Complacency Will Be the Death Of American Democracy

I have been politically engaged and - in my view - informed for decades.  Sadly, many Americans cannot say that as evidenced by the over 40% of registered voters who could not be bothered to vote in last year's presidential election.  This indifference - complacency, if you will, is having dire consequences on the viability of America's democracy, not to mention the rights of minorities.  The phenomenon is not new, but seems to have intensified in the run up to the 2016 presidential election and even afterwards as some minority communities, the LGBT community in particular. If one is a student of history, one knows that the Founding Fathers were (i) educated individuals, and (ii) believed that citizens have an obligation to educate themselves on issues and be politically involved.  Stated another way, an obligation of citizenship is political involvement and staying fully informed on matters. This latter concept was and is essential to maintaining and protecting democracy.  Compare this concept with the proverbial soccer moms who fixate on PTA issues and children's' sports yet remain clueless on pressing political issues and all to often either fail to vote cast their votes in utter ignorance.  I use soccer moms as but one example.  The problem is replicated across many groups in society, including the LGBT community where a minority seems to be engaged and informed while others remain clueless and often fail to support community organizations from which they receive benefits.   Excuses the "I'm too busy" or "I don't like politics" simple are not acceptable and are a default of fulfilling one's duty as a citizen.  History has shown us time and time again of what can happen when the citizenry falls into complacency.  Two pieces look at the consequences of complacency, one by Michelangelo Signorile directed at the LGBT community and the other on remarks made by Barack Obama.  First, these highlights from Michelangelo's column:

Inside the U.S. Supreme Court this week for the oral arguments for Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission I couldn’t help but look at Justice Neil Gorsuch and imagine how things would be if Merrick Garland were rightly sitting in that chair. 

Had Republicans not stolen that seat, refusing a vote on President Obama’s nominee for almost the entirety of his last year in office and allowing Donald Trump to put Neil Gorsuch ― an ideologue on the issue of “religious liberty” ― on the court, we would not be in this dangerous predicament.

[M]any progressive legal observers are concerned ― some very much so ― and the general consensus among journalists who cover legal issues is that it will come down to Kennedy, and that he, by his own history, could side with the baker. It’s often forgotten that on another gay rights decision, Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, Kennedy joined the majority in a 2000 ruling that the Boy Scouts could ban gay scouts and scoutmasters on First Amendment grounds. 

In my 2015 book, It’s Not Over, I wrote all about what I’d termed “victory blindness,” a phenomenon in which minorities who are discriminated against become seduced by big wins ― like the Obergefell ruling ― and think they’ve achieved full equality in society. Victory blindness, I argued, overcame many LGBTQ people, who let their guards down or dismissed some anti-LGBTQ actions, not realizing that the anti-equality forces were organizing fiercely, and that the backlash would be intense and could roll back LGBTQ rights while we’re celebrating or not paying attention.

Victory blindness often prevents us from seeing how tenuous our wins are and how all minorities must continue to fight for their rights because the political winds can shift very quickly.

Donald Trump’s election and presidency did a lot to shake us from it, forcing us to become energized and to vow to fight. This week at the Supreme Court, no matter how the case eventually is decided, should serve to do the same.

The second piece goes well beyond the confines of the LGBT community and looks at how complacency can give rise to authoritarianism.  It has happened before throughout history and Donald Trump and today's GOP seemingly hope to allow it to happen again.  Here are highlights:

American democracy is fragile, and unless care is taken it could follow the path of Nazi Germany in the 1930s.

Mixed in with many softer comments, that was the somewhat jaw-dropping bottom line of Barack Obama last night as, in a Q&A session before the Economic Club of Chicago, the Chicagoan who used to be president dropped a bit of red meat to a hometown crowd that likely is a lot closer to him than the man whose name never was mentioned: President Donald Trump.

Obama moved from that to talking about a nativist mistrust and unease that has swept around the world. He argued that such things as the speed of technical change and the uneven impact of globalization have come too quickly to be absorbed in many cultures, bringing strange new things and people to areas in which "people didn't (used to) challenge your assumptions." As a result, "nothing feels solid," he said. "Sadly, there's something in us that looks for simple answers when we're agitated."

Still, the U.S. has survived tough times before and will again, he noted, particularly mentioning the days of communist fighter Joseph McCarthy and former President Richard Nixon. But one reason the country survived is because it had a free press to ask questions, Obama added. Though he has problems with the media just like Trump has had, "what I understood was the principle that the free press was vital."

The danger is "grow(ing) complacent," Obama said. "We have to tend to this garden of democracy or else things could fall apart quickly."

That's what happened in Germany in the 1930s, which despite the democracy of the Weimar Republic and centuries of high-level cultural and scientific achievements, Adolph Hitler rose to dominate, Obama noted. "Sixty million people died. . . .So, you've got to pay attention. And vote."

