The LGBT Community Is Often Its Own Worse Enemy

Like the Democrat Party as a whole, the far left of the LGBT community is often the community's worse enemy since it continually wanders off into the political weeds, utterly clueless to the need of (i) pushing candidates with a realistic chance of winning, and (ii) stop pushing radical agendas that a majority of Americans simply either do not want or find outright fearful. Worse yet, these elements have embraced the Democrat circular firing squad model of demanding total perfection in politicians from birth with no forgiveness ever for past mistakes even if they occurred decades ago. A case in point here in Virginia is Equality Virginia which has burned its bridges with Governor Northam, Lt. Governor Fairfax and Attorney General Herring, all of whom were dis-invited from the Commonwealth Dinner last month and told they were unwelcome. Lost in what I can only view as delusion, members of the EV board think they still have a "great relationship" with these powerful Democrats who they have insulted and scorned. With this type of clueless leadership, it's no wonder EV has managed to pass so little legislatively. 

On the national level, similar cluelessness is coming from far left elements in the LGBT community who are attacking Pete Buttigieg for being a white male rather than being ecstatic that a gay candidate for the first time ever has been deemed credible at the presidential level. Even if Buttigieg doesn't win the Democrat nomination, he is opening minds and generating much needed conversations, but for the circular firing squad crowd, they cannot forgive him for being white and male.   A piece in Huffington Post looks at this self-destructive phenomenon.  Here are highlights:

Pete Buttigieg has a shot at becoming the first openly gay president in American history. But his candidacy is already exposing tensions in the LGBTQ community between gay white men, who benefit from the economic and social privileges of being white men, and all the other queer people who don’t.

“Is Buttigieg a run-of-the-mill white male candidate, or does his sexuality set him apart? That mammoth question can be broken down into smaller ones that get at why diversity matters,” Slate’s Christina Cauterucci wrote in March. “Has Buttigieg faced setbacks or barriers to success because he’s gay? … Would a win for Buttigieg be as historically significant and culturally meaningful as a win for a member of an underrepresented race or gender?”  “In a primary for the overwhelmingly pro-gay Democratic Party, Buttigieg can be more accurately lumped in with his white male peers than with anyone else,” she concluded.

Cauterucci’s piece drew immediate criticism, primarily by white men, for dismissing Buttigieg as not being gay enough. “Ludicrous,” wrote Drew Goins, assistant editor of The Washington Post opinions section. “It’s the Oppression Olympics at its worst: In a battle to prove that one community is more discriminated against than another, we tear each other apart rather than unite in common cause,” wrote John Aravosis, editor of AMERICABlog.

The LGBTQ community is obviously not monolithic. It has the same fault lines of race, gender, class and economics that persist in the rest of American culture. But some of these disparities may have been obscured under President Barack Obama, who helped unite queer people around his pro-LGBTQ agenda. And President Donald Trump has certainly given queer people a common purpose in fighting his assault on LGBTQ rights.

At a time of historic diversity among Democratic presidential candidates, Buttigieg ― a white, upper-class, Ivy League-educated, Midwestern man of faith ― is exciting LGBTQ rights groups as much as making them confront more complicated questions about the best person to represent the interests of someone who is, say, transgender, black and female.

“As a black, same-gender-loving man, hearing a white, gay, Democrat political leader introduce new ways of having conversations about political identity and religion and intersections is exciting,” said David Johns, executive director of the National Black Justice Coalition. “But we need to pause to think about not only how gayness exists as a political identity for gay white men, but how LGBTQ gains have worked over the last few years.”

Johns said the priorities of prominent LGBTQ rights groups have largely been driven by gay white men, from fights to allow domestic partnerships in various states, to ensuring that financially comfortable gay and lesbian couples can adopt children, to fights over banning gay conversion therapy. . . . . “Not only is the world set up to benefit them, but shifts in political and social environments have allowed them to enjoy additional privileges. While those gains have been made, there hasn’t been parallel progress or investment in black communities or black LGBTQ communities.”

Some LGBTQ rights groups didn’t seem to want to talk about Buttigieg’s candidacy exposing these fractures. The National Center for Transgender Equality declined to comment for this story. The National LGBTQ Task Force did not respond to a request for comment.

Human Rights Campaign spokeswoman Sarah McBride said LGBTQ people all over the country are inspired by Buttigieg’s candidacy.

