Long story short: HRC and several other big name organizations formed a coalition, United for Marriage, for the purpose of getting out the word to the masses about marriage equality and the pending oral arguments on both California Prop 8 and DOMA before the US Supreme Court last week. Using the enormous capital, respect, and connections that these groups have developed over 30+ years of lobbying and activism in Washington, D.C., they were granted the rare ability to set up a speakers’ dais IN FRONT OF THE GOD DAMN US SUPREME COURT on the days of oral arguments. And then they set some rules about what the stage would look like, which flags would fly, who could speak, and, apparently, what they could say.
I mean, can you imagine the free-for-all it would have been had every flag under the sun been waving and everyone with the balls to stand up could say whatever they wanted to say?
So, when the trans* community tried to erect a flag immediately behind the speakers’ podium, United for Marriage said, “We’re thrilled you’re here, but the only flags we are going to erect are U.S. flags, to show that marriage is an American issue, not a LGBT* issue.” Can you imagine the consequences if United for Marriage had allowed the trans* flag but no one else’s? Or only some LGBT organizations but not all? Or hadn’t given enough advance notice for every organization under the sun to erect their own flag? The entirety of the US SupCo building would have been obscured by so many flags that no one would have bothered to actually give a shit about who was and was not represented or what they were trying to say.
And when the Queer United Immigrant Project (QUIP) people were invited by United for Marriage to speak, restrictions were imposed. QUIP is PISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSED! They were asked, allegedly by HRC, to limit their comments to marriage equality, because that was the god damn point of the rally in the first fucking place. Immigration reform is a huge issue, and one that I have my finger on as an LGBT activist. And there are elements of immigration reform that clearly implicate this country’s ongoing refusal to treat gay and lesbian couples as equals. The comments from QUIP, however, were not limited to immigration policy as it relates to marriage. They went beyond the scope and purpose of the United for Marriage rally and would have been a distraction from the actual issues that the US Supreme Court–you know, the highest court in the entire country–has agreed to consider.
There is a time and place for everything. To blame United for Marriage and HRC for wanting people to stay on topic–a topic that again, I will remind you, was selected to be considered by the 9 Justices of the god damn Supreme Court–doesn’t seem all that onerous of an ask to me. The Justices weren’t considering LGBT immigration issues, except as they might relate to MARRIAGE for godssakes. WAKE UP AND PAY ATTENTION!
HRC has issued an apology. For what, I’m not sure. I wish they hadn’t. Why? Because, without being too much of a bitch, I would like to ask the following rhetorical question and then give you the answers to the question:
Dear Trans* Organizations and QUIP and everyone else who bitches about HRC’s rules and conventions for moving the LGBT community closer and closer to full equality and inclusion:
Question: If you do not like the rules that United for Marriage (including HRC) set for this event, then why don’t you organize your own speakers’ podium and rally in front of the US Supreme Court so that you can wave as many flags and say whatever you want?
Answers:
- HRC and the coalition partners have 30+ years of relationships and respect and trust and political capital, so when they ask to set up a speakers’ dais in front of the US Supreme Court, they are permitted to do it. We don’t have the same political capital that comes with 30 YEARS OF RELATIONSHIP BUILDING, so we have to rely on other organizations’ resources.
- We do not have the media attention that HRC and its coalition partners have after 30 YEARS OF PUBLIC RELATIONS AND MEDIA COMMUNICATIONS, so media outlets would not have paid us much attention if we had our own podium. [Side Bar: I mean, if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it . . . does it make a sound? I don’t know, but if no one is there to hear it, then who the fuck cares if it makes a sound?]
- Setting up a speakers’ podium, including lighting and sound systems and all of the accoutrements necessary to have a rally with speakers is expensive and costs money and we don’t have enough to do it ourselves. We don’t even know where to go or who to ask to set up a rally and media presser like the one United for Marriage pulled off last week.
- Having a speakers’ podium implies that you will actually have speakers. HRC and the coalition partners have 30 YEARS OF RELATIONSHIPS with people who can speak eloquently and intelligently on the issue of marriage equality, which, we almost forgot, is the issue before the Supreme Court. We don’t have those types of relationships. It would have simply been us, standing there on the steps of the Supreme Court, probably talking mostly off topic (and, BTW, the topic was marriage equality on March 26/27, nothing else).
Quit whining. Politics is a game, and there are rules to the game. None of us–including the United for Marriage coalition–particularly like the rules because they require us to take baby-steps and to make Sophie’s choices on our march to full equality. But the rules, whether express or implied (mostly implied) exist, plain and simple. If you don’t want to play by the rules, the niceties, the conventions, the guidelines, then I invite you to strike out on your own and create another model. I would caution you, however, that after nearly 4 decades, not many other models have surfaced that are as successful or respected as the model used by the United for Marriage coalition partners, including HRC.
Most importantly, stop looking the gift horse in the mouth. Do not try to step up onto the stage that United for Marriage partners have set for you (literally and figuratively) and then complain that you have suffered discrimination by them because you don’t like their rules and conventions.
Finally, I want to note a real problem I see with HRC detractors. Some of you want HRC and the other partners to be all-inclusive, but you want them to be inclusive only on your narrow, often myopic terms. Pragmatism is in short supply, it would appear, but I think it would do some good for certain groups and organizations to quit looking at HRC as the enemy and try to learn from its vast experiences, both wins and losses. Think of HRC kind of like a mentor. And you would all do well to assume good, not bad, intent on HRC’s part. Do you honestly believe that the people who work and volunteer tirelessly for HRC don’t have the best interests of all LGBT people in heart and in mind? If you do, then you are projecting your own provincial approach to activism in my humble opinion.