Any HRC members here? What do you think of this?

ibegurpard

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Dec-10-04 12:06 PM
Original message

Any HRC members here? What do you think of this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/09/national/09gays.html?ei=5094&en=eb98fb148fb10f1a&hp=&ex=1102568400&adxnnl=1&oref=login&partner=homepage&adxnnlx=1102594232-JpKMElVxRySdj8hzhJ013w

<snip>
"The leadership of the Human Rights Campaign, at a meeting last weekend in Las Vegas, concluded that the group must bow to political reality and moderate its message and its goals. One official said the group would consider supporting President Bush's efforts to privatize Social Security partly in exchange for the right of gay partners to receive benefits under the program."
<snip>

As a gay man, it makes my blood boil that someone who supposedly deigns to speak for me would consider selling out many others in order to guarantee his or her own place at the table. There's a word for that...it's called a Republican.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Plaid Adder

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Dec-10-04 12:08 PM
Response to Original message

1. The HRC has denied this, sort of

If you go to www.hrc.org you can read their statement. They say they have taken no position on privatizing social security.

However, if even 50% of what was reported in that NYT piece is true, it's gonna be a cold day in hell before they get another dime from me. I've been an HRC 'partner' for years now, but this is just too fucking much.

The Plaid Adder

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Ian David

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Dec-10-04 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #1

3. It would make sense, though

Bush doesn't plan to let any gay people live long enough to collect social security anyway.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

ibegurpard

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Dec-10-04 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #1

4. If they said they have taken no position

then I think that a lot of pressure NOT to take THAT particular position should be applied. It's reprehensible.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

David Dunham

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Dec-10-04 12:09 PM
Response to Original message

2. Excellent post. The HRC is nuts if they support SS privatization

Many people, inclding many gay people, are not wealthy and will be really hurt over the long term by SS privatization.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU9598

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Dec-10-04 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #2

5. Thank you

I donate annually to the HRC. I had no idea on this policy issue or on their sudden cold feet. I guess I have some homework to do.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

ibegurpard

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Dec-10-04 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #2

6. Not only that

but it would SERIOUSLY damage their credibility when it comes to forming coalitions with other groups, in my opinion. Can you IMAGINE how HRC would react if some group said "we will support a federal anti-gay marriage amendment if you put something for us in here?"

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Not Me

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Dec-10-04 12:30 PM
Response to Original message

7. Sam Seder was talking about this on AAR last night

He made some great points...
Throughout history, Civil Rights organizations have always staked their position at their ultimate goal. Never should they backtrack from this goal.

HRC has some explaining to do with me if they think they can wear the mantle of gay rights leadership organization.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

ursacorwin

(528 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Dec-10-04 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #7

8. it seems to me that the HRC is good at one thing:

raising money for the organization. which is fine, if i felt that they were doing something that had an impact on my life. but from what i've read, HRC is basically an inside the beltway club that raises a lot of money to keep the group in the best cocktail party set, and to draft position papers that have little or no effect on actual legislation or court rulings.

GLAD, the Lamda LDF, heck even the old Act Up! crowd seem to me to get better results.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

ibegurpard

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Dec-10-04 02:56 PM
Response to Original message

9. kick

:grr:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Fri Apr 26th 2024, 10:20 AM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.