“Throughout his campaign for president, Mayor Pete has made a point of emphasizing LGBTQ equality, including the urgent need to fight for the rights and dignity of transgender people,” said McBride. “The unprecedented field of pro-equality candidates running for president will ensure that LGBTQ rights are a central part of the 2020 debate, and it’s clear that LGBTQ voters will play a decisive role in both the primary and the general election.”

“No single candidate can represent the diversity of the LGBTQ community, and Buttigieg undoubtedly enjoys advantages because of his gender and race,” added Shannon Minter of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. “But he is also a compelling candidate who has shown tremendous courage, including by challenging the harms inflicted on LGBTQ people by officials and leaders who misuse religion to justify discrimination and bigotry. We can acknowledge the impact of sexism and racism on our national politics without diminishing Buttigieg’s importance or well-deserved success.”

To be clear, all of the LGBTQ rights advocates HuffPost talked to ― some spoke on the record, some spoke privately ― said they are thrilled that Buttigieg is a candidate. But some felt torn about yet another white man getting so much attention in a race full of women and people of color, particularly after Hillary Clinton came so close to winning in 2016.

“Do we think it will end up causing some fault lines within our community? I’m sure it will. Mostly among women, from our corner,” said Stephanie Sandberg, the executive director of LPAC, which helps elect LGBTQ women. “But we now have more than 20 people in the race. We have plenty of time. I hope [Buttigieg] does as well as he can and continues to pave the way. It’s fantastic.”

For his part, Buttigeg seems fully aware that he can’t speak for the entire LGBTQ community. But he’s made efforts to embrace the causes of it.

The reality for Buttigieg, though, is that his most enthusiastic LGBTQ supporters so far are affluent gay white men. He “rarely goes more than a few days” between private events hosted by prominent gay donors, The New York Times reported Wednesday, including gatherings in New York City and Beverly Hills hosted by composer Stephen Sondheim, Bravo host Andy Cohen and former R.E.M. frontman Michael Stipe.

Johns said he’s waiting to see who Buttigieg surrounds himself with and the diversity of perspectives he’s willing to consider before deciding if he can get behind him.

Sadly, individuals like Johns seemingly would rather by default re-elect Trump than recognize that politics is about what is possible and will get the support of a majority of voters. That is objective reality - something lost on too many in the far left of the LGBT community. As for complaints about the issues pushed by many LGBT rights organizations, another reality is that most are disproportionately funded by white gay males who, by default set priorities. 

HRC Stupidly Endorses a Republican Over a Pro-LGBTQ Democrat

Once again the Human Rights Campaign ("HRC") is demonstrating why I have ceased all contributions to the organization and stripped the HRC bumper sticker off my car. HRC has endorsed Republican Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois for re-election over his challenger, Democratic Rep. Tammy Duckworth.  The apparent motivation was to reward Kirk for his co-sponsorship of the federal Equality Act, but demonstrates HRC amnesia about other things that Kirk has done to the LGBT community.  A column in Slate rightly takes HRC to task.  Here are highlights:

HRC recently committed an unforced error of astonishing ineptitude that necessitates a re-evaluation of the group’s core mission: It endorsed Republican Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois for re-election over his challenger, Democratic Rep. Tammy Duckworth.

If you squint, you can see why HRC thought this endorsement was canny and logical. In announcing the endorsement, HRC President Chad Griffin praised Kirk for co-sponsoring the Equality Act, a federal LGBTQ rights bill which Kirk’s Republican colleagues are devoted to quashing.

Some liberals, including DailyKos’ David Nir, interpret this endorsement as a cynical ploy to draw in more Republican donors. That may be part of the calculus, but I lean toward taking HRC at its word. 

There may be room for such a strategy in the House of Representatives, and in state legislatures—and, in other years, in the Senate. It is a political fact that LGBTQ rights will be permanently stymied if Democrats are the party of equality and Republicans are the party of anti-gay animus. As a lobbying organization, HRC needs to maintain a broad bipartisan stance, and to generously reward Republicans who break from the party line. That’s how gay rights advocates won marriage equality in New York—by persuading a few key Republican state senators to defect with the promise of future financial support.

This tactic can obviously work, so we shouldn’t criticize HRC for attempting to play the long game with Kirk. Rather, we should criticize them for attempting to play the long game stupidly. Everyone knows that the Equality Act—and every other piece of pro-LGBTQ legislation—can only pass the Senate if Democrats control the chamber.