Kevin Spacey Defamed All Gay/Bisexual Men By Coming Out

Most members of the LGBT community are hard working, honorable individuals who never engage in predatory behavior.  That said, it is no secret that the enemies of LGBT equality, especially self-styled Christian "family values" organizations, go to great lengths in depicting gays and bisexual men as deviants, would be child molesters,  pedophiles - the slurs and nasty names is lengthy.  Therefore, all of us owe it to ourselves and the larger LGBT community not to play into the hands of our enemies.  Kevin Spacey apparently never learned this truth as he officially "came out" seemingly only as a means to distract from those rightly condemning his improper behavior in the past.  Instead he played right into the hands of enemies of the LGBT community who will thrill at holding up Spacey as a prime example of why gays are a danger to children and youths and larger society.  A column in Huffington Post by Michelangelo Signorile expands on this concept and justifiably slams Spacey.  Here are excerpts:

Let’s count the ways Kevin Spacey defamed all gay and bisexual men by coming out of the closet in a tweet last night. 

And then, we’ll look at how the closet and power corrupts, turning an individual’s self-loathing into a weapon against an entire community. In the case of Kevin Spacey, that now has the potential to do terrible damage. 

Defamation no. 1:  Gays = predators and sexual abusers: After years of rumors and refusing to answer the question about his sexual orientation, Spacey only came out after being accused of sexually abusing a then-14-year-old actor, Anthony Rapp, who came forward on Sunday to Buzzfeed News about a 1986 incident which Spacey didn’t even deny. Spacey used coming out, bizarrely, as a cover. It was a selfish attempt to distract and seek sympathy. By doing so he conflates being gay with sexually abusing children, the hideous homophobic lie perpetrated by anti-LGBTQ extremists.

Defamation no. 2: Gays’ sex-crazed impulses are fueled further by drugs and alcohol:  Spacey offers the excuse of being drunk for what he says may or may not have happened ― what he calls “deeply inappropriate drunken behavior” ― as if being drunk and gay leads to sexual predation. 

Defamation no. 3: Bisexuality, as an identity, doesn’t exist: Spacey negates bisexuality by saying he has had relationships with men and women ― we have no idea whether this is true or not, and we have no reason to believe anything this man says ― but then goes on to identify as gay. Except...

Defamation no. 4: Homosexuality is a choice: ...he didn’t actually identify as gay but rather said, “I choose now to live as a gay man.” Again, this is the language of the enemies of LGBTQ equality, who claim homosexuality is a choice. By putting that idea forth as a public figure Spacey gives ammunition to the Christian right at a time when Donald Trump and Mike Pence have declared war on LGBTQ rights on behalf of their extremist evangelical supporters.

Defamation no. 5: Gays are liars and manipulators who will do anything to cover up their ugly behavior:  Spacey makes all gay men not only appear to be sexual predators ― again, the ugly lie perpetrated by hate groups like the Family Research Council ― but he makes all gay men out to be manipulators and con artists who will do whatever possible to cover up horrendous behavior. In what appears to be a preemptive strike against any further accusations surfacing, Spacey alludes to other “stories out there about me that have been fueled by the fact that I have been so protective of my privacy.” Here, Spacey is attempting to negate any future stories, and framed them as made up by those who are supposedly so hellbent on taking away his “privacy” that they will fabricate stories. This is laughable, and it’s transparent to the enemies of LGBTQ equality, as well.

Kevin Spacey is motivated by internalized homophobia, which has kept him in the closet all these years, blowing up in his mind the ramifications for him if he came out.

He has angrily attacked anyone who has raised the question, even in this day and age when so many of us who are queer see nothing wrong with asking about it.

Spacey and many other influential and powerful individuals who are closeted have often done damage because they send a message that being gay is shameful. And, for some, the combustible combination of the closet and power can be dangerous.

The closet itself warps their thinking and their judgement, as they become consumed by their secret and doing whatever it takes to keep it. Though it’s not always the case ― and we’ve seen powerful public figures come out proudly when the time is right for them, and then do enormously positive things ― the closet, if kept closed for so long, can corrupt their lives and the lives of many around them who look the other way of their corruptive behavior.

[L]ooking at the late multi-millionaire Malcolm Forbes, the late Hollywood producer Merv Griffin and an unnamed Washington DC politician, closeted, powerful gay and bisexual men can often engage in sexual harassment and predatory behavior, and often in the workplace. They’re trapped by their self-imposed closet, not able to go out publicly to meet gay people. And yet they’re able use their power to prey upon those ― sometimes closeted gay men themselves ― who work for them.

Someone like Spacey, so gripped with self-hate, has little concern about the larger LGBTQ community and clearly doesn’t possess an awareness for how his response to Rapp would defame it. . . . he must be challenged loudly and forcefully.

Very well said, Michelangelo.

I Can't Be "Friends" With A Trump Supporter - Part 2

Two weeks ago I posted about my blogger friend Michelangelo Signorile's open letter at Huffington Post to a long-time, long-distance friend after he learned that she had voted for Donald Trump. Michelangelo's letter well summarized my feelings towards "friends" who had voted for Trump (and in my view, racism, bigotry, homophobia and neo-fascism) when he said that he had realized that he had never really known the woman addressed in his letter.  Like the woman Michelangelo addressed, many of my Trump supporting "friends" can not seek to excuse themselves by citing that they live in the Rust Belt and/or had experienced “economic anxiety” during the Obama years (most are actually quite well off financially).  Now, Michelangelo has a new post that looks at the reactions his open letter has evoked.   Like Michelangelo's experience, many of my "friends" seek to either depict me as "intolerant" or claim that this is only disagreement about "politics" and conveniently ignore the extremists and vitriolic homophobes Trump is placing in positions of power.  The reality is that I will likely never trust or feel comfortable with these "friends" some of whom I continue to see for the sake of neighborhood and social harmony.  Here are highlights from Michelangelo's latest piece:

There was a lot of response on social media and elsewhere, most of it positive, much of it from people in far more difficult situations ― people who opposed Trump and were struggling with relationships they’ve had with parents, siblings, children or closer friends who voted for Trump. Many expressed how the letter articulated thoughts similar to their own, no matter how differently (or similarly) they may navigate this in their own lives.

