Subscribe to Breaking News
Loading ...Keep your word, gay group warns Congress
01.07.2009 4:16pm EST
(Washington) The nation’s largest LGBT civil rights group is calling on Congress to act swiftly to pass a wide number of bills expanding gay rights – many of which were promised by Democrats during the election campaign.
The Human Rights Campaign notes the 111th Congress includes more allies of the LGBT community than ever before. During the 2008 election cycle, HRC endorsed 212 Members elected to the U.S. House and 16 Members elected in the U.S. Senate.President Joe Solmonese said in a statement that gays, lesbians, bis and the transgendered and their allies should call their new Members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate and tell them to act on pro-equality legislation.
“With increased ranks of pro-equality lawmakers in both the House and the Senate, new possibilities are open to us,” Solmonese said in a statement. “But we can’t stop now; it’s our job to keep the momentum going by contacting our Members of Congress and urging them to support pro-equality legislation.”
Three of the bills – the Matthew Shepard Hate Crime Act, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell – died when the the last session of Congress ended and will need to be reintroduced.
HRC and other LGBT rights groups also are calling for repeal of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act which bars the government from any form of recognition of same-sex relationships.
In addition they want the inclusion of same-sex couples added to the Health Plan Beneficiaries Act, the Family and Medical Leave Inclusion Act and they are calling for immigration rights for bi-national gay and lesbian couples.
“In addition to pro-equality lawmakers, there are new and returning Members of Congress who need ongoing education about LGBT issues. It is vitally important for the LGBT community to make its voices heard with the incoming Members of the 111th Congress,” said HRC Legislative Director Allison Herwitt.
HRC also is supporting the nomination of Eric Holder as Attorney General.
Holder previously served as Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton administration. In 1999 Holder appeared before the House Judiciary Committee Holder called for LGBT inclusion in federal hate crime law, noting that currently the law “provides no coverage whatsoever for violent hate crimes committed because of bias based on the victim’s sexual orientation, gender or disability, and these crimes pose a serious problem for our nation.”
i usually don’t waste my time responding to people on these forums but, i read the responses and it just reinforces the fact that this is why we still get bashed from all sides. we as a community are weak which allows our advasaries too continue to pound away. as far as the hrc goes. nice building, i stopped supporting them when i got fed up with going to their fabulously expensive “dinners” sorry fundraisers. i keep my money local that is where i think it counts the most. as far as sexuality goes, it is fluid for some people and not for most. MIND YOUR OWN F-ING BUSINESS!
any idiot here who actually believes we are not thrown under the bus already
When has the government of America EVER kept it’s word? It’s not going to start now.
To be absolutely fair all it should be alphabetical…so
BGLT (does that sound like a sandwich?)…but we just had a discussion of the IN thing to be called and that is Queer.
So we have to add it… B..G..L..Q..T…
However, I am a str8 ally so I want my A in so now we have..
A..B..G..L..Q..T’s. There.
I did not vote for Obama. It didn’t matter much though, because my spouse and I both live in the Reddest of Red States — Kansas. So, a symbolic protest vote against Obama would not have altered the election one bit. Nevertheless, my spouse and I still voted for an alternate candidate.
Still, even I may have been tempted to hold my nose and vote for Obama if I lived in a Swing State because the thought of a malignant bigot being elected over a benign bigot would be too great a risk even for me to imagine.
So I have never blamed Obama supporters for voting for him. I only asked them to examine him more closely. But finally people are starting to look behind the curtain, and they are horrified by what they are now seeing.
It is so tragic that we have convinced ourselves that we only have such unhealthy choices to make. It is about time we start looking for a viable third party, at least in Congress to start — the Presidency later.
If Joe Lieberman could control the agenda with just his one vote in the last Senate, a third party of around ten percent of the members of Congress could give maximum representation to a minority such as ours. A third party would be a powerbroker and could caucus with either party for control of Congress and in setting political agenda on a quid pro quo basis. Coalitions could be formed and “orphan” legislation (that is legislation which no party wants to go out on the limb for alone) could be passed.
We owe nothing to the Democratic Party because they have (witness DOMA and DADT) given us nothing but betrayal or indifference in return. I really wanted to like Obama, but I don’t believe he has the courage to stick his neck out for us like President Johnson did for Black folk. I’d be pleasantly surprised if I am wrong. But I will not hold my breath until then.
~ Bud Evans
PS – On a related note, check out my homepage for information on Obama’s twisted idea of a “balanced point-of-view” in his choice of Rev. Joseph Lowery who is exposed as a Jim Crow-style segregationist regarding Gays. And this was Obama’s choice to “balance out” Rev. Rick “Homophobe” Warren at his inauguration?
