Connect with us

LGBT Rights And The Dallas Principles: Now, More Than Ever?

Published

on

Major changes within the LGBT community, such as the resignation of HRC’s Joe Solmonese, marriage equality in New York, and the official repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, remind us that now is a good time to re-visit The Dallas Principles.

 

Given the news a few weeks ago of Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese’s impending resignation and the possibility of a change of direction by HRC’s Board of Directors and his replacement, I think it is time to again take a look at The Dallas Principles, authored a little more than two and a quarter years ago.

For those not familiar with the Dallas Principles, on May 15-17, 2009 in Dallas, Texas twenty-four activists and donors, frustrated with the Obama administration’s pace of fulfilling its campaign promises to the LGBT community, gathered to discuss the immediate need for full equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in the United States. Collectively they prepared The Dallas Principles.

The Dallas Principles is a set of eight guiding principles to achieve full LGBT equality. The principles are:

  • Full civil rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals must be enacted now. Delay and excuses are no longer acceptable.
  • We will not leave any part of our community behind.
  • Separate is never equal.
  • Religious beliefs are not a basis upon which to affirm or deny civil rights.
  • The establishment and guardianship of full civil rights is a non-partisan issue.
  • Individual involvement and grassroots action are paramount to success and must be encouraged.
  • Success is measured by the civil rights we all achieve, not by words, access or money raised.
  • Those who seek our support are expected to commit to these principles.

I think that especially the number two, “We will not leave any part of our community behind,” number six, “Individual involvement and grassroots action are paramount to success and must be encouraged,” and  number seven, “Success is measured by the civil rights we all achieve, not by words, access or money raised,” need to be considered carefully by HRC’s Board as they move forward.

Individual involvement and grassroots activism has not been encouraged by HRC and although the organization excels at raising money and gaining access, we have failed to achieve full federal equality. Many in our community feel that the organization has not been all-inclusive; that those who are transgender, people of color, the youth and women of our community have not been adequately represented. Some think that HRC has lost touch and is resistant to input from its constituency.

As a supporter of HRC, as well as the more grassroots-driven new kid on the block, GetEQUAL, I am encouraged by the possibility of a change in focus at HRC. Not that Joe Solmonese isn’t good, perhaps too good at what he does; HRC’s fundraising is impressive and many in the media and the establishment consider HRC to be the face of the LGBT community. Joe looks great on TV; he is urbane – well-mannered, well-spoken and well-dressed. Many in the beltway establishment saw us or still see us as affluent, urban dwellers in well-tailored suits and tuxes – at least those of us they choose to take seriously. The rest of us were easily dismissed as drag queens and dykes on bikes – at least that’s who they see spotlighted in the media at Pride-time.

The truth of this impression is reflected in Judge Antonin Scalia’s 1996 dissent in Romer, Governor of Colorado, et al. v. Evans et al. In Romer an amendment to the Colorado state constitution (“Amendment 2”)  that would have prevented any city, town or county in the state from taking any legislative, executive, or judicial action to recognize gay and lesbian citizens as a protected class was passed by Colorado voters in a referendum. The decision in Romer set the stage for Lawrence v. Texas (2003), where the Court overruled its decision in Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), when the Court had ruled that a law criminalizing homosexual sex was constitutional.

Justice Scalia wrote (and Justices Clarence Thomas and Rehnquist concurred) that, “The problem (a problem, that is, for those who wish to retain social disapprobation of homosexuality) is that, because those who engage in homosexual conduct tend to reside in disproportionate numbers in certain communities… have high disposable income,… and of course care about homosexual rights issues much more ardently than the public at large, they possess political power much greater than their numbers, both locally and statewide.”

This is an old, argument and sadly echoes an anti-Semitic one. In essence Scalia is regurgitating the myth and misperception that because the LGBT Community is urban, rich and vocal, it possesses disproportionate political power and is not entitled to the protections of The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment under guidelines established by previous decisions.

Is it any wonder that Scalia has this impression? For if HRC is perceived to be the face of our community, the face they have presented inside the beltway is as Scalia purported. When they concurred in their dissent, Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist had obviously not encountered or chose to ignore the many transgender people, out rural lesbians, queer homeless youth, undocumented gay and lesbian students or African-American gay men from Mississippi, to name a few who don’t fit their stereotype of us as rich, politically powerful city dwellers.

