Andrew Sullivan has a scathing critique of the Human Rights Campaign's utter failure to remain relevant in the battle for marriage equality. Nothing that their website has but one mention of the protests nationwide this past weekend (in which up to 1,000,000 LGBT people and allies may have participated), he claims that their stuck on an agenda that has little relevance to LGBT people today:
Even now, in Washington, they are sticking with the same legislative agenda they have had for two decades: a trivial piece of hate crimes grandstanding and ENDA, which is moot in many states. They endorsed Obama on June 6 - only after the Clintons gave them permission. The endorsement was written by a low level staffer. Civil unions at a federal level? That again would require leadership. We were promised ENDA and hate crimes in the last session. What we got was an end to the HIV immigration ban - an issue HRC didn't even ask the presidential candidates about in their questionnaire, and which was pioneered by others (although HRC did come through with Congressional lobbying in the end). It's not that they do nothing; it's that it's rarely enough; and never with sufficient energy or vision.
It's time gay people realized that this group is often part of the problem, and rarely part of the solution. It needs to be swept clean of its deadwood, overhauled, or if it persists in its ways, defunded. When we are in a civil rights movement and the biggest organization is essentially a passive observer and excuse-maker, it's time to demand better.
Sullivan's right. But let's be clear: There are good, smart people working at HRC. The problem isn't so much a matter of their employees -- but rather their organizational structure. HRC was built on a highly bureaucratic, centralized model of lobbying / representation that will inevitably stay out of touch with the communities on whose behalf it claims to speak. So I don't want anyone to get the idea that we should be bashing individuals who work there. We shouldn't be. They're not the issue at hand.
Sullivan isn't the first to lodge complaints against the organization. Queer lefties have been boycotting HRC for at least a decade now, mostly due to their conservative single-issue agenda that whitewashed and sanitized LGBT people in their claims for equality at the expensive of marginalized and less PG-rated groups within these communities. But with Sullivan joining the bandwagon of people calling for an end (or at the very least a radical restructuring) to the organization, we may be seeing the approach of a critical mass of critics.
Can HRC refuse to heed their calls any longer?