Then there were the Trump supporters who criticized the piece. They almost universally claimed they couldn’t believe anyone was breaking off a friendship over “politics.” This, to me, was both ludicrous and disingenuous ― if very telling ― particularly since I’d addressed it right there in the open letter.

Many of these Trump supporters ― a lot of them traditional Republicans who went “home,” as political pundits nauseatingly put it ― are defensive about the fact that they voted for the unstable racist, misogynist and self-proclaimed sexual assaulter, and they’re fearful of admitting to themselves and certainly others that they tolerated hate and bigotry. They can’t face that they’re in bed with what appears to be a large swath of other Trump supporters who actually revel in their own racism, pushing white supremacist hate and feeling emboldened by what they view as Trump’s embrace: making Steve Bannon his chief White House strategist. So, they conjure up all kinds of rationalizations or whirl around in a sort of denial.

These are the Trump supporters that went bonkers over my open letter to my friend. . . . On several websites and on social media they portrayed me as the “intolerant” liberal. Of course, I’m proudly intolerant of bigotry -– but that’s not what they meant.

I’ve pointed out how Mike Pence is running the transition and is already getting the anti-LGBTQ agenda set regarding domestic policy, and that Trump’s cabinet picks who will run the government departments are a who’s who of homophobia. 

But even if that weren’t true, why would you give a chance (as this critic put it) to someone who pandered to those who hate you? Trump courted evangelicals and promised to appoint judges to overturn the historic Obergefell ruling on marriage equality (and he has publicly opposed marriage equality since 2000). Even if you believe he wouldn’t do that, why would you give even conditional support to a man who has given hope to the people who detest you and wish you harm?

The rationalizers can’t face the fact that there will be no peace because Trump is a bigot who ran a hate-filled campaign and has shown no remorse for doing so, nor is he making any attempt to heal any wounds.

Debating them about my personal choice regarding a friendship ― or even referring to them here by name ― would only be giving them an opportunity to attempt to legitimize the terrible choice they made in the election. And they surely don’t deserve that.

Trump's Alt-Right Army Hates ‘Faggots’ Too

Michelangelo Signorile heads up Huffington Post's "Gay Voices" page and is a radio show host.  He writes on and discusses politics frequently.  He's a Facebook friend and we've spoken on the telephone before concerning closeted Republicans (for newer readers, I helped out former Virginia 2nd District Congressman Ed Schrock), so I take Michelangelo's word at face value.  As a result, his description of his recent online encounters with Donald Trump's Alt-Right followers is all the more unsettling. Here are excerpts from his recent post at Huffington Post (be sure to read the entire post to see all of the hate and ugliness of trump supporters):

Last week I tweeted my opinion of Jimmy Fallon having Donald Trump on his show, where Fallon failed to ask a tough question while he played with Trump’s hair.  The tweet was widely shared. A lot of people clearly agreed.

But not Trump’s online armies on the alt-right, energetic hordes of nativists, white supremacists, anti-Semites and, yes, homophobes whom Trump has emboldened.

Within a matter of minutes I was under full-blown assault from a stream of haters tweeting their anger, often with homophobic, racist and misogynistic slurs. At first I blocked them, but the effort became futile as they poured in every few seconds. This was similar to the anti-semitic attacks on Twitter that New York Times editor Jonathan Weisman, journalist Julia Ioffe and others have experienced from Trump’s alt-right warriors.

Many of those tweeting me had images of Trump or his campaign’s logo as their avatars or as the banner of their pages. A large number had renamed themselves with the word “deplorable” – “Deplorable Garrett,” “Mr. Deplorable” and so on – taking Hillary Clinton’s accurate criticism of the bigots Trump has brought into his campaign and turning it into a badge of honor.

One of several threats of violence and death streamed in, including from “Boss Zogg,” who suggested, “One solution for freaks like u,” above an image of a man being thrown from a rooftop, in what looked like photos that have been identified as depictions of ISIS executioners killing gay men.

“Shitlord,” who identifies himself as a member of the #AltReich, asked, “Are you a Jew?” Hours later, he asked again, “Are you a pig-faced boy?” The next day he wrote to say, “Jew detected.” (I’m happy to be Jewish on Twitter, but I think my name very clearly shows I’m as Italian as they come, revealing how the hate even defies basic logic.) Shitlord’s bio also says, “I identify as an “#AttackHelicopter.” This is a now well-known meme meant to mock sexual and gender identity.