There is no possibility that Republican leadership will permit LGBTQ rights bills to come to a vote. The Senate map is quite favorable to Democrats in 2016, but their only path to victory involves picking off Republican senators in purple states—senators like Mark Kirk. In other words, HRC’s goal of rewarding pro-LGBTQ GOP senators runs directly counter to their broader goal of, you know, passing pro-LGBTQ legislation.

Endorsing Kirk might be more palatable if he were running against a conservative Democrat with a middling record on gay and trans rights. He is not. Duckworth, his Democratic opponent, has maintained perfect voting record on LGBTQ equality during her time in the House. In fact, HRC awarded her a 100 percent score on her equality report card. Kirk scored a 78.

It’s wonderful that Kirk supports equality, but his own leaders—men like Sen. Mitch McConnell—will never let allow his pro-LGBTQ bills to become law. Kirk’s about-face on LGBTQ rights is very nice, and may presage a future shift within his party. But right now there is only one way to pass the Equality Act, and that is to restore Democratic leadership in the Senate. Accomplishing this objective will likely require Duckworth to defeat Kirk. And I am deeply puzzled that HRC, an organization that prides itself on pragmatism, does not seem to grasp that very simple reality. 

Is The LGBT Movement in Chaos

While the Republican Party is clearly in crisis, so to is the LGBT movement in the view of some.  After success on the marriage equality front - spearheaded in large part by groups other than HRC, the Task Force and other self-proclaimed leaders of the community - now things appear to be in disarray as  Christofascist controlled Republicans pus anti-gay laws and the granting of special rights to Christian extremist.  Rather than focusing on this threat, HRC has insanely been calling for Barack Obama to nominate an out gay to the Supreme Court, as if any such nomination would have a snowball's chance in Hell of success.  Indeed, the fight of LGBT protections now seems to be resting on state level organizations (I have ceased all financial support to HRC and give instead to Equality Virginia) given the vacuum in serious leadership at the national level.  A piece in The Advocate looks at the disturbing situation.  Here are highlights:

Just as the sun was setting on the landmark year that delivered marriage equality — an achievement unthinkable just a decade earlier — an unsettling headline appeared from Time magazine: “2015 Made History for LGBT Rights. Why Few Are Optimistic About 2016.”

The piece was written by veteran reporter Philip Elliott from Las Vegas, where LGBT leaders had gathered to assess both the progress made and the road ahead. After interviewing some 25 movement leaders, Elliott noted, “a fractured picture emerges that suggests little agreement about what should — or even what can — come next.”

Of course, just as the LGBTQIs’ diversified agendas defy uniformity, no single answer to that question has emerged over the past year. But perhaps more disconcerting, nor has a single leader delivered anything that amounts to a compelling narrative on the way forward.

It is a muted chaos, to some extent. Most of the basic structures of our modern-day movement — such as the Human Rights Campaign and Lambda Legal and Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, to name a few — aren’t going anywhere in the near term. Yet we are also seeing signs of transition with Kevin Cathcart, who has led Lambda Legal for nearly 25 years, announcing his retirement effective April 2016. And some movement staples, such as Freedom to Marry and the Empire State Pride Agenda, are ceasing operations.

[S]ome new arrivals, like the progressive-conservative donor mind meld Freedom for All Americans (FFAA), have begun to lay out their visions for achieving nondiscrimination protections nationwide, starting at the state level and eventually moving to the federal level. This organization is interesting in two respects. First, it represents a significant point of differentiation between the LGBT movement and other progressive movements in that we are actually increasingly being resourced by both liberal and conservative donors. Even if many Republican politicians don’t yet reflect this reality in rhetoric, the LGBT movement has still managed to reach across the aisle for critical legislative wins in states such as New York (enacting marriage equality in 2011) and even federally (passing employment protections through the U.S. Senate in 2013). 

Second, FFAA embodies an organizational model that is more Freedom to Marry and less Human Rights Campaign — the organization is not intended to exist in perpetuity but rather to achieve its stated goal, and then fold. In many ways, this should help keep it focused on its goal rather than on continually growing a budget to meet multiple objectives that require the organization to become more territorial even as it becomes less accountable.

While this model will perhaps make the organization more nimble, it does not guarantee the type of visionary leadership that has thus far been missing to combat new obstacles to LGBT equality, such as 2015’s right-wing attack on the toilet.

