Totally Out of Touch HRC Says Obama Should Nominate an LGBT to SCOTUS

The seemingly clueless Chad Griffin

Recently I wrote about Michelangelo Signorile's frustration over the cluelessness of self-anointed leaders in the LGBT rights movement who have no plan as to how to counter the anti-gay legislation sweeping many states in the wake of the Supreme Court's gay marriage ruling in Obergefell.  Now, in an op-ed in The Advocate, HRC president Chad Griffin proves he is truly delusional in my opinion by urging Barack Obama to nominate an out LGBT nominee to fill the vacant seat on the U.S. Supreme formerly occupied by Antonin Scalia.  One would think that anyone not living in a complete fantasy world would realize that an out LGBT nominee has probably ZERO chance of approval by the U.S. Senate.  Rather, Obama needs to nominate a gay-friendly judge from a lower federal court who has previously passed Senate approval by a wide approval margin in order to make it far more difficult for Republicans to make good on their planned obstructionist efforts.  

Reading Griffin's piece which ignores any shred of political reality, in my view, he apparently puts "boldness" ahead of President Obama securing the approval of an LGBT ally on the Court.  Instead, Griffin would rather run the risk that such an Obama nominee would be blocked by the GOP controlled Senate leaving the door open so that, if a Republican wins the White House in November, LGBT Americans are utterly screwed when 1 to 3 conservative justices end up on the Court over the next few years.  Of course, Griffin  is among the LGBT elite who lives in gay friendly Washington, D.C. and doesn't need to worry about the anti-gay legal framework that many of us face on a daily basis.

I'd argue that it is time for Griffin to get his head out of his ass (pardon my French) - or even better, resign from his position as HRC president so that someone living in objective reality can take the helm.  As of tomorrow, my HRC bumper sticker is coming off of my car and and the donations to HRC stop completely.  I am frankly over HRC and its failure to advocate for things that will realistically help a majority of LGBT Americans while its leadership very lives comfortably in gay-friendly Washington, D.C. (Griffin made $429,411.00 in 2013) and calls for things that are utterly unrealistic based on my nearly 25 years of political activism.

I hope President Obama ignores ever word of Griffin's, in my view, lunatic op-ed piece.

Turf Battles and Egos in the Fight for Marriage Equality

Ted Olson and David Boise - who will be in Norfolk tomorrow.

Sometimes it strikes me that one of the LGBT community's biggest problems are that (i) some of us prefer fighting with one another rather than fighting our real enemies on the far right and within the GOP, and (ii) some would hold us back in securing rights if they cannot be the ones who take the glory of winning the battles.  The last time I raised this issue when the lawsuit in Bostic v. Rainey was first filed I got pummeled by those were outraged that I would dare question the wisdom of the self-anointed "gay elite."  With oral arguments in Bostic taking place in tomorrow morning that will include Ted Olson and David Boies and possibly representatives of the Office of the Attorney General it is timely that a piece in the New York Times looks at the unwillingness of some of the "gay elite" and "professional activists" to welcome Olson's and Boies' help in other pending same sex marriage cases.  Having read all of the briefs and legal memorandum in the Bostic case, their input has been a net positive, particularly in tying anti-gay animus condemned in United States v. Windsor to the true motivation behind Virginia's Marshall-Newman Amendment.  In my view, winning is the real goal and it should not matter who gets to claim the victory.  Here are excerpts from the Times article:

WASHINGTON — Theodore B. Olson and David Boies, the star legal duo who defied skeptics by successfully challenging California’s ban on same-sex marriage, are seeking to play a central role in the next round of marriage cases that appear to be on a fast track to the high court. But in doing so, they have touched off a debate over who gets the coveted job of arguing what could be a landmark gay rights decision.

Mr. Olson, a towering figure in the conservative legal movement, and Mr. Boies, a celebrated trial lawyer who argued against Mr. Olson in Bush v. Gore, say they would like to take on a pair of appeals looking to overturn laws in Utah and Oklahoma that prohibit gay and lesbian couples from marrying.

