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.


 

There's a reason 10,000 people subscribe to NCRM. You can get the news before it breaks just by subscribing, plus you can learn something new every day.
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

‘Fundamental Miscalculation’: Columnist Says Democrats Have ‘Little Chance’ in Midterms

Published

on

Democrats made a “fundamental miscalculation” in the redistricting wars and now have “little chance” in the November midterms, argues Eric Garcia at The Independent.

Calling the Virginia Supreme Court’s nullification of a voter-led ballot initiative that allowed the creation of four Democratic congressional districts a “massive body blow,” Garcia also points to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision “virtually nullifying the Voting Rights Act” by requiring Louisiana to redraw its congressional map. There is also the Tennessee legislature turning majority-Black Memphis into another GOP seat — erasing the only Democratic seat in that state.

“And this does not count the redrawing of congressional districts in Missouri and North Carolina before the Supreme Court decision, or Alabama, which is under a court order to not redraw its map until 2030,” Garcia says. He notes that California has been the only state to respond, doing so by adding five Democratic seats to the state.

Zachary Donnini, the head of data science at VoteHub, a political news outlet, “put it bleakly for Democrats.”

Donnini says that now, instead of having to flip just three seats to take the majority in the House, Democrats will have to flip an additional nine seats — a total of twelve in all.

Democrats tried to “lead by example,” but, Garcia says, they turned their states into “laboratories for democracy” by creating “unilateral” disarmament “on behalf of the Democrats” — an act, he labels, a “fundamental failure.”

But he offers Democrats a little hope.

Texas’s redistricting plan relied on Hispanic voters, “after flirting with Trump,” to stay aligned with the GOP. That might have changed. The situation is the same in South Florida, “where the state’s normally conservative Cuban Americans have been caught in the Trump immigration dragnet.”

Pointing to inflation, the economy overall, and Trump’s Iran war, Garcia says Republicans holding on to the House might be “even more difficult.”

Democrats, however, made a “fundamental miscalculation,” Garcia concludes. “By creating guardrails and rules, Republicans did not see a reason to compromise and meet them halfway. It made them targets for weakening. Now, Democrats have put themselves in a bind. They only have themselves to blame.”

 

Image: Public Domain by Architect of the Capitol via Flickr

Continue Reading

News

Trump Is Bored With His Iran War — Iran Isn’t: Columnist

Published

on

President Donald Trump is “bored” with his Iran war, but Iran is not — and isn’t ready for the war to be over, argues Jonathan Lemire at The Atlantic.

The president, now in a “bind,” is tired of the war he started, and has declared victory several times, while Iran “does not want the war to come to a close.”

Trump’s GOP “is warily watching rising gas prices and falling poll numbers,” while the president “doesn’t want to be bogged down in a Middle East conflict like some of his predecessors were. He doesn’t want it to upend his high-stakes summit next week in China. He is ready to move on.”

“The president, five aides and outside advisers told me, is convinced that he can sell any sort of agreement as a win. But at least for now, the man who wrote The Art of the Deal can’t even get Iran to the negotiating table.”

Iran hasn’t even responded to Trump’s one-page memo “that is far more of an extension of the cease-fire than a treaty to end the conflict.”

Trump, Lemire says, did not expect the war to go like this. After his successful excursion into Venezuela, he “set his eyes on Iran, telling confidants that it would ‘be another Venezuela,’ a pair of outside advisers told me.”

It has not been that.

Trump expected his Iran war to last days, or maybe a week or two. It has now been months.

And while administration officials believe the blockade will be successful, experts say Iran can withstand it for months, time the president, with the midterms coming, does not have.

“It then becomes a matter of pain: Which side can withstand the most economic hardship?” Lemire asks.

Trump, impatient, has debated declaring victory and moving on.

“Secretary of State Marco Rubio went so far as to say earlier this week that the war was over,” Lemire notes. “But doing so now would leave the conflict’s goals, as outlined at various times by the president and his aides, unfulfilled.”

The president, says Lemire, “wants the war to end. He wants a deal. But deals take two parties, and there’s no evidence that Iran is interested in bailing Trump out of a dilemma of his own making.”

 

Image via Reuters 

Continue Reading

News

Lauren Boebert Knows What Aliens Really Are: ‘Fallen Angels’ — and Possibly Demonic

Published

on

U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) says that aliens from outer space are actually “fallen angels and Nephilim” from the Old Testament of the Bible, according to Right Wing Watch. On Friday, President Donald Trump released declassified government UFO files.

“God is the creator of the universe,” Congresswoman Boebert says in recorded video published Friday by Right Wing Watch. “He’s never not going to create.”

The Colorado Republican lawmaker said that it’s “always been something in my mind to say, ‘Well, how can we be the only ones?’ Like, God’s not going to stop creating just with us.”

“But the more I look into this,” she continued, speaking from inside a car, “the more I see the Old Testament and what was told to us there, of fallen angels, and Nephilim.”

She defended her take by saying, “this is in the Bible,” and there’s “nothing that says that fallen angels, that Nephilim just disappeared. And so I believe that this could be an aspect of it.”

Boebert went on to say that “things that we have seen…could resemble portals,” although in the video she does not explain further.

“And, you know, I mean, this is, we serve an infinite God, a God of the universe. And to say that this is the only realm, is ignorant.”

She denied that aliens are a “Marvin the Martian kind of thing.”

“But I do believe that this is more spiritual, and if you really want to go there, demonic.”

 

Image via Shutterstock 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.