree it is sometimes necessary. I don't think discrimination is either fair or warranted.
29
Just like adoption agencies in all 50 states need to WASTE their time advertising for hetero couples to adopt hard to place children just to please one polarizing person.

Yes, lets start that ad campaign today and forget about actually helping the children in our care.

See how that works!
30
I finally figured out Loveschild's deal. She's just desperately lonely and comes here for negative reinforcement, which is the only variety she can get. She posted something typically inflammatory & stupid above, designed to piss the maximum number of people off, but no one bothered to respond, which drives her CRAZY, so she upped the ante further down the thread until someone threw her a bone. Quite pathetic & sad, really.
31
This is a 'make or break' moment for HRC, as well as Obama.

For years and years, HRC has been holding big fancy VIP shindigs, and has raised lots and lots and lots of money. It has built itself a spiffy $8million headquarters in DC. They call me several times a year asking for money.

Now it is time for them to show something for it.

Getting rid of DADT this year is doable. Time for HRC to stand up and help, or get out of the way and quit leaching money.
32
Hello Jason @ 30,

It is good to read you. Take care.
33
@26 This goes back to what @ 6 supposedly didn't understand. You see, much to your objection the President is not and should never be used as an instrument for public relation campaigning by lobby groups, which is the real reason behind this whole DADT fixation by your ilk. Most certainly not at the cost of all of his other priorities. Your real reason behind this is pretty much summed up by 14:

"it an important place to introduce sexual equality"

"there would be a significant inroads to gay acceptance elsewhere in white-bread redneck America."

That's what all this insistence is all about. But there's one problem, that's not the President's job. And you know what, neither is dictating internal social policies (for or against homosexuality) in a sovereign nation like Uganda that does not pose any danger to our national security ( the President's most important responsibility).
34
The people who donate to HRC aren't reading this web site. They're the kind who surf Towleroad for the pics of the homophobic jocks, ie. Tim Teabow, that the site features . I don't understand why they give, unless it's to get a tax deduction.
35
Loveschild, what amazes me is you seem to think it's your job to dictate policies in sovereign nations. You criticize European nations for what you call "xenophobia" and you criticize them for allowing same-sex couples to marry, even though these policies pose no threat to the national security of the U.S.

But when it comes to a policy of executing homosexuals suddenly you're very outspoken in favor of national sovereignty. Just like you're in favor of democracy...as long as the votes go the way you think they should.
36
@25

I don't consider myself politically polarizing. What's with the name-calling?
37
@ 32 - Hey Kim! How are ya?
38
@30 - Loveschild is in love with Dan Savage. She wants to convert him to heterosexuality and Christianity, and have his babies. It is the only explanation that makes sense.
39
@35 No, it's none of my business whatsoever what european nations decide when it comes to their domestic social policies. I only take issue with them when they try to force that on other nations with totally different cultures, peoples and moral values.

For the record, I'm not in favor of executing homosexuals. But I recognize nations have a right to determine what is acceptable within human behavior within their borders based on and reflective of the cultural norms of all of their peoples. All nations have laws against behaviors and some allow such behaviors and some don't. Instigating and dictating in many cases your culture on them does not help one bit those you claim to care for.
40
Jason @ 37,

I am great. I hope the same for you.
41
I only take issue with them when they try to force that on other nations with totally different cultures, peoples and moral values.


And when you consider it to be a threat to "future generations". Maybe you should go back and read some of your earlier comments in which you've criticized European nations for having internal policies allowing same-sex marriage. They haven't tried to "force" those policies on anyone.

For the record, I'm not in favor of executing homosexuals.


That's what you say, but then you turn around and say that it's okay because "nations have a right to determine what is acceptable within human behavior within their borders based on and reflective of the cultural norms of all of their peoples". So are you suggesting that Ugandan homosexuals are not part of the population, and that therefore they can be considered "outsiders"?
42
@6 et al - I'm pretty sure the main point of repealing DADT is not so that we can all grab our shotguns and rainbow boas and storm off to participate in American imperialism - it's to allow our brethren already doing so to do so openly, with dignity and respect.