But they have not exactly been met with open arms by the teams of lawyers already involved, whose response so far has been a cool “Thanks, but no thanks.”

[T]heir interest also raises questions of experience, ego and turf that are inevitable when the legal stakes involve the potential to reshape the nation’s jurisprudence on such an emotionally and politically charged civil rights issue.

Mr. Olson, in an interview on Monday at his office — where the walls and bookshelves are lined with memorabilia from his 60 appearances before the Supreme Court — cited the expertise that he and Mr. Boies have accumulated through years of preparing the case to overturn California’s Proposition 8. As Mr. Olson spoke, he was preparing to argue a separate case in a lower court in Norfolk, Va., on Tuesday that challenges the state’s ban on same-sex marriage.

"The reason we were brought in,” he said, “was the people in California who first contacted us were very concerned that lawyers would bring a challenge to Prop 8 that didn’t know how to take a case all the way to the Supreme Court — how to prepare it, how to build a foundation, how to present it, how to articulate the arguments.”

“It is impossible,” he added, “to overstate how important it is, and how meticulously handled it must be in order to ensure the best outcome.”

So far the lawyers arguing the Oklahoma case have not brought on any counsel from out of state.

The plaintiffs in the Utah case have brought on lawyers from the National Center for Lesbian Rights. But that is all the outside help they plan to accept for now.

Shannon Minter, a lawyer for the center, declined to comment on whether he had heard from Mr. Olson, Mr. Boies or their representatives, but he did point out that who argues the case is not the only important factor.

The path to the Supreme Court has come much faster than anyone, perhaps even the justices themselves, expected. The Utah case, in which the state is appealing a lower-court ruling that said the state’s prohibition of same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, will be argued on April 10 before the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, in Denver. The same three-judge panel that hears the Utah case will hear arguments in the Oklahoma case a week later.

“There just is not a better combination of lawyers for this,” said Richard Socarides, a former adviser to President Bill Clinton and a gay rights lawyer.

Some legal experts said the only drawback to their involvement would be a few hurt feelings. “From the perspective of the lawyer who had the case all along, it might ruin their chance of having their moment in the sun,” said Michael J. Klarman, a law professor at Harvard. “But from everybody else’s perspective, it’s probably a good thing.”

Mr. Olson said he can empathize with a lawyer’s pride of ownership. “It would be human nature to feel that way,” he said.

I for one do not want to have a bad ruling handed down due to people's egos or the desire of some gay rights organizations to be able to claim that THEY won the right to same sex marriage nationwide.  I simply want marriage equality for myself and every other LGBT American.   I frankly do not care who wins that basic equality for me.  

More on AFER's New Role in thr Norfolk Marriage Equality Lawsuit

Back when I first wrote about the lawsuit filed in the Norfolk Division of the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia there among the issues was the condemnation by certain of the "gay elite" if you will who were peeved that the original plaintiffs had not come before them, genuflected and received prior permission before filing their lawsuit.  For my criticism of these "gay elites" - they know who they are - I suffered some nasty back biting and personal attacks (be assured that while I have held my tongue so far, these personal attacks will be responded to when the time is ripe).  Now, the last laugh seems to be on some of my critics and those who bad mouthed my friends who are the plaintiffs.  Why?  Because today it was announced that American Foundation for Equal Rights ("AFER"), including its legal eagles, Ted Olsen and David Boies.  The video clip above introduces my friends Tim Bostic and Tony London.  Here highlights from AFER's announcement:

[We are] thrilled to announce that AFER and our incredible legal team, led by Ted Olson and David Boies, are joining a federal marriage case in the great state of Virginia.

So much has changed in the 5 years since we started the American Foundation for Equal Rights. We overturned Proposition 8. We took the fight for full marriage equality all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. And as Prop. 8 and the so-called Defense of Marriage Act fell, we stood vindicated in the fight against injustice.

