I have been critical of the Human Rights Campaign in the past and most recently by the organization's insane endorsement of GOP senator Mark Kirk over LGBT supportive Democrat Tammy Duckworth. I think for many, this last action is the final straw and HRC - which likes to describe itself as the larges LGBT rights organization - is perhaps poised to see a massive exodus of folks. I am asking them to cease counting me as a member (like the Catholic Church, until one formally says "remove me from the membership rolls" HRC will continue to count one as a member to swell the numbers). One of the best take downs of HRC is a piece by Michelangelo Signorile in Huffington Post. Here are excerpts:
In the past 24 hours, the Human
Rights Campaign (HRC), the nation’s largest LGBT group, has come under intense
fire on social media, including from many transgender people, for its lack of a strategy in combating the rapid passage of a heinous anti-LGBT law in North Carolina which strips
existing LGBT anti-discrimination ordinances in the state and bars transgender
people from using public restrooms that correspond with their gender identity.
But that criticism has followed
an even more intense, week-long pummeling of the group on social media as well as from pundits and
commentators, because of the group’s very curious endorsement earlier this month of Senator Mark
Kirk, an Illinois Republican whose defeat in November is critical to the
Democrats winning back control of the Senate.
Kirk, in a very tough
re-election, has come out in support of The Equality Act,
a sweeping federal anti-discrimination bill protecting LGBT people, and had
voted to end “don’t ask, don’t tell.” But Kirk has only earned a score of 78
percent out of 100 percent from HRC, while his opponent, Democratic House
member Tammy Duckworth, has a score of 100 — in addition to a real shot at taking
the seat and handing
Democrats the Senate. David Nir, political director at Daily Kos, called the endorsement as “appalling as it is embarrassing,”
and “pathetic and stupid.”
At The New Republic, Eric Sasson rightly pointed to HRC’s
“serious diversity problem” per an internal report that leaked, and to the
optics of backing a white male Republican with a meager score over a woman of color and a combat
veteran who lost both of her legs in the Iraq war — and who has a
perfect score. Chris Geidner at Buzzfeed had obtained the internal report last year,
which called HRC “exclusionary,” “sexist,” and “homogenous.” This endorsement
certainly lent more credence to that.
It’s hard to fathom that anyone
who supports full equality believes these meager attempts are really worth
keeping the Senate in the hands of the GOP. It’s not the ‘90s, when individual
senators had more clout and we could pass legislation with simple majorities.
Mitch McConnell changed the way the Senate operated — and he’ll be the beneficiary
if Kirk wins. HRC, often in that ‘90s time warp, has worked against the best
interests of the LGBT community as recently as 2014, when the group was still supporting the narrow Employment
Non-Discrimination Act, with its terrible religious exemption, while every
other national LGBT group — except the Log Cabin Republicans — had joined the
21st century and pulled support.
The simple truth is that in 2016
in Illinois we don’t need Mark Kirk — he needs us. . . . . And the first vote he’ll take
upon winning back his seat will be a cowardly one to make the anti-gay
McConnell (with an HRC score of 0) the Senate Majority Leader again.
There’s no question that the
Democrats’ path to taking back the Senate very much includes defeating Kirk,
who is in the bluest state among those where GOP senators are embattled. So
HRC’s action does raise questions about how committed the group really is to
seeing the Democrats take back the Senate, and if it perhaps has conflicting
interests. Daily Kos’s David Nir surmised that HRC’s
Kirk endorsement is all about keeping “donations flowing from corporations and
wealthy gay Republicans,” and he may be on to something.
[I]t’s no secret that GOP leaders
have focused on putting all of their efforts on retaining the Senate. Surely
Paul Singer will be critical in that effort, bringing hard and steady pressure
to bear wherever it is necessary. It’s not a surprise, then, that the American
Unity Fund, which Singer founded, has been tweeting and retweeting support of HRC for its endorsement of
Mark Kirk, in what seems like an attempt to counter the many LGBT people who
are expressing their anger and to whom HRC believes it is not answerable.
If HRC is not answerable to LGBT
people, however — and its president, Griffin, rarely even gives interviews to
LGBT media, while speaking often in the larger media — exactly to whom and what
is it answerable, and what are its true priorities? One thing is clear: HRC
doesn’t speak for the LGBT community, and the sooner that politicians and those
in the media grasp that, the smarter they will be.
Personally, I believe that all that HRC cares about is money - money needed to retain the plush salaries of those like Chad Griffin, a Judas to the LGBT community. Stop making donations to HRC and demand that you not be counted as a member.
