From: HRTFFL@aol.com Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 08:11:57 EST Subject: Column: Right Turn, Wrong Direction Column: Right Turn, Wrong Direction By Todd Martinez-Padilla Simmons Growing up a Baptist in the Deep South, I was taught by my conservative parents (dad's still a minister) that maturity means respecting those who came before you, sharing with others and helping those who lack the resources to help themselves. That's important stuff. And I respect the church for being the instrument of much of that instruction, even if the Baptist denomination stands for much that I find ridiculous. I thought about those lessons in maturity recently as I read a column by Dale Carpenter, a New Orleans attorney and board member of the gay Republican group, Log Cabin. Like many others who share his political beliefs, Carpenter described as proof of its "maturity" the Human Rights Campaign's recent endorsement of Sen. Alfonse D'Amato. Carpenter's logic: The fact that Democrat-leaning HRC is able to endorse Republicans means that the organization is growing up. Carpenter believes, as does at least a vocal faction of Log Cabin, that HRC for too long has been "like so many other supposedly 'non-partisan' gay political groups ... little more than the gay fundraising arm of the national Democratic Party." (Carpenter, of course, has a personal interest in HRC endorsing Republicans, but that's beside the point. Or at least it's supposed to be.) "The endorsement made sense for any nonpartisan group trying to advance a pro-gay legislative agenda," instructed Carpenter, echoing sentiments expressed by HRC leaders and other supporters of its endorsement. The fact that many in the LGBT community were horrified that HRC would endorse an anti-choice candidate was simply evidence that "the gay left is prepared to sacrifice us on the altar of its self-congratulatory, 'broader' progressive agenda; in this case, by replacing a pro-gay 18-year incumbent member of the majority party with a pro-gay freshman member of the minority party." Sounds reasonable enough. Unfortunately, though, it's wrong. The LGBT civil rights movement has a long and rich history, at the forefront of which have ALWAYS been women, people of color, the poor, Democrats and, significantly, those who care about reproductive choice. It is not mere coincidence that the pro-choice and gay equality movements have made their greatest strides in the same historical era; they have been carried forward by the same people, working hand in hand across traditional cultural lines of separation. They have been carried forward by activists who understand that government intrusion into citizens' private affairs is un-American (which, by the way, used to be a core belief of Republicans; times change, I suppose). In any case, after more than 25 years of working with choice activists on reproductive issues and having those activists work side by side with us on sexual orientation issues, the gay community was asked in the most recent election to jettison that history in favor of an incumbent who not only opposes reproductive choice, but is one of its most vitriolic critics. An 18-year-incumbent who only in the last five had ever stood up for gay equality. A candidate who by HRC's own rating system (which ought to be the arbiter of any such endorsement) stacked up poorly against his challenger. Of course, this is not to argue that every gay man, lesbian, bisexual or transgender person must support abortion rights. But there is significant precedent for our movement lending its support to reproductive issues -- just look at HRC's own rating instruments over the past few years and the abortion legislation referenced within them. Was there justifiable cause -- or indeed, any cause at all -- to abandon that historical precedent in this election? Not in my mind. In fact, the only two causes I've read or heard discussed are these: influence and symbolism. And none of the arguments regarding those two issues are ones that hold weight. "In Washington, seniority and membership in the majority party mean power and influence. That translates into legislative effectiveness. HRC saw all that and backed D'Amato," wrote Carpenter, later adding, "The endorsement has improved HRC's standing among congressional Republicans, with some personally calling to thank the group for the endorsement even though D'Amato lost." Congratulatory phone calls from Republican congressional members aside, D'Amato is seen within the GOP as an anomaly -- a Republican senator from a Democratic state who sometimes takes liberal positions that his party vehemently opposes. He does so because it helps him with the left-leaning voters of New York and because, ultimately, the ire of the GOP over his positions doesn't mean squat. Supporting HRC's Employment Non-Discrimination Act, for instance, never cost D'Amato a committee chairmanship or a vote in conference. And while welcome, it wasn't exactly a stretch and certainly didn't result in passage of that legislation. Further, seniority and majority party membership, while nice to have on your side, are not the only keys to "legislative effectiveness." As Carpenter no doubt knows, some of the most important help that any particular cause can enlist is the assistance of minority members who are able to stop the process when it becomes threatening. That wasn't something I saw Sen. D'Amato do, by the way, when the Defense of Marriage Act passed the U.S. Senate or when Sen. Jesse Helms tubed the ambassadorial nomination of Gov. William Weld, a pro-gay Republican. (If seniority and majority party membership were our biggest consideration, we could simply back Trent Lott, Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms and call it a day.) HRC's endorsement, as I see it, was less about such issues and much, much more about symbolism -- and exorbitantly costly symbolism, at that. A group whose major issues are wholeheartedly embraced by the Democratic Party, HRC has long had a strong relationship with many Dems on the Hill. But for the past four years facing a Republican majority, HRC has cast about for ways to prove that it is the issues that matter, not party affiliation. Let's not kid ourselves, that's tough when the GOP is not only unreceptive to most gay issues, it's downright hostile toward them. In D'Amato, HRC found a candidate it could live with. In the symbolic interest of appearing bipartisan and appeasing not only Washington Republicans but those within its own ranks, the group endorsed, manipulating its process ever so slightly in D'Amato's favor. Of course, it also alienated large numbers of gay and lesbian donors/members, women's groups, labor organizations and others, many of whom have been breathing fire at HRC for weeks. Let there be no mistake: By HRC's own criteria, D'Amato didn't earn this endorsement. In the 105th Congress, his successful opponent, U.S. Rep. Charles Schumer outscored him 100 percent to 83 percent; in the 104th Congress, Schumer bested him 89 percent to 75 percent. In the 103rd Congress, D'Amato earned an anemic 40 percent rating, while Schumer clocked in at 100 percent. Not exactly a close competition. And that's what has troubled so many in gay America. Our organizations do not earn credibility by lowering the bar for the benefit of lesser candidates, even if the candidate is part of a majority party. They do so by holding our standard high, and educating and lobbying candidates to meet it. That's something that Carpenter and his colleagues should value, given their dogged determination in remaining true to Republican standards year in and year out in the face of often blistering criticism from other quarters of the community. Evidently, partisan concerns were more important in this particular instance. (Note Carpenter: Further in your column, you dismissed some gay groups participating in previous Marches on Washington as "fringe." You tread on brittle ground. Many gay American believe no group could better fit the "fringe" definition than Log Cabin Republicans -- a group that clings to membership in the party that has been the birthing place for every anti-gay piece of legislation to come out of Washington in the past decade.) The good news about all of this is that, like my Baptist upbringing, it gives us an opportunity to learn. To learn about issues that affect us all, about the organizations fighting for us in Washington, about our role in the fight and about each other. Let us not remain stationary, focusing our energies on figuring out what's wrong with each other, but rather let us use our new knowledge to move our community forward.