And Loveschild, as always, has missed the point. Queers are already serving. We exist. We are everywhere. You can titter on about it until your jaw pops off, but you're fighting a non-battle because we're not going anywhere.
43
@41

They haven't tried to "force" those policies on anyone.

Have you heard of Sweden?

So are you suggesting that Ugandan homosexuals are not part of the population, and that therefore they can be considered "outsiders"?

I'm not referencing to persons, I'm referencing to behavior and if Uganda or any other African nation like Kenya determines and makes it clear to the population that homosexuality or gay weddings are not something lawful in the country due to their cultural or religious ethics then outside forces like sweden or other european nations have no right to tell them otherwise, or provoke animus by broadcasting (and urging) behaviors such gay weddings between their nationals.

Likewise, no African nation has a right to tell sweden (not that it will ever happen) what moral values if any they need to observe domestically.
44
Sweden's women's hockey team just got the Silver medal.

Why do you hate women's hockey, LC?
45
This is almost certifiable insanity:

LGBT Blogs are LOBBYING us to LOBBY the Human Rights Campaign so they'll LOBBY the President and then he'll LOBBY the Congress.

LOBBYING doesn't work for LGBT issues. They are NOT negotiable. The positions of our US Senators are based on the beliefs of their constituents - you know, the people that elect them. So, simple logic would suggest we really need to lobby people in Alabama, Mississippi, Texas ...
46
This is almost certifiable insanity:

LGBT Blogs are LOBBYING us to LOBBY the Human Rights Campaign so they'll LOBBY the President and then he'll LOBBY the Congress.

LOBBYING doesn't work for LGBT issues. They are NOT negotiable. The positions of our US Senators are based on the beliefs of their constituents - you know, the people that elect them. So, simple logic would suggest we really need to lobby people in Alabama, Mississippi, Texas ...
47
Loveschild@43: "Have you heard of Sweden?"

Thank you for clarifying that you consider it a greater moral outrage that Sweden would consider cutting back development assistance funds that it provides voluntarily than the execution of people based on sexual orientation.

Loveschild, for the record, you really make it sound like you are in favor of executing homosexuals.
48
I'm afraid the only thing the HRC understands is money. They only respond to requests to change how the operate when their donations go down. I no longer donate to the HRC. If it doesn't happen inside the beltway, they don't seem to care about it.
49
LC: But I recognize nations have a right to determine what is acceptable within human behavior within their borders based on and reflective of the cultural norms of all of their peoples.

For example, stoning women to death for the sin of having men look at them. Now that's quaint acceptable human behavior that surely we can all agree upon.
50
If you want action, HRC is the worst place.

Try sending a postcard to your senator instead.
51
Lovescunt wrote: it's none of my business whatsoever what european nations decide when it comes to their domestic social policies. I only take issue with them when they try to force that on other nations with totally different cultures, peoples and moral values.

And yet you feel free to criticize Turkish honour killings, even though they're certainly not trying to force that aspect of their culture on anyone else.
52
If the HRC was any less useful at promoting gay rights, it'd be run by Loveschild.
53
Exactly what is Obama using his political leverage for?

The Republicans are not influenced by Obama's leverage. They're too busy getting shafted into compliance by the GOP.

His job policy? The red states need jobs too, and still the Republican reps won't vote for his policies, just because they're Obama policies (whether that's because he's darker-than-white or democrat is irrelevant).

The game is no longer about political negotiation. It is (as it was during Johnson's terms) about breaking arms (sometimes literally) in order to push things through.

And either Obama can break arms to do what he promised to do, or he won't break arms at all.

So, again, what's this political leverage bullshit?
54
I'm all for breaking arms.
55
If only instead of forming a circular-firing-squad around HRC, we could pour all this energy into writing Congress to demand they permanently end the policy.

Oh wait! We can!

