The leadership of the Human Rights Campaign, at a meeting last weekend in Las Vegas, concluded that the group must bow to political reality and moderate its message and its goals. One official said the group would consider supporting President Bush's efforts to privatize Social Security partly in exchange for the right of gay partners to receive benefits under the program.These are tough choices. I remember opposition to civil rights legislation in the 1960s that was based on the idea that "you can't legislate morality." The argument was that you have to change people's hearts and not force change on them. In retrospect, that seems like a completely inadequate reason to oppose the legislation. But there is a tipping point, where enough people agree with you and those who disagree look like laggards who deserve to be pushed up to speed. What was learned in the last election and what has motivated the Human Rights Campaign to moderate their strategy is that not enough people do agree with them yet.
"The feeling this weekend in Las Vegas was that we had to get beyond the political and return to the personal," said Michael Berman, a Democratic lobbyist and consultant who was elected the first non-gay co-chairman of the Human Rights Campaign's board last week. "We need to reintroduce ourselves to America with the stories of our lives."
As the article notes, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force disagrees with this new moderation. Its executive director Matt Foreman says:
"A lot of gay people understand the concept of bullies. The worst thing you can do with a bully is not fight back because you'll only get hit harder the next day."
The passion behind that statement is understandable. But I'm sure people who oppose gay marriage also feel that they are being bullied, and it's hard to see the political sense of ratcheting up the hostilities. Notably, Representatives Barney Frank and Tammy Baldwin are supporting the more pragmatic, moderate approach.
पोस्ट्स
कोणत्याही टिप्पण्या नाहीत:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा