TO: Joe Solmonese, President, Human Rights Campaign
FROM: Gregory Taylor, Former HRC member
DATE: May 10, 2008
RE: Nonrenewal of Membership
In a recent request for a contribution, Mr. Solmonese requested information from me if I chose not to renew my HRC membership. This memo addresses the reasons I have chosen not to remain a member of the HRC. This results from my vision for the LGBT rights movement and the necessary steps we need to take as a community to achieve basic legal equality. In short, until the HRC stops supporting Republicans, I cannot support the HRC.
The Goal of the LGBT Rights Movement
The ultimate goal of the LGBT rights movement should be towards legal and societal equality of LGBT individuals in the United States. This includes full legal equality, including marriage equality, hate crimes legislation, employment protection, etc. It also includes equal and fair application of all laws and social integration of the LGBT community.
Achieving this Vision
In my opinion there are two mainstream methods to achieve the legal goals delineated above.
- The movement can influence policy decision-makers to change the laws on the books to include all LGBT persons.
- The movement can use the court system to bring suit against discriminatory laws and have them changed by judicial decision.
Both of these methods are important and should be implemented in concert with each other, clearly along with a campaign to change public opinion. A unitary focus on legislative change could require long periods of time to attain the desired change. This would result in unacceptable legal harm to LGBT individuals. A unitary focus on litigation could be very expensive and disappointing in its results. As recent court decisions in Maryland and New York have shown, not all courts are willing to follow their obligation to enforce a constitution free of discrimination. Further, court decisions in Hawaii, Vermont, and New Jersey have shown that a victory in the courts needs to be followed up by victories in the legislatures.
What has Worked
Major victories have been realized using both methods above.
- Using a Legislative Focus, the LGBT rights community has achieved:
a. Many positive statutes around the country, including Hate Crimes, Employment Nondiscrimination and domestic partnership laws
b. Defeat at the legislatures and at the ballot box of discriminatory laws.
- Using a Judicial Approach, the LGBT rights community has achieved:
a. Marriage Equality in Massachusetts; Civil Unions in Vermont and New Jersey
b. Reversals of laws that discriminate against LGBT persons
Where the HRC Went Wrong
The Human Rights Campaign has chosen to pursue a legislative and public relations focus. As the largest LGBT advocacy organization, it has achieved great success in this endeavor. The HRC has taken a non-partisan approach to building a pro-LGBT majority in both houses of Congress. While a pro-LGBT majority is certainly a good thing in both houses, it is by far much less meaningful than a pro-LGBT leadership in these houses.
A Pro-LGBT Leadership can:
- Ensure discriminatory legislation does not pass either House.
- Enable a pro-LGBT majority to vote on positive legislation
- Remove the bully pulpit from anti-LGBT legislators
- Bring positive substantial change in legislation for LGBT people
A pro-LGBT majority, coupled with an anti-LGBT leadership can do none of these things. A majority alone cannot ensure that the full house is able to vote on measures that it would otherwise pass. In the current political environment, LGBT rights is largely a partisan issue. The Democratic leadership in both houses of Congress is largely supportive of the LGBT agenda, while the Republican leadership is very hostile to this agenda and very friendly to the foes of the LGBT community. Therefore, the most important vote in Congress every year is that for the majority.
It is still important to cultivate a pro-LGBT majority in Congress and in both parties. The HRC should actively court Republicans in its attempt to achieve LGBT equality. It should support pro-LGBT candidates in Republican primaries, actively lobby Republican members, hold informational sessions for Republican politicians and citizens, and encourage LGBT and pro-LGBT Republicans to run for office.
In cultivating this pro-LGBT sentiment in Republican circles, the HRC should not contravene its primary goal of ensuring a pro-LGBT leadership in both Houses of Congress. Therefore, the HRC should not support Republican candidates for the House and Senate in general elections. Even if, in a particular race, the Democrat is very anti-LGBT and the Republican is very pro-LGBT, the Democrat will vote the right way on the most important LGBT vote, for the pro-LGBT leadership, and the Republican will vote the wrong way. It is particularly disappointing that the HRC supports Susan Collins’ bid for reelection in Maine. She has consistently voted for the anti-LGBT Republican leadership in the Senate, and her past HRC legislative scores pale in comparison to her Democratic opponent’s, Tom Allen.
As the HRC continues to support Republican candidates for the House and Senate, the LGBT community should actively encourage your organization to change directions. In the meantime, they should donate to organizations that pursue one of the LGBT community’s other priorities. Until the HRC recognizes leadership votes or ceases to support Republicans in general elections, the LGBT community should withhold its financial support from the HRC.