Their own egos, like Trump’s, are so fragile, their own sense of masculinity so threatened, that they engage in acts of domination to be big again. They’re feeling completely empowered to do so by the bully-in-chief, Trump. And that was just the men. The few women who wrote aped the guys, sometimes sending out even nastier barbs, as if they’re trying to prove they can be just as ugly.

The anger and animus toward LGBT people from these Trump supporters – many of them young – belies the idiotic and dangerous media narrative that posits Trump as “more accepting on gay issues” than other Republicans. (To these Trump supporters, any mention Trump makes of “LGBTQ people” is acceptable, laughablepandering to win the election, as he wink-winks and nudge-nudges to them, as he has on other issues, from deportation to birtherism.) 

There is no question that many of the people who may very well elect Donald Trump ― particularly if third party candidates siphon off enough votes of millions of young people ― are as hellbent on rolling back LGBT rights as they are about rolling back much else. To them, making America great again also means shoving LGBT people back into the closet. And they’ll make sure Trump includes that in his radical, frightening realignment of the nation.

These "patriots" and "real Americans" bear a frightening similarity to the thugs and haters in Germany who rallied to Hitler's calls for discrimination and ultimately violence and war.   Like Kathleen Parker, I do not understand how decent and moral people can support Donald Trump. 

The Moral Bankruptcy Of "LGBT For Trump"

Radio host and columnist Michelangelo Signorile and I hold a similar contempt for LGBT individuals who remain Republicans and support the GOP even as it works to legalize discrimination against LGBT citizens and to strip away our civil and constitutional rights.  All too frequently these folks are wealthy and/or live in very LGBT friendly states and face none of the harsh realities that most of us face.  Indeed, in my view, they are akin to Jews who would join the Nazi Party if they thought it would have a financial benefit.  Among those in this category is the utterly clueless Caitlyn Jenner whose wealth and fame largely insulate her from the realities of LGBT life.  Michelangelo has a piece at Huffington Post that looks at the moral bankruptcy of these LGBT for the GOP and/or Trump.  Here are highlights:

There are some notable LGBT Republicans who are not supporting Donald Trump, probably for the same reasons that many other Republicans aren’t supporting a man viewed not only as unfit for the job and unstable, but who breaks from GOP orthodoxy on several key issues. Ken Mehlman, for example, former George W. Bush campaign manager and one-time Republican National Committee chair, is part of the “Never Trump” crowd.

But then there’s billionaire and PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel, who is a Trump delegate to the Republican National Convention next week. And Caitlyn Jenner, who had a phone call with Trump, and is now all in. And, perhaps most hypocritically, Chris Barron, the former GOProud leader who now has founded an LGBT for Trump campaign. Barron agrees with the Log Cabin Republican leader Gregory T. Angelo that Trump is “one of the best, if not the best, pro-gay Republican candidates to ever run for the presidency,” impressed that he “mentions” the LGBT community often.

I’ve refuted this ridiculous, dangerous notion several times. . . . But let’s give them this for a minute and presuppose that Trump is pro-gay. It means that gay GOPers are behaving exactly the way they’ve accused gay Democrats of behaving for years: as single-issue voters.

But putting that aside too, gay Republicans supporting Trump truly are doing so based on his supposed support of LGBT rights even as he has broken with the GOP on bedrock issues that these same gay GOPers have championed, . . . So LGBT GOPers supporting Trump are the very single-issue voters they’ve decried all these years.

And of course, even on that single issue, no one could say Trump is better than Hillary Clinton — who supports marriage equality while Trump does not. So, people like Barron defend support for Trump by claiming Trump would be better on national security — yes, even with his reckless stubby fingers on the buttons — protecting gays against terrorism . . . . even as he recently met with and made a pact with hundreds of anti-LGBT leaders.

Well, surprise, surprise: the proposed platform hammered out yesterday is the most anti-LGBT platform we’ve seen. It strongly reaffirms opposition to marriage equality and gay adoption. It calls for regulating where transgender people can go to the restroom, supporting draconian laws like HB2 in North Carolina, and it supports the First Amendment Defense Act, which anti-LGBT GOPers in Congress are debating and allows for discriminatory religious exemptions among businesses, organizations and taxpayer funded nonprofits.

The truth is, Trump agrees that Obergefell should be overturned — promised to appoint judges who would do so — supports the First Amendment Defense Act and believes that states should be able to pass transgender bathroom bills even if he disagrees with them personally. So, if indeed Trump distanced himself from the platform on LGBT rights it was because he agreed with the religious conservatives who wrote it and let them do what they wanted.

That’s because, on LGBT issues, Trump needs anti-LGBT groups to win the election and will surely promote their agenda in return for the votes. And beyond LGBT issues, what does it say that gay Republicans would support a candidate who is blatantly racist and misogynistic, having made outrageous comments and getting the lowest poll numbers among women and minorities we’ve seen?

As Robert P. Jones, author of the “The End of White Christian America,” wrote in a Times op-ed, there’s a reason why Trump has garnered enormous support from anti-LGBT evangelicals. . . . Trump “promised to reinstate their central place in the country” and to “turn the clock back.” In that light, any LGBT GOPers who thinks Trump is going to support LGBT people aren’t just hypocrites, now defined as single-issue voters; they’re totally delusional as well.