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress…
56
It's important that we get the word out into even more mainstream social networking channels that the HRC isn't doing it's job. How about some energy into Twitter, and Facebook groups such as: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=wall…
57
How long will it take you ignorant people to understand that if HRC isn't fighting for shit now they won't start fighting just because you make a phone call? Joe Solomonese makes several hundred thousands of dollars a year. He doesn't give a fuck what you have to say.
58
Dammit, Barack Imposter has appeared, and I find myself with a new bottle of Merlot and no corkscrew. I'll take a drink later.

@33: I see you have yet to learn your lesson about trying to go toe-to-toe against us.

"the President is not and should never be used as an instrument for public relation campaigning by lobby groups"

That's funny, I get this feeling like you would have loved all the shit Bush did for his corporate friends, what with his administration pushing trickle-down economics on us so that the super-rich could galvanize the American economy for all of us. Opinion on that?
59
Done and hurry up and get back you little bastard!!! There are some of us who do not have the luxury of taking a vacation so stop rubbing it in our faces.
60
Hey Loveschild,

Sorry to break it to you, but a solid majority of Americans disagree with you. Hell, you're more conservative on this issue than Dick Freakin Cheney!

Enjoy telling your grandkids about the good old days when gays were beaten for daring to love who they wanted.
61
@43 Do you oppose pressing for human rights in China, the Arab world, etc? Would you be opposed to agitating for the right to freedom of religion in those countries, assuming that it does not affect our national security?

Also do you believe that political capital is something that, ipso facto, should never be "spent" but always horded? If not, then why shouldn't someone who believes ending DADT to be worthwhile press the president to do so?
62
"What I'd really like to know is why LGBT people want to serve in the military. Is it just because it's "an important place to introduce sexual equality"? That's a noble idea, but I wonder if for many there aren't more personal reasons. For me at least personal reasons could make a much stronger argument than simply wanting to confront and overcome prejudice."

There are a number of reasons someone might choose to join an organization that doesn't want them:

To serve their country because they believe it's the right thing to do
To get money for college or pay back student loans
To get a secure job in a rotten economy
To get away from a miserable home life
To appease family members who think the only way to be a man is to fight
Because they might not know their sexualitygoing in and realize it midway through

I served for seven years and most people I met could give you multiple reasons why they joined, from the lofty "for the love of God and country" to the "I had nowhere else to go". The gay and lesbian soldiers I served with were no different.

We need to end this policy because we are fighting two wars and wasting valuable resources - personnell, time, and energy - by upholding this ridiculous policy. The top military brass have already said it's got to go. Freaking Dick Cheney agreed. Colin Powell agreed. Why isn't this just done?
63
@43: Part of the "cultural ethics" of civilizedhumans is a mandate to prevent gross human rights violations wherever they may occur.

And, since you'll undoubtedly bring this up, let me make it clear: Civilization is not about ancestry, it's about rational and humane values that transcend the barbarism that is a part of all our various ancestral heritages. That the Enlightenment occured in Europe is certainly fortunate for Europeans, but that doesn't mean that enlightenment values are intrinsically European - pre-enlightenment (and post-classical) European values have no more to do with enlightenment values than pre-enlightenment African values do.

Or, to put it in terms that you might be able to understand: "Unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." Having received the precious gift of the Enlightenment from those who came before us, it is our duty to spread it to those who have not been so fortunate.
64
Russkaya@62, thanks for clarifying that. What you've done is basically confirmed what I've suspected: LGBT people sign up for military service for the exact same reasons as straight people. Every individual's reason for signing up is unique to them regardless of sexual orientation.

The sad thing is, based on the poll numbers, it seems that increasingly it's not about a military that "doesn't want them" so much as it's about policy being slow to change.
65
Loveschild @43

I totally agree with you. Those goddamn Swedes imposing their Swedishness on other nations really gets me steamed. As an American of Norwegian descent, I can tell you I am still suspicious of those lanky, pale-haired bastards for repeatedly conquering the land of my ancestors.

Of course, I'm not sure what they've done since then, but I've still got an eye on them.

Wow, I am late to this thread.