Chad Griffin, president of HRC, suggested in several different interviews that if only the local [Houston] TV stations that ran the opposition’s deplorable “No men in women’s bathrooms” ads had rejected them instead, we somehow could have avoided disaster. If that’s one of the big takeaways of our lead organization on how to combat what’s emerging as the homophobes’ next line of attack, we are in real trouble.

Our large organizations know we’re in  trouble too. That’s why they have been advising against pushing a pro-LGBT nondiscrimination initiative in Michigan that, at the time of this writing, appears to have a shot at making the ballot in November. [Update: The Michigan initiative has now been pulled.]

I’m pleased to see Fair Michigan pushing the issue for several reasons. First of all, they have little to lose. LGBT Michiganders don’t currently have nondiscrimination protections, so if you start with nothing and you lose, you’ve still got what you had before — nothing. However, if you win, you’ve got something you never had before. 

Second, anyone who thinks the right-wing Michigan legislature is going to start cozying up to equality based on lobbying efforts anytime in the near future is living in an alternative universe. This is the same GOP-controlled body that watched Indiana take it on the chin last year following the passage of its anti-LGBT initiative and yet still moved forward with enacting a package of antigay “religious refusal” laws that allow publicly funded adoption agencies to deny adoptions to same-sex parents. Waiting on Michigan’s hyper-conservative government to enact equality measures is nothing but a prescription for justice delayed. Some of those lawmakers are going to have to lose their seats over an anti-LGBT vote before they start going the right way on our issues, and I don’t see anyone pouring the resources into Michigan to unseat anti-LGBT lawmakers.

Third, the past decade has shown our major organizations to be preternaturally risk averse. I say this even as I believe that our legal advocates at places like Lambda Legal and GLAD are doing incredibly good work. But grassroots efforts like those being pushed by Michigan attorney Dana Nessel and Fair Michigan are a necessary part of our movement’s process.

The fact that no one agrees on anything isn’t necessarily cause for despair. What’s most important is that we have an aggressive grassroots effort to push the establishment groups out of their comfort zone. That’s a tension that forces the innovation necessary to propel our movement forward.

Perhaps it's because of my background as a former political party activist and the fact that I believe in playing hard ball, I agree that lobby efforts will do little to changes the minds of Republicans only too happy to prostitute themselves to Christofascists. Even in Virginia a few Republicans are coming to see that long term, anti-gay bigotry and such self-prostitution will be the death of the party.  Most, however, or only to happy to ask "how high" when hate merchants like Victoria Cobb and The Family Foundation tell them to jump.  We need to ruthlessly go after some of these individuals who make tawdry whores look virtuous.  Meanwhile, don't hold your breath waiting for me to be invited to join the board of Equality Virginia or similar organizations. 

Norfolk Seeks to Promote Its LGBT Municipal Equality Index

With the Commonwealth of Virginia launching a new LGBT Tourism Task Force, it seems that at least one Hampton Roads city is trying to make itself more attractive to would be LGBT tourists by playing up its score on HRC's latest Municipal Equality Index for 353 cities across America.  The city?  Norfolk, which with a score of 59 out scores all other Hampton Roads cities.  What's left out of the City's press release is that the top scores in Virginia came in Alexandria and Arlington which scored 94 and 96, respectively.  Sadly, the City of Hampton where the husband and I live scored a pitiful 32 in part I suspect because when Molly Joseph Ward left the mayor's office, all meaningful efforts to regularly build a relationship with the LGBT community ceased (Molly Ward now serves as Virginia's Secretary of Natural Resources).  The irony for Hampton municipal officials is that they are lagging behind organizations like the Hampton Yacht Club which has a growing LGBT membership.  In contrast, Norfolk mayor Paul Fraim has gone from acting as if gays are radioactive to being a personal sponsor of this year's PrideFest.  Here are highlights from Norfolk's press release.

The 2014 Municipal Equality Index evaluates a city’s laws and policies then examines how inclusive city services are of LGBT people.  The MEI rated 353 municipalities of varying sizes throughout the United States.  Read the MEI http://www.hrc.org/campaigns/municipal-equality-index

Norfolk scored 59 points out of a possible 100.  The score equals the national average and put Norfolk fourth out of the nine cities scored in Virginia.   Norfolk significantly increased its 2013 score by raising the Human Right Campaign’s awareness of many policies already in place in Norfolk.  Those include:

• Equal employment opportunities
• Anti-bullying policies
• City of Norfolk as an inclusive workplace
• City leadership’s position on equality

Norfolk, along with all other Virginia localities, received recognition for marriage equality when the U.S. Supreme Court in October denied review of cases challenging state constitutional amendments which resulted in the recognition of same-sex marriage in Virginia.