I am surprised 365gay.com did not expose this fraud (Rev. Joseph Lowery), although one of their columnist (Withers) did incorrectly mention that Lowery was a supporter of same-sex marriage. Lowery is NOT!!!
Check it out:
http://rainfish2000.blogspot.com
thnks LOrion,
Just because some want to called “QUEER” ugh! gag! Yukh! doesn’t mean all want that “vomit value” label! I don’t!
I’ll stick to gay or gay male, thanks very much.
I have a friend wants to wallow in the “queer” label, I tell him good, you can have it all, I want no part of it, I gag on it, I’ll stick to gay and you can stick to queer all you want,
Bud,
That information about Rev. Lowery was corrected. Thanks.
Sincerely,
James
Why is it so many socalled “bi” males find kissing another guy so unappealing or unnecessary? Makes me wonder if they’re really self-loathing gay men. Several have even told me that falling in love and kissing a same-sex person is reserved for a male/female relationship, as if males are incapable of falling in love with another male, let alone tenderness and affection. Its beyond screwed up, as are they.
As for Obama…I voted for him, not because I really thought he was going to signify real change but because I didn’t want another four years of oppression. Having selected Warren for the invocation and the questionable choice of Lowery, it makes me wonder if this really is about reaching across the aisle. Why is that not one openly gay person has been chosen to be part of Obama’s cabinet or any other key government position? I’m going to think really hard before 2012 rolls around and reconsider my support for the Democratic party who have delivered on really NOTHING! From now on, if any democrat wants my vote, let him or her earn it, the old fashioned way, never take it for granted, enough!
Morgan Said: “thnks LOrion,
Just because some want to called “QUEER” ugh! gag! Yukh! doesn’t mean all want that “vomit value” label! I don’t!
I’ll stick to gay or gay male, thanks very much.”
I prefer the term “human” myself,
I’m sorry, but really can the gay community hold any sway on the democratic party as long as its a given that the majority of gays will vote for democrats no matter what so called leader’s of the gay community say?
Furthermore, this shouldn’t be high on the agenda. This is a touchy subject and the country right now has to come first, even if that means sidelining reasonable protections for an unpopular population like ours. Anything that can polarize the new congress before they get vital changes made HAS TO BE avoided. “Demand” this stuff in a year or three, but for now expect country first, individual groups a far second.
Colin, most of what the gay community wants (and has been promised by the Obama administration and the Democratic members of Congress) are supported by most of the population: passage of ENDA, repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and inclusion in hate crime legislation are all supported by healthy majorities. The only people who would “polarize” these issues are religious bigots. If we wait for 100% consensus, nothing will ever be done. Newsflash: we are part of the country!
Colin Said: “Anything that can polarize the new congress before they get vital changes made HAS TO BE avoided. “Demand” this stuff in a year or three, but for now expect country first, individual groups a far second.”
Bullshit! IF they can’t handle working on more than one thing at a time, then they don’t deserve to be in office. And tell me why exactly is it that working on civil rights, which is just as important as any issue in the country, means the economy (or any other issue) will suffer. There is always an excuse to be made for why our civil rights should be ignored in favor of the impending doom-of-the-month, but if we wait until all opther issues are solved before tackeling equality, then we might as well pack it up and go home as there will always be another crisis.
James,
Yes, that information about Rev. Lowery was corrected — but not until I pointed the error out to you.
You’re welcome.
Sincerely,
Bud
http://rainfish2000.blogspot.com/2008/12/rev-joseph-lowery-obamas-so-called-old.html
We break down as a community because the “gay” “we” represents women, hispancis, cowboys, asians, blacks, right wing, left wing. We can’t just be “gay.” I’m a woman before I’m a lesbian, I will always be that before anything else. We can’t seem to resign to that fact that we are all human.
Killer to that is, if being Obama or GWB is “human,” i’m not really intrested in being that either.
I don’t think any group will be satisfied ever, especially since sexism is the silent killer that no one gives a crap about because men are clearly more important (STILL) and more intelligent. And better equipped to run the country. And the world. And anything else. they just can’t seem to control themselves.
I like the idea of a third party — this American two-party system is really just two heads on one beast, and of, by and for a homophobic plutocracy. And why we believe we are the only group that regularly gets nothing from government? Are we so sure about the truth of this? What about women and their inequalities including the right to choose? What about an African-American community where males are incarcerated at the highest rate in the world? Are they happy with this government?
I believe we get liberty at the local
level — the school boards, the city councils, the state Senates & Houses. Maybe we should shift our efforts towards local control because there we can form coalitions with others, and finally achieve representation. Obama? At heart he seems a homophobe, a man deprived of a normal family life, and a “promise them anything” kind of guy. Maybe he cannot help his failings, but I know I won’t support his candidacy in 2012 if he reniges on his promises.