But times have changed and a new generation of voices is demanding to be heard. Regardless of the image HRC next chooses to adopt, and I hope it will be less homogenous; the faces in our New Civil Rights Movement will be as diverse as the colors of the rainbow banners they carry and our new generation of young activists, be they lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or straight allies, is much less patient and far more vocal than before.

The authors of the Dallas Principles are Juan Ahonen-Jover, Ken Ahonen-Jover, John Bare, Jarrett Barrios, Dana Beyer, Jeffrey H. Campagna, Mandy Carter, Michael Coe, Jimmy Creech, Allison Duncan, Michael Guest, Joanne Herman, Donald Hitchcock, Lane Hudson, Charles Merrill, Dixon Osburn, Lisa Polyak, Barbra Casbar Siperstein, Pam Spaulding, Andy Szekeres, Lisa Turner, Jon Winkleman, and Paul Yandura.

 

Stuart Wilber lives in Seattle with his partner and cat. Equality continues to elude them.


 

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

‘Significant Damage’: Walmart’s ‘Magnitude’ Warning to Consumers Spurs Trump Tariff Critics

Published

2 hours ago

on

May 15, 2025

By

Walmart has issued a stark warning about the impact of President Donald Trump’s tariffs, cautioning that their “magnitude” will directly lead to higher prices for consumers. The nation’s largest retailer made clear it will have no choice but to pass on the increased costs. President Trump, by contrast, recently claimed that Chinese manufacturers—key suppliers for Walmart and many other retailers—would probably “eat” the tariffs.

“We will do our best to keep our prices as low as possible, but given the magnitude of the tariffs, even at the reduced levels announced this week, we aren’t able to absorb all the pressure given the reality of narrow retail margins,” Walmart CEO Doug McMillon said in a press release, according to Yahoo Finance.

Walmart CFO John David Rainey told CNBC, “we’re wired to keep prices low for customers, but the level of tariffs that have been proposed is pretty challenging for all retailers, for suppliers, and certainly our concern is that consumers are going to feel some of that.”

READ MORE: ‘Deeply Fascist’: Massive Banner of Trump on Government Building Sparks ‘North Korea’ Vibes

“We’ve not seen a period where you’ve had prices go up this high, this quickly,” he continued (video below). “We’re well equipped and experienced in dealing with elasticities or price increases that are going up 2 or 3 percent, but not 30 percent.”

Critics took the opportunity to blast President Trump’s tariffs.

Senate Democratic Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called Walmart’s warning a “canary in the coal mine for the devastation Trump’s tariffs will have on Main Street,” according to The Washington Post.

“If a retailer as big as Walmart can’t escape the pain of tariffs, what chance [do] small businesses have?” he asked.

Leader Schumer called on retailers to post how much tariffs increase the cost of each product.

READ MORE: ‘None of That Is True’: RFK Jr. Fact-Checked Repeatedly in Heated Senate Hearing

“Walmart’s announcement is a glaring reminder that even after supposedly backtracking on some of his tariffs, significant damage will not go away,” he added in a floor speech. “The chaos unleashed is eating away at retail, restaurants, small businesses, and middle class families wallets. It is still estimated these tariffs will cost thousands of dollars for each family each year.”

Cato Institute Vice President of General Economics Scott Lincicome served up this warning: “Buckle up.”

Watch the video below or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Bootlicking’: Johnson Ripped for Shrugging Off Trump Ethics Oversight

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

News

‘Deeply Fascist’: Massive Banner of Trump on Government Building Sparks ‘North Korea’ Vibes

Published

4 hours ago

on

May 15, 2025

By

A massive banner of President Donald Trump is now hanging from the outside of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s building in Washington, D.C., opposite a banner of President Abraham Lincoln. Several critics are suggesting the hanging is fascist or authoritarian, with some saying it is giving off North Korea vibes.

“Looming down from the pillared front of the neo-classical facade is an enormous, brooding picture of President Donald Trump, adapted from his official presidential portrait,” The Independent reported. “The picture of Trump is reminiscent of portraits of leaders hanging from public buildings, often seen in dictatorships, monarchies, and in descriptions in George Orwell’s 1984 of ‘Big Brother.'”

Progressive nonprofit People For the American Way posted a photo of the USDA building with the Trump banner, also saying it is “echoing authoritarian dictatorships.”

“This is deeply fascist,” observed Democracy advocate, Army combat vet, and podcaster Fred Wellman.