Along the way, we transformed the national dialogue. We broke down partisan barriers and changed the discussion from right vs. left—to right vs. wrong.  We now have the support of our President, from elected leaders on both sides of the aisle, and from a solid majority of the country.

Today, nearly 30% of Americans live in a state that allows any committed couple to marry.

But for couples in the 37 states, not enough has changed. Gay and lesbian Americans are still denied basic freedoms, rights and protections based solely on who they love and where they live.

AFER's work continues in Virginia, home to the landmark 1967 case Loving v. Virginia. As in the Loving case, where the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously struck down laws banning interracial marriage, our plaintiffs want nothing more than to be treated by their home state like any other couple in love.

We will not rest until we have achieved full federal marriage equality for every single American.

I am thrilled to have AFER involved right here in the Hampton Roads area of Virginia.  Meanwhile, my monetary support will go to AFER, not the self-anointed "gay elites."  To contribute to AFER, click here. 

The Arrogance of the Self-Anointed "Gay Elite"

Recently in connection with the challenge to Virginia's anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment I noted in a post here and on the Bilerico Project the following observation:

This post would not be complete without acknowledging some of the blow back I have received from previous posts about the case.  It seems that some of what many of us living in "red states" view as the self-anointed "gay elite" are displeased that the plaintiffs proceeded to file their lawsuit rather than wait for permission, if you will, from Lambda Legal, the ACLU and others.  These the "gay elites" primarily sit safely in gay friendly jurisdictions like New York and Washington, D.C., and lecture those faced with no rights or legal protections, give them a pat on the head and then tell Virginians and others "be patient, we know best."   One must not forget that when the Hollingsworth v. Perry suit was filed, these same elites argued against the case being brought.  Ted Olsen and David Boies proved them wrong.

Well, the blow back has continued and I have received more slings and arrows for having dared criticize Lambda Legal and the ACLU.  I was even accused of harming the LGBT community by my comments.  These attacks come, of course, from non-elected individuals serving on self-perpetuating boards that purport to represent the LGBT community, yet they really want no input whatsoever  from the community other than (i) writing check after check to their organizations and/or (ii) showing up for events that they tell us to be at.  They expect servile obedience even when their organizations may have achieve little or nothing of substance to show for all of the funds they receive.

Some of the attacks I have ignored.  Others I have not held my tongue - I know readers don't find that a surprise - and have laid out my personal peeves with Lambda Legal and the ACLU.  For newer readers, I will set out why I am not always enamored with these organizations although they have indeed done a great deal of good work.   Much of my complaints track to the case of Moore v. The Virginia Museum of Natural History which involved an employee of a state operated museum who was fired for being gay.   Other posts on the case are here, and here and here.   The case went to argument before the Virginia Supreme Court where my former law school class mate and now Chief Justice, Cynthia Kinser seemed most unhappy - outraged might be a better term - that my client had not simply disappeared rather than fight the wrongful discharge.  Not surprisingly, the Supreme Court refused to take the appeal.

Throughout this case, I literally begged for help from Lambda Legal and the ACLU.  Sadly, viewing themselves as demi-gods who are arbiters of the fate of others, neither organization provided any assistance.  My client was just supposed to crawl away in defeat since the case wasn't in a ideal posture apparently to gain their interest.  In the end, the only help I received was from an attorney in the D.C. office of the ACLU who helped me on her own personal time.  I will always be grateful to her and her ability to see that every member of the LGBT community deserves to be represented and to have a fighting chance. Would that more individuals at Lambda Legal and the ACLU did not view most of us as disposable goods.

To my attackers, I invite them to compare what they have done with what I have done striving to make things better for our community here in Virginia and across America.  Sometimes holding one's tongue is not in the best long term interests of our community.  Sycophants are a dime a dozen.  It goes without saying that I will be seriously reconsidering my financial support for some organizations.