Pope Francis Can Begin By Apologizing For His Own Hateful Words

I have been highly critical of Pope Francis' statement that the Catholic Church needs to apologize to gays for they way the Church has mistreated them (he also named other groups mistreated by the foul old men in dresses at the Vatican).  I will take another swing at the issue in my July column in VEER Magazine.  Over at Huffington Post, Michelangelo Signorile has a great column that takes Francis to task for not just for the Church's past demonetization of - and at times out right murder of  - gays but also for his own misdeeds while Cardinal Bergoglio in Argentina.  I will not be holding my breath for a real, heartfelt apology  from Pope Francis.  Here are highlights from Michelangelo's column: 

Last week the media gave a lot of attention to Pope Francis agreeing that the Catholic Church owed an apology to gays. But his statement, while positive on its face, deflected from horrendous remarks Francis himself made in the past and which he can and should personally apologize for right now. Before diving into that, however, let’s review Francis’s journey on the issue of homosexuality since he became pope in 2013.

Francis stayed silent as country after country in Europe and the Americas legalized marriage for gays and lesbians over the past few years, in sharp contrast to his predecessor, Pope Benedict, who railed against Spain when it was out front on marriage equality in 2005; he even traveled there to speak out against it. And then came Francis’s “Who am I to judge?”response to a question about a gay priest, and several other comments that indicated his emphasis would be different.

Like an artful politician, however, Francis has seemed to play to his audiences. Six months into his papacy he told a fellow Jesuit interviewer for a Jesuit journal that he is not a “right-winger” and criticized those in the church who had become “obsessed” with gay marriage and abortion. But then in January of last year it was Francis who seemed obsessed with the issue while speaking to an audience in the Philippines, a traditional Catholic country, suggesting that gay marriage threatens families.

And now these new comments from the pope last week have reverberated after he was asked about a German cardinal’s opinion that, in light of the Orlando mass shooting at the Pulse LGBT nightclub in Orlando, the church should apologize to gays.

Francis agreed that the church owed an apology to gays, and it drew headlines around the world. He repeated his “who are we to judge?” line, though was was careful to add in that the church should apologize to a lot of groups, which mitigated his statement somewhat . . . . Nonetheless, it was a major statement — enough to drive anti-LGBT forces into a frenzy. Bill Donohue of the Catholic League emphatically said “No!” when asked if he agreed with his pope that gays deserved an apology.

LGBT Catholic groups, however, were right to criticize the pope for saying nothing of church doctrine that condemns homosexuality as “intrinsically disordered” — and pointed to the fact that young people, including LGBT people, are taught this from a young age and that teachers in Catholic schools are fired if found to be gay. Francis referred to the catechism to back his stance that gays shouldn’t be discriminated against, yet it is that same catechism that condemns homosexuality — and it needs to be re-written.

That’s an immense undertaking that he likely doesn’t have the will for — if it could even be done at all in the current climate at the Vatican.  One thing, however, that the pope could easily do is apologize for his own harsh and, yes, violence-inciting words about gays when he was Cardinal Bergoglio in Argentina in 2010.

As the Argentine government was moving to legalize marriage for gays and lesbians, Bergoglio was quietly lobbying for civil unions instead, having spoken to at least one gay activist, realizing that the rights gays were deprived of were real and knowing that he and the church couldn’t support marriage.

When that didn’t work, and the government made it clear it was moving forward on marriage, Bergoglio did what the Vatican expected of him and which, like a politician, he knew he likely had to do if he were ever to have a shot at becoming pope in Benedict’s Vatican: He issued an ugly, earth-scorching attack against gays, equating gay marriage and adoption by gay couples with the work of the Devil, and declared that gay marriage was a “destructive attack on God’s plan.”

Those kinds of words are the kind that killers of gay people take solace in. Those are the words that empower those who bash gays, and those who fire gays from their jobs. And those are the kinds of words that Francis clearly is saying the church must apologize for. If it’s not those words, after all, then what exactly is Francis referring to?

So, Francis didn’t have to say the “church” should apologize, and thus distance himself from an institution that, though he leads it, he likely rightly sees as difficult to change. All he had to do was say, “I apologize” for the harsh words that “I’ve made,” in the name of the church by equating gay people with evil — words that inspire those who would do harm to LGBT people.

Rather than wait for “the church” to make the apology for which he called — which could take eons — he could still make that personal apology himself right now.

Human Rights Campaign Is Helping the GOP to Retain the Senate

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.

LGBT Civil Rights Leaders Have No Strategy to Counter the Gay Rights Backlash

Michelangelo Signorile has a length piece in Huffington Post that looks at the frightening unpreparedness of leading LGBT rights organizations to counter the anti-gay bills sweeping state legislatures as Republicans prostitute themselves to the Christofascists and foulest elements of the parasitic professional Christian class.  Meanwhile, many in the LGBT community seem clueless as to what is happening in state legislatures and blind to the ineffectiveness of LGBT rights organizations.  Here in Virginia, no gay friendly bill will pass the legislature and the only thing standing between enactment of two vile bills is our Democratic Governor.  In 2017, a new governor will be elected and if LGBT Virginians are not engaged and failed to go to the polls, that protective firewall could be lost.   Here are post highlights:

In South Dakota, Governor Dennis Daugaard is right this moment mulling over a bill sent to his desk by the legislature that would bar transgender students -- kids often facing bullying and discrimination -- from using bathrooms or locker rooms that correspond with their gender identity.

In Houston, a city which had a lesbian mayor and prided itself on inclusiveness, a ballot measure rescinded the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance with an overwhelming majority last November, as opponents targeted transgender people with a campaign of hate and "bathroom panic" via television ads.

LGBT leaders not only didn't have a plan then, they've still not figured out how to deal with bathroom panic and the right's age-old tactic of exploiting people's fears about their children with regard to the presence of gay or transgender people.

More than that, some gay leaders even thought that "compromise" on civil rights was the answer, only to be duped. In Utah, a "compromise" with Mormon leaders and Mormon politicians on an LGBT rights bill -- much criticized by many grass roots LGBT activists -- was agreed upon last year. It included broad religious exemptions, and did not include protections in public accommodations at all, but was hailed by the governor and the ACLU. This supposedly was about making peace with the LDS church. But months later the church instituted a policy which condemned children of same-sex couples who are Mormon and targeted the parents for excommunication. Now Mormon politicians are embarking on a "marriage sovereignty" bill which would prevent gay couples from adopting within the state, clearly not abiding by any "compromise."

In Indiana, lawmakers last month already tried to emulate the Utah "compromise" -- a supposed LGBT bill rights bill with broad, offensive religious exemptions -- and when LGBT advocates rightly stood their ground and refused, the bill was killed altogether. That was less than a year after everyone was hailing the Indiana "turning point," when big business supposedly was going to save the day after Governor Mike Pence was forced to backtrack on a Religious Restoration Freedom Act, and bring full equality to the state.

It's as if none of that had actually happened last year -- except, it did, but it was momentary and meant very little, because both the media and big business are fair weather friends. And more importantly, LGBT leaders were overcome with victory blindness, heady over the marriage equality win that was believed to be coming down. But perhaps they're still overcome because they still don't have a strategy, though after Houston, Chad Griffin, president of the largest LGBT group, the Human Rights Campaign -- which went to Houston to spearhead the battle which they lost badly -- promised they'd have one. In subsequent interviews, however, he still hasn't adequately articulated it. 

At the very least, the Human Rights Campaign should be pressuring the Democratic candidates for president -- both of them -- to speak out fervently and specifically about these bills in Utah, Georgia, Mississippi and many other states. And the candidates, in debates and elsewhere, should be talking about how transgender kids, children who are trying to make their way in a hostile world, are under fervent attack in South Dakota. Instead, Hillary Clinton has spoken in general terms about "LGBT rights" (to her credit, however, it's been at just every debate and during other speeches), while Sanders mentioned "gay rights" in his New Hampshire victory speech while he's not gotten into the specifics of the all-out assault on LGBT rights in the states.

Sanders may be getting a large chunk of the LGBT vote, over 40 percent of a constituency that has influence larger than its numbers because of its loyalty, its donors and how those in the grass roots inspire others to get out to vote. He could pull in more from a group many had taken for granted would turn out big for Clinton. And of course, Sanders should speak on these issues in specifics not just to get voters out, but to stand against bigotry.

But with gay leaders kind of clueless about what to do, or still heady after the Supreme Court win, they've not organized the community. Many LGBT Americans aren't even aware of what's playing out. And the national media, too, appears to have blocked it out almost entirely, as these stories play under the radar. It's not surprising then that national politicians aren't talking about these alarming bills. They're not getting any direction from a community that seems itself not to even notice how anti-LGBT bigots continue their crusade against equality right before our eyes.

Meanwhile, as Democrats continue to become more deeply and angrily divided over their candidates, a new poll shows Republicans ready and willing -- 86 percent -- to vote for Donald Trump if he wins the nomination. With GOP Senate leaders hellbent on preventing President Obama from replacing Justice Scalia on the Supreme Court, it's quite possible the next president will do that. If it's Donald Trump, he's indicated he'd appoint the most extreme judges, putting up names of some with horribly anti-gay records.  

I may never to be invited to join the board of any LGBT rights organizations for a simple reason: I believe in playing Hardball and believe the opponents of LGBT equality need to be ruthlessly exposed the foul opponents of LGBT equality for the bigots and self-centered modern day Pharisees that they are.  They deserve no respect and their anti-gay animus and bigotry towards others needs to be constantly exposed. 

