First published in the Washington Blade, May 19, 2006
Ever since Howard Dean went on Pat Robertson's "700 Club" to proclaim (inaccurately) that the Democratic Party platform calls for "marriage between a man and a woman," the party chair has received a chorus of condemnation from gay rights groups and even gay Democrats.
Patrick Guerriero, the Log Cabin Republicans president, was predictably caustic, quipping that, "Howard Dean puts his foot in his mouth so often that he should open a pedicure wing in the DNC."
That was actually charitable, given that Dean's pronouncement on Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network wasn't another of his famous gaffes; he's said the same thing too many times after being told it misrepresents the party's official stance, which is to leave the issue to the states to resolve.
Dean's deliberate misstatement was the latest in a series of disses that ought to convince even the most ardent gay partisan that the Democrats, tasting a return to power after six years on the outs, aren't about to let gay rights stand in the way.
Dean is clearly betting that gay Americans are so disgusted with six years of Republican-controlled Washington that he can afford to anger a few activists while moving the party to the political center. The strategy isn't new; Republicans have been doing it with the Christian conservatives since the Reagan years.
But Dean is miscalculating for two important reasons: First and foremost, gay Americans are fighting for their own civil rights, unlike their counterparts on the right, who are pushing to limit someone else's freedoms. One reason America's history reflects progress by minorities despite hostility from the majority is that the minorities are far more motivated than their foes, not to mention the "mushy middle" that doesn't feel strongly one way or the other.
Second, by treating gay civil rights like just another "special interest" to be alternatively pandered to or ignored, Dean and the Dems only contribute to their party's worst image problem: that of a do-nothing party without clear positions, principles or a plan.
You can forgive Howard Dean for thinking he can get away with it. After all, the nation's richest gay political group has long been willing to play lapdog to the Democratic Party, even after Dean's repeated disses.
It is a central article of faith at the Human Rights Campaign that the success of the gay rights movement is inexorably linked to the success of the Democratic Party, and herein lies the single biggest internal obstacle to equality for gay Americans.
There's no question, of course, that Democrats in general, and almost always in particular, are better on gay rights than their Republican counterparts. And gay rights legislation no doubt stands a greater likelihood of passage if Democrats control Congress -- though history suggests otherwise.
But that doesn't mean that gay rights leaders should sacrifice the movement at the altar of the Democratic Party, and continue crafting their message off the DNC's transparently political talking points.
Yet that's what we see, time and time again, especially at HRC, whose leader Joe Solmonese came from Emily's List, a partisan Democrat group.
True, HRC issued an angry press release after Dean's "700 Club" dalliance, slamming his "serious lack of leadership" on the issue of gay marriage. So why, days later, was Solmonese once again following him?
On Tuesday afternoon, Dean's DNC issued a press release taking to task Bill Frist, the Senate GOP Leader, for ignoring First Lady Laura Bush's recent advice about not using gay marriage "as a campaign tool." Frist and the Republicans don't need to be engaged on the issue of gay marriage, the press release argues, because they're really just trying to change the subject from their own political problems.
(Typical of the Democrats' stealth defense of gays, the primary target audience for the DNC statement was apparently gays. The release isn't posted on the DNC website.)
Still, despite Dean's "serious lack of leadership" on gay marriage, Solmonese and HRC were quick to play follower. Just one hour after the DNC press release went out, HRC issued its "Amen, sister!" reply.
Titled "Senator Frist Pushing a Campaign Strategy Opposed by First Lady Laura Bush," the HRC press release hits all the same talking points, accusing Frist of not taking Laura Bush's sage advice.
Besides the lapdog posture, HRC's willingness to do Dean's Dems' bidding causes lasting harm to the gay rights movement.
Rather than actually defend gay families and make the case for gay marriage, HRC is stuck in a three-year strategy of arguing that the American people don't -- and shouldn't! -- care about marriage equality for gay couples.
"Voters want candidates focused on soaring gas prices, a health care crisis and national security," Solmonese says in the release, "not putting discrimination in the United States Constitution."
What sort of gay rights strategy is it, when the attention of Americans is focused on our issues, to argue that our rights aren't important, and refuse to engage our opponents in the debate over our equality?
Sure it makes political sense for Dean and the DNC to issue press releases, delivered only to us, defending us, and then have the party's senators respond to conservative attacks on our families by arguing that the issue isn't as important as rising gas prices. But what self-respecting gay rights group would echo that argument?
Can anyone imagine Martin Luther King Jr., responding to an attempt to rollback the gains of the Civil Rights Movement by arguing that the issue shouldn't be debated because rising gas prices are more important?
Worst of all, HRC's lapdog strategy reeks of lacking confidence in the arguments for our own equality.