Below I have listed what I thought were main points made by several 
speakers on a panel at a recent Fight the Right Conference (held 
in Denver).


Scott Nakagawa (of NGLTF), speaking on the religious right:

   Goldwater campaign brought conservatives together for the first
   time.  Wallace's campaign brought this constituency into the
   Republican party united by blatant racist goals.

   The religious right is only using the gay rights issue as a wedge
   to increase their base (and funds).  To them, gay rights issue
   is no more important than reproductive rights (or lack thereof),
   racial issues, taxation (religious breaks), land use, etc.

   The religious right is seeking ideological control of this country,
   and their ideology is based on principles of sexism, racism,
   and economic stratification.

   The current religious right movement is "not the monolith" they
   seem to want to portray;  they are an odd racial and economic
   mixture, given their rhetoric; but they are recruit well when they 
   present a "single-issue face."  That is to say, they have succeeded 
   because they take on one cause at a time, and thus, for example, 
   they attract blacks to their movement in the fight against gays, even
   though the religious right has been anti-black at other times in 
   history.  According to them, why bother pointing that out at this 
   point?


Michael Hudson (of People For the American Way), speaking on
the religious right:

   They try to use issues that will unify people, such as concern
   over violence in America.  "You don't need to be christian to
   identify with this" concern.  It is an effective strategy.


Lawrence Pachenko (formerly of EPOColorado), speaking on Colorado
for Family Values:

   Now that the gay issue has bankrolled CFV's efforts, they are
   moving on to attack so-called "liberal" curriculum in Denver
   public schools, library purchases, etc.


Suzanne Goldberg (of Lambda Legal Defense Fund), speaking on
"Civil rights, special rights, and our rights":

   Fundamental rights include freedom of speech, freedom of religion,
   equal protection under the law.

   Federal civil rights derive from rights in the US Constitution
   and include freedom from discrimination in employment, public
   accomodations, and housing.

   She stressed that we need to be careful when we talk about 
   rights with respect to housing and jobs, etc.:  We do not
   have a right (at any level) to a _job_ or a _home_.  We have
   a right _not to be discriminated against_ in employment, 
   housing, etc. (based on the US constitution).

   Legally speaking, there are no such things as "special rights."
   That is not a legal term but a term coined by the religious right.

   "Minority status" is also not a legal term (again, coined by
   the religious right).  Gays are a minority, period.  In terms
   of numbers, that point is irrefutable.

   Goldberg stressed the following point:  "Affirmative action and 
   quotas are not _rights_."  They are "_remedies_, remedies for a past 
   history of discrimination."  They are "ways to remove the vestiges 
   of discrimination."  They are not meant to be permanent remedies, 
   but rather, temporary ones. [I thought that this clarification 
   between rights and remedies was an important one.]

   Groups cannot be singled out for special treatment when it
   comes to equal protection under the law, which is what amendment-2
   equivalents do.  (They single out homosexuals as groups that
   do not have the same legal recourse as other individuals.)

   "Amendment 2 is about lesser rights, not special rights."


Suzanne Pharr (of Women's Project, Little Rock, Ark), speaking
on political campaigns and the gay movement:

   The gay community has been underorganized as a group.  When
   underorganized groups are politically attacked, their subsequent
   political campaign becomes (defines) the movement.  "We have
   to stop talking about Amendment 2 and Initiative 9 and move on."
   "We have to build a movement," so the attacks don't define
   our movement.

   We have "got to have state-wide gay and lesbian organizations
   of groups, not of individuals."  And these state-wide organizations
   need to be linked to a national group.  

   "We need to broaden our interests/issues."

   "The religious right has kept us busy putting out brushfires, and
   we haven't had a breath to define a vision, except a reactive vision."

   We need to move out of a sense of crisis and build a movement
   as well as individual political campaigns.

   We need to build a coalition with other natural allies.  "The
   religious right is dividing us from our fellow minority communities,"
   such as blacks, hispanics, native americans.  What is important to 
   keep in mind, however, is that the religious right is successful in 
   their divisiveness "because we already have that division:  our lack 
   of working in connection with other groups."

   "The religious right is united by its racism, sexism, etc., and
   we are divided by ours."  We are eating ourselves with infighting.

   "We should not concede morality [to the religious right].  We have
   to be very careful about our language.  There is no higher morality 
   than the morality of justice."

   "We should take the hippocratic oath, not to harm," when we
   set out our strategies to counter the religious right.  The same
   oath should apply to our own people.  "Our strategies should not
   marginalize our fringe communities" (e.g., people of color,
   drag queens, leather people, disabled, etc.).

   And "don't waste the energy and enthusiasm of _anyone_ who wants
   to be involved in the movement."  Everyone is needed.  Every 
   bit of energy is critical.