Why the Boycott Against Ted Cruz's Gay Hosts Is Important

I suspect that gay hoteliers, Ian Reisner and Mati Weiderpass, who hosted extremely anti-gay U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), at their posh New York City apartment continue to be in shock that they have not been able to blunt the outrage at their conduct.  Indeed, after going from trying to explain their betrayal of other gays with far fetched explanations to supposed sincere apologies, Ian Reisner has attacked gays as "cheap," "entitled" and other insults.  I and others believe that it is important that privileged gays who are removed from the discrimination and lack of legal rights most of us face not be allowed to betray the larger LGBT community as they fluff their egos.  Perhaps Michelangelo says it best in a piece in Huffington Post where he condemns what he calls "victory blindness.".  Here are excerpts:

For almost two weeks a boycott has been in full force against two gay hoteliers, Ian Reisner and Mati Weiderpass, who hosted anti-gay U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), now running for the 2016 GOP nomination for the presidency, at their Central Park South apartment. One of them boasted about it on Facebook a couple of days later, seemingly oblivious to the backlash he'd face. In a matter of days, Cruz, one of the most vocally anti-gay members of the U.S. Senate, introduced two bills aimed at blunting same-sex marriage, including a constitutional amendment. Organizations such as Broadway Cares/Equity Fights AIDS and the New York City Gay Men's Chorus have canceled fundraisers at the men's hotel, Out NYC, and the Fire Island Property Owners Association is under pressure to take a stand against the men, who own businesses in the Fire Island Pines, including a nightclub, bars and a hotel. 

The most telling thing that Reisner said at the outset, quoted by The New York Times in response to the backlash, perhaps hoping the entire affair would blow over, was that marriage equality is "done -- it's just going to happen," as if it doesn't matter anymore and the men could pursue support of Cruz on other issues upon which they agree, such as his right-wing policies toward Israel. As the uproar grew, the men released a statement, changing course, saying that the evening provided "the opportunity to have a candid conversation with Senator Ted Cruz on why he should rethink his view on gay marriage," as if this was all about reaching out to the other side. When that didn't quell the outrage, and with a protest by LGBT activists soon to happen in front of their hotel on 42nd Street last week, the men offered a full-blown but insincere apology that was all about trying to save their businesses, with Reisner declaring he was "shaken to the bone." Indeed.

Reisner's first words revealed his true belief, and they've been echoed by some gay activists and some gay pundits in the media in recent days. Jamie Kirchick of The Daily Beast called those who support the boycott "illiberal" for enforcing "groupthink" and criticized Reisner and Weiderpass for apologizing.

This is what I call, in the first chapter of my new book, "victory blindness," and many LGBT people, including even many activists, often succumb to it in this heady time of big wins. In fact, every one of us can and does succumb at various moments, wanting to only see the victories and not face the deeply embedded homophobia and transphobia still pervading our culture, and slough off the decades-old political movement still organizing against us and still quite determined. 

But Ted Cruz and other anti-gay conservatives are fighting us at every turn to keep us from getting full civil rights, and every other announced or would-be GOP presidential contender publicly supports the effort. There are no federal protections for LGBT people, as we see stories every day of people thrown out of restaurants, shops, and taxis, or fired from their jobs, simply for being gay or transgender. And our enemies are now on a "religious freedom" crusade, casting themselves as victims, intent on pushing bills to create exemptions to any laws that do ban discrimination. Just looking at Texas, Cruz's home state, there more than 20 anti-gay bills that conservatives are intent on getting out of committees in the legislature in the next three weeks.

And now still others succumbing to victory blindness are doing the same thing again. In the Washington Blade Mark Lee chastised activists for "attempting to outlaw political opinion," with the headline of his opinion piece charging that many of us are really "not ready to win," because we should be embracing those who would reach out and work with Ted Cruz and should be fostering "an appropriate sense of communal celebration and circumspect congeniality."

But that is the fallacy that victory blindness promotes. It makes people believe the best strategy moving forward is to be nice and respectful -- just when we actually need to be as confrontational as ever. And that allows the backlash to organize, giving it a space to grow, allowing our enemies to use some of us as cover. This has happened to other movements, and it will happen to us if we allow it to happen.

[T]hat's why the boycott against the hoteliers is so important and really is a watershed moment. We've got to make it clear to the enemies of equality that we are a force with increasing public support, moving full speed ahead and accepting nothing less than equality.

[W]e must send a message to those among our own -- particularly those of enormous privilege -- who've succumbed to victory blindness and let them know that they too cannot support our enemies. No abject apology can undo the message that Reisner and Weiderpass have telegraphed to anti-LGBT forces in the GOP. And we have to make sure no one does it again. This is not the time for any of us to pull back.

Michelangelo, very well said.   Thanks to the husband's clientele, we often move in a wealthy Republican circles, but I never let up the advocacy and explaining why today's GOP has sold out the party's true principles and why decent, thinking people need to oppose the agenda of the far right.  Never make apologies for or hide who you are and never give up the struggle. 

The War for LGBT Equality is Far From Over

To hear some pundits talk, one would think that the war for LGBT equality is over and, if the U.S. Supreme Court makes same sex marriage a nationwide right come June, we should all be sitting back luxuriating in our new found freedoms.  This view conveniently ignores the reality that in 29 states gays can be summarily fired based on the sexual orientation and/or gender expression.  Worse yet, in states like Virginia there are no public accommodation protections for LGBT citizens.  The discrimination sought to be made legal under Indiana's "license to discriminate law" is already legal in Virginia.  Add to this reality the Christofascists' rising hysteria as they lose the so-called culture wars and their demands for special rights that far too many Republicans seem only too happy to grant.  In a piece in Huffington Post, focus is given to Michelangelo Signorile new book that looks at the future of the struggle for LGBT equality.  Here are highlights:

The queer rights movement has come a long way over the past 50 years and has seen an especially mind-blowing array of triumphs secured in just the last five years. From marriage equality sweeping much of the United States to the transgender community gaining traction, momentum and unprecedented visibility, today the dream of equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people is closer to becoming a reality than ever before.