Obviously, Hampton Roads has a long way to go in terms of making itself truly LGBT friendly and accepting.  That said, outside of the greater DC area, Hampton Roads is the bright center of the gay universe when compared to the ignorance embracing, Bible thumping regions of Southwest Virginia which not coincidentally find it difficult to attract new business and/or forward thinking entrepreneurs.    

Republican Donors to Meet at Not so Secret LGBT Conference

Paul Singer and Chad Griffin

As noted in prior posts, some wealthy Republican donors see the GOP's anti-gay platform to be a losing approach in the long term and are putting their money behind their efforts to make the GOP more inclusive and to support LGBT candidates.  Like anti-gay churches in America, the GOP's self-prostitution to anti-gay Christofascists is alienating the younger generations even as elderly homophobes die off.  The Washington Blade looks at coming conference between some such Republican donors and LGBT groups.  Here are excerpts:

High-dollar donors seeking to make the Republican Party more LGBT-inclusive are set to gather in D.C. on Thursday for a closed-door conference, according to four sources familiar with the event.

The American Unity Conference is set to begin Thursday morning at the Hay Adams Hotel on H and 16th streets, N.W. It’s hosted by the same pro-LGBT Republican advocates behind the American Unity Fund and the American Unity PAC, related groups that seek to elect pro-LGBT Republican candidates and encourage GOP support for LGBT rights.

Both organizations are funded by Paul Singer, a billionaire hedge fund manager and philanthropist who backs LGBT rights, including same-sex marriage and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. His son, Andrew Singer, is gay.

Although the meeting is confidential and off-the-record, the Washington Blade learned limited details based on information from sources familiar with the conference. The American Unity Fund didn’t respond to multiple requests for comment.

Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign, is set to speak at the event, according to the sources, despite his record as a Democratic operative. HRC didn’t respond to a request for comment.

One source said Griffin’s role is scheduled to be limited to an introduction of Theodore Olson, a former U.S. solicitor general under the Bush administration who was lead counsel in the federal lawsuit against California’s Proposition 8 and pending litigation challenging Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriage.

Americans for Workplace Opportunity, which was set up by Griffin as a collaborative project with other pro-LGBT groups to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, also reportedly took $375,000 from Singer to encourage House members to vote for the bill.

Singer himself is scheduled to deliver remarks at the Hay Adams at 8:30 a.m. to kick off the event, according to one source.

Will Anti-Gay Republicans Now Back ENDA to License Anti-Gay Discrimination

As noted before, many of the leading LGBT rights organizations have withdrawn support for the Senate passed version of ENDA in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling in Hobby Lobby which granted Christofascists the right to ignore civil laws they claim violate their right of "religious freedom."  Why the switch?  Because the version of ENDA passed by the U.S. Senate has a religious exemption so broad that a fleet of 18 wheelers could drive through it.  The exemption, combined with Hobby Lobby could in theory undermine LGBT protections in even gay friendly states.  Now, some fear that anti-gay House Republicans may push to pass the Senate version of ENDA with precisely such a goal. A piece by Michelangelo Signorile in Huffington Post looks at this frightening possibility.  It needs to be noted that while gays are the current primary target of  the agenda of special rights from Christofascists, Muslims, Hindus and others could end up finding themselves open to discrimination based on false "religious freedom" claims.  Here are some article highlights:

Last week I wrote about the trap that gay groups may have set for themselves in a post-Hobby Lobby world, having previously backed a broad religious exemption in the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). By week's end, most major groups had pulled their support for ENDA, following a few that pulled out before the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision. But believe it or not, right now some Republicans are working feverishly to get support for ENDA in the GOP and try to pass it in the House in this session, with the dangerous religious exemption that caused LGBT groups to withdraw support. 

The irony here is off the charts, but the idea being floated is that Republicans should realize that LGBT rights are inevitable, and that anti-gay GOPers should therefore grab at the chance to pass a bill that could broadly give an exception to religious organizations and the businesses they own and enshrine that discrimination forever. 

As an added bonus, the Supreme Court might view the exemption as a way to expand that allowable discrimination to "closely held," for-profit companies owned by people who have religious objections to gays, as it did in the Hobby Lobby case regarding religious objections to some forms of birth control.
HRC does still back passage of ENDA in this session (as does House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, openly lesbian Sen. Tammy Baldwin and other Democrats), but in response to the pulling of support by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Lambda Legal, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Transgender Law Center and others, HRC president Chad Griffin wrote in an op-ed last week that the group wants to "narrow" the exemption and also said the community should "throw its weight behind" a comprehensive civil-rights bill.