READ MORE: ‘None of That Is True’: RFK Jr. Fact-Checked Repeatedly in Heated Senate Hearing

“Trump is spending $92 million on a birthday military parade and plastering his face on the sides of government buildings. Washington, DC is becoming Pyongyang, North Korea,” podcaster Brian Tyler Cohen noted.

U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins posted photos of the banners being installed, while suggesting that President Trump’s policies have been good for farmers — a controversial opinion given his tariff and trade wars, and program cuts.

The Bulwark’s Tim Miller wrote: “Its interesting that these freedom loving MAGA alpha males want to institute this deeply creepy 3rd world culture where we have a national daddy that must be obeyed.”

Political analyst Rachel Bitecofer warned Trump is “going to go full Putin.”

“Welcome to North America’s North Korea!” exclaimed Russell Drew, a self-described amateur historian and political junkie.

See the social media posts above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Bootlicking’: Johnson Ripped for Shrugging Off Trump Ethics Oversight

 

Image: Public Domain photo via Wikimedia

 

Continue Reading

News

‘None of That Is True’: RFK Jr. Fact-Checked Repeatedly in Heated Senate Hearing

Published

21 hours ago

on

May 14, 2025

By

Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. lashed out as he was repeatedly corrected by U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT), who accused him of breaking his confirmation hearing promises to the committee, during a Senate hearing on Wednesday.

Secretary Kennedy repeatedly interrupted Senator Murphy, forcing the Connecticut Democrat to declare that “none” of what RFK Jr. had said was true.

“You … promised Chairman Cassidy that the FDA would not change vaccine standards from ‘historical norms,’ but what happened as soon as you were sworn in?” Senator Murphy declared. “You announced new standards for vaccine approvals that you proudly referred to in your own press release as a radical departure from current practice, and experts say that that departure will delay approvals. You also said specific to the measles vaccine that you support the measles vaccine, but you have consistently been undermining the measles vaccine. You told the public that the vaccine wanes very quickly, you went on the Dr. Phil’s show, and said that the measles vaccine was never fully tested for safety. You said there’s fetal debris in the measles vaccine.”

Kennedy interjected: “All true. All true,” he insisted. “You want me to lie to the public?”

READ MORE: ‘Bootlicking’: Johnson Ripped for Shrugging Off Trump Ethics Oversight

“None of that is true,” Murphy replied.

“Of course it’s true,” Kennedy said.

After more back and forth and an interjection from the Republican Chair, Murphy continued:

“Just this morning in front of the House of Representatives, you also said that you, in fact, would not recommend that kids get vaccinated for measles, you said you would just lay out the pros and cons. So this is the summation of everything that you have said to compromise people’s faith in the measles vaccine, in particular, is contrary to what you said before this committee.”

“You said you support the measles vaccine,” Murphy added, “but then you have laid out a set of facts that are contested, and I will submit information for the record from experts who contest what you have said about the vaccine, and the result is to undermine faith in the vaccine. It’s kind of like saying, ‘Listen, I think you should swim in that lake, but, you know, the lake is probably toxic, and there’s probably a ton of snakes and alligators in that lake, but I think you should swim in it.'”

Senator Murphy went on to challenge Secretary Kennedy, asking him point-blank, “Are you recommending the measles vaccine or not?”

Kennedy replied that during his confirmation he would “tell the truth,” and have “radical transparency.”

“Are you recommending the measles vaccine?” Murphy again asked.

“I am not going to just tell people that everything is safe and effective. If I know that there’s issues, I need to respect people’s intelligence,” Kennedy replied.

READ MORE: Trump to Middle East: ‘You’re the Envy of the World’

“You’re answering the question. I think you’re answering the question,” Murphy concluded, calling Kennedy’s remarks “really dangerous for the American public and for families in this country.”

Professor of Medicine and Surgery Dr. Jonathan Reiner, weighed in, saying: “The measles vaccine has 60 years of safety and efficacy data and was tested in a placebo controlled trial. There are no fetal parts in the vaccine. It doesn’t wane quickly. Sec Kennedy consistently misstates the facts about this vaccine. No amount of scientific data will convince him otherwise. It’s an obsession.”

Watch the video below or at this link:

READ MORE: GOP Plan Redefines Dependent Child as ‘Under 7’—But Adds Loophole for Married Couples

 

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.