But before you break out the champagne and start drafting an invite list for a celebratory party, there's some bad news: we've still got a long way to go before queer people attain all of the rights that non-queer people have. And, what's more, we have a lot more work left to do in terms of changing the way that non-queer people think about the lives and experiences of queer people on the most fundamental of levels.

I recently chatted with my colleague Mike [Signorile] about his new book including everything from how "the closet" has changed over the years to his vision for our future and how we can -- hopefully -- one day achieve victory.

Noah Michelson: Do you remember where you were and what you were doing when you got the idea for the book? Is there a specific moment you can point to when you thought "OK, it's time to look into this more closely"?
Michelangelo Signorile: The book came together over a period of several years. It actually crystalized as an idea as far back as 2009, when facts on the ground, in terms of how people experienced homophobia and transphobia, were never quite matching the celebrations in the media of the victories, which then were still baby steps compared to now.

The first chapter is entitled "Victory Blindness." What exactly does that mean and how is it affecting the movement?
Victory blindness is something we all succumb to at times. It's a term I use to describe the phenomenon in which we focus on the wins, so starved for validation, that we allow them to blind us to the continued bigotry we face. We become enthralled, intoxicated -- spellbound by even a little bit. The effect is that it obscures our reality -- literally our vision -- and it makes us lose our gumption, not wanting to rock the boat, fearful that we'll lose what we've gained and not get what little bit we think we need, when in fact we need a lot and we should be strong and confident knowing our allies will stay with us. . . . . We were and are still hated and despised by many -- despite having so many allies now -- and we have no rights in most states nor federal protections. So this is victory blindness, and it can have the terrible effect of actually allowing the backlash to grow because it telegraphs that we will back down. 

The part of the second chapter, entitled "We Don't Serve Fags Here," that intrigued me the most is your discussion of the closet and how, even in 2015, it is such an enduring and dangerous phenomenon. How has the closet changed since you began writing about it and what do you think needs to happen for it to vanish altogether -- or is that even possible?
So many people clearly have come out in the past 25 years, since I wrote my first book, Queer in America, and people are coming out at much younger ages. . . . . But we still see the closet strictly enforced among public figures. We still see the media not going there in discussing public figures -- even those in the glass closet -- sending the message that it's still shameful. We still see Hollywood enforcing the closet. And, in my research for It's Not Over, I found that even as things had changed, many many more average LGB people than we think are still deeply closeted, living tormented lives, married to people of the opposite gender when they're not bi, just to pass as straight, particularly in conservative parts of country.

We have to get to a place where people do not go in the closet -- where they're raised as queer, and that will only happen when we revolutionize education and teach about sexual orientation and gender identity in school, k-12. It's just starting in California. We need to take it to all 50 states

[F]rom the number of reported hate-based attacks in the United States increasing to this frightening new crop of "religious freedom" bills aimed at allowing discrimination against queer people. Some have written off this ramping up of anti-queer sentiment as the last gasp of a soon defeated right-wing coalition. How do you feel about that assertion and what's the danger in framing these events in this way?
You know, everything is the last gasp of something -- until people get their breath again. We thought we saw the last gasp of racism 50 years ago. Then we thought we saw it over and over again, including when President Obama was elected, right? We were "post-racial" and all this. Obviously it wasn't true. The enemies of LGBT equality, similarly, as they have done with women, will keep working at finding ways to try to thwart us. 

Tell me about "covering." What is it and why can it be harmful?

Covering is when members of marginalized groups attain certain rights and then think that the best strategy is to try to fit in -- not to focus on difference. He writes about it from the perspective of race, as an Asian American, as well as from the perspective of being gay. For queer people, covering is when we tone down or assimilate in, or try to show cultural tastes that are more in line with the mainstream, and downplay our own culture. And certainly, refraining from showing same-sex affection or sexuality is covering. 

Why do you think it's important for the media to stop trying to stay neutral on these issues? What do you say to those who claim that abandoning that neutrality means stories can't be accurate or fair?
This really is a two-pronged question -- one about journalism and one about bigotry. Let's start with journalism. I've long maintained that "objectivity" and "neutrality" are a bit silly to strive for because it's really impossible, particularly when you as the journalist are a member of a marginalized group and other people have made up the rules of "objectivity."

[G]getting to the second part of the question, the homophobia, and transphobia, issue, the bigotry -- the opposing view is now completely debunked when it comes to a scientific point of view. There are no reputable scientists, medical associations, sexologists, etc., who see homosexuality, bisexuality or transgender identity as harmful -- and so all the media is left with to show an opposing view is bigotry, most often from religious conservatives. And they just do not have a place anymore -- and perhaps never should have -- in public policy debate. The media no longer bring white supremacists on to debate racial issues. It's time they stop bringing on anti-gay hate groups too.

I think Michelangelo is on to something.  Read the rest of the piece or, better yet, get his new book,  It's Not Over, here.