HRC

No, the other HRC -- the gay rights HRC. I, like many others, have my problems with HRC, GLAAD, and the other national gay rights groups, but my differences are a matter of strategy and priorities. I'm not going to fall into the trap of condemning them for, in Andrew Sullivan's words, "merging" with the Democratic Party. Sullivan's rhetoric on this issue has been slanted and self-serving. One of his readers sent a rejoinder, with which I agree. After all, when even the Log Cabin Republicans can't support the Republican candidate for president, I'd say the party has a problem:

In saying merely that the GOP has shown a contempt for gay voters, you are being far too fair. The more accurate statement is that the GOP has built its base on a political ideology that demonizes gays. And also feminists. And scientists. And anyone who doesn't hold traditional Jewish or Christian views. That IS the culture war. When that old-fashioned God and gay hatred are used to define one side, that puts a lot of us on the other. And what are the rest of us to do, in our political efforts in a two-party system? Treat equally the party that demonizes us and the party that welcomes us?

It doesn't seem to me that Sullivan has been saying we should support the Republicans, but what he does seem to be saying is that we should spurn the Democrats. Leaving us with what?

As for the scheduled HRC "debate" between the three Democratic front runners, I have no patience with it. If we're going to have candidates discuss their positions on gay rights, let's get in the ones who actually support us without reservation, like Mike Gravel, not just the ones who are trying to woo Bush's base. It's not up to HRC to decide who's "viable" at this stage of the game. There's still almost a year and a half to go.