If ENDA doesn't pass, he wrote, that bill would include employment as well as public accommodations, housing, education and credit -- something a lot of us have been demanding for a long time. However, Griffin didn't give any details or timeline regarding what would be an ambitious undertaking and a massive bill, and he refused to give interviews. And his group does still continue to lobby Republicans to support the current ENDA. 

It's highly unlikely that ENDA will get passed in the House via any option available, with or without the gay groups onboard (and HRC's idea of "narrowing" the exemption would mean going back to the Senate again), but wouldn't it be the nightmare scenario if it did pass, with this exemption, and then LGBT groups had to demand that President Obama veto a bill he and Democrats had heralded for months?

Again, it's highly improbable that it would get to that, but I write this to underscore how this entire episode was amateur hour for the LGBT community. . . . . ENDA should never have been pushed and passed in the Senate with a religious exemption, not in 2013 -- nor should we have even thought of doing that in 2012, 2011, 2010, or, frankly, 20-anything. HRC, in its usual arrogance, and with blinders on, refused to listen to the community and the growing chorus among the grass roots, the people who've experienced the progress we've made on marriage equality and support by the American public and who were saying "no" to an exemption for years.

HRC often needs a check on its myopic, access-driven, win-at-all-costs strategies, especially under a new leadership that refuses to even give interviews to the LGBT press, not responding to requests, its president only speaking to the community via vague, meticulously crafted op-eds.

It is disturbing that once again the egos of those at HRC are putting the rights of LGBT Americans at risk.  Perhaps I need to peel the HRC sticker off of my car!

Poll: No Gay Marriage "Revolt" Coming

As the National Organization for Marriage ("NOM") gears up for its gathering of haters tomorrow in its "March for Marriage," a new poll suggests that NOM is continuing its journey into irrelevance and waiting for a "revolt" of "godly folk" against marriage equality. Thus once can only wonder whether the real motivation of Brian Brown and other march participants is to shake down the ignorant and gullible at least last one time for as much money as possible.  A piece in Politco looks at the seemingly hopeless efforts of thr gay haters. Here are highlights:

The Human Rights Campaign is welcoming the National Organization for Marriage to Washington Thursday with a poll conducted by Mitt Romney’s former data director showing just how far the majority of Americans are now from their anti-gay marriage views.The poll was conducted to coincide with NOM’s rally near the Capitol and march to the Supreme Court, followed by a gala at the Willard Intercontinental Hotel.

Conducted by Alex Lundry through his firm TargetPoint Consulting and obtained by POLITICO, it singled out the views of one person, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins, who predicted in 2012 — before Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act were struck down — that the Supreme Court legalizing gay marriage would cause “a revolution. You will see Americans saying, ‘You know what? Enough of this.’ It could explode and just break this nation apart."

Conducting his poll at the beginning of June, Lundry didn’t find much support for that kind of revolt when the quote was read to respondents, with 59 percent overall disagreeing with Perkins. Of people who said they were opposed to gay marriage, 58 percent said they wouldn’t do anything, despite disagreeing and being disappointed in the decision.

“Only one directly mentions the word ‘revolution,’ five voters threaten to leave the country, and a scant fifteen people (3% of opponents) mention any form of protest,” reads a prepared polling memo. “Clearly, there is no real threat of widespread calamity should we extend the freedom to marry to gays and lesbians.”

Support for gay marriage is at 56 percent, with 37 percent opposed, squaring with public polls. Asked to rate the degree of their support, 44 percent said they “strongly” support legalization, with only 28 percent opposed.

Those feelings are reflected in some of the other answers to the survey: 74 percent of people said their lives wouldn’t change with legalized gay marriage, and among those who did foresee a change, many rated it as one that would be for the better.

The NOM rally and the release of the HRC poll Thursday come as LGBT advocates head to the White House for a meeting about President Barack Obama’s decision to sign a new executive order banning LGBT workplace discrimination and a Justice Department report about the administration’s efforts to broadly interpret last year’s Windsor decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act is scheduled for release.

As noted many times before, I believe that the Christofascists will ultimately be the death of Christianity.   Hate, division and bigotry are the only things that their version of Christianity has to offer.