Andrew Sullivan's views on the Donald Sterling drama

Andrew Sullivan has been in a bit of hot water defending Brendan Eich.

He was a part of the letter discussing the attack against Brendan, which pissed off several LGBT activists. However, he takes a different approach with the Donald Sterling drama.

Andrew said:

To respond to each question in turn: yes, of course, if an owner of a business makes baldly racist remarks urging public dissociation from an entire racial group, private sector sanctions – from the NBA or fans or sponsors – are “permissible.” They are always permissible in a free country. That’s why Brendan Eich is out of a job. The second question is whether what is permissible is proper or justified, and that will always depend on the specific case. I think it’s obviously appropriate in the Sterling case – because the remarks are horrifyingly racist. If Brendan Eich had made comments telling his friends to keep away from faggots, if he’d used any such terminology or had ever been shown to have discriminated against gays in the workplace or in his daily interactions, then his case would be very similar. But no such comments are in the public or private record, and there’s zero evidence that he ever acted in the workplace to harm gay employees. Au contraire, which is why gay Mozilla employees were divided about his ouster, with some supporting him. Sterling’s remarks, in contrast, reveal him to be a crude, foul bigot – which is why there is no division at all among African-Americans in the league – or beyond the league – about his fate.

I think you can't compare the two incidents, but it is interesting to see Andrew's take of this.

source

Gay Conservatives release a Statement over the Resignation of Mozilla's CEO Brandon Eich

58 gay conservatives and I guess, allies, signed on a public statement condemning the "attack" on Mozilla's CEO Brendan Eich. Their post is called "Freedom To Marry, Freedom To Dissent: Why We Must Have Both."

Basically, they are pissed that we made him resign. Here's a piece of their statement:

The gay rights struggle is about freedom and equality for all. The best and most free society is one that allows the largest number to live true to their core beliefs and identities. It is a society that allows its members to speak their minds and shape their own aspirations.

The natural consequence of true liberty is diversity. Unless a society can figure out a way to reach perfect agreement, conflicting views will be inevitable. Any effort to impose conformity, through government or any other means, by punishing the misguided for believing incorrectly will impoverish society intellectually and oppress it politically.

The test of our commitment to liberal principles is not our eagerness to hear ideas we share, but our willingness to consider seriously those we oppose.

Curious? Read the rest here

The Top 10 Things EDITED from Jo Becker's book, Forcing The Spring

pic TLRD

Jo Becker got into some hot water with LGBT activists and writers. In her new book, she leaves out key parts in the marriage equality battle.

Andrew Sullivan and Dan Savage are just a few who attacked Jo for "re-writing" history. But I realized that Jo didn't put the whole truth in her book. Let me share the edited parts:

1. B613 created the HRC.
2. Michelle Obama is one of the secret donators to Get Equal.
3. After watching Noah's Arc: Jumping The Broom, President Obama evolved on Gay Marriage.
4. Ted Olsen wrote the first draft of Prop 8.
5. Brian Brown was stood up on Gay.com in 1998, which led him to organize the anti-gay group NOM.
6. HRC planted Ken Mehlman in the Bush Administration.
7. Hillary Clinton told Joe Biden to spill the beans on Meet The Press.
8. Chad Griffin is a Time Lord or the unNumbered Doctor.
9. GOProud is the shadow organization under the HRC.
10. AG Eric Holder is member of Hydra.

Interesting Quote: Alec Baldwin on his Firing

"Martin Bashir's on the air, and he made his comment on the air! I dispute half the comment I made If I called him 'cocksucking maggot' or a 'cocksucking motherfucker'... 'faggot' is not the word that came out of my mouth. That I know. But you've got the fundamentalist wing of gay advocacy— Rich Ferraro and Andrew Sullivan—they're out there, they've got you. Rich Ferraro, this is probably one of his greatest triumphs. They killed my show. And I have to take some responsibility for that myself."

Just let it go, Boo-Boo.

source

Interesting Quote: Andrew Sullivan

Change of this magnitude is extremely hard. That it is also frustrating, inadequate, compromised, flawed, and beset with bribes and trade-offs does not, in my mind, undermine it. Obama told us it would be like this - and it is.

And those who backed him last year would do better, to my mind, if they appreciated the difficulty of this task and the diligence and civility that Obama has displayed in executing it.

Yes, we have. And yes, we still are the ones we've been waiting for - if we still care enough to swallow purism and pride and show up for the less emotionally satisfying grind of real, practical, incremental reform.

And this is from one of Obama's harshest critics.

source

Question of the Day

Should HRC's president, Joe Solmonese be fired? Many folks think so, but I haven't found anything completely concrete?

Am I missing something?

What folks (haters) had to say about Obama's Speech

Obama said what he had to say. I thought his speech was good to hear, no it wasn't new stuff but it was reassurance. However to many haters and tough critics, it wasn't enough.

John Avarosis

All in all, the evening was a disappointment, but not unexpected. President Obama doesn't do controversy, and we, my friends, are controversy. So, the bad blood between this administration and the gay community will remain, and continue to worsen. It's unfortunate, but at some point you have to have enough dignity to say enough is enough. The Obama administration doesn't respect our community, and doesn't respect the seriousness of our cause. It's our job to hold them accountable. And we will.

Andrew Sullivan

But the point of electing a president who pledged to actually do things is to hold him to account, and to see if he is willing to take any risk of any kind to actually do something. I had a few prior tests of his seriousness or signs that he gets it, a few ways to judge if this speech had anything new or specific or clear. He failed every test.

Dan Savage

So long as the president refuses to remove DADT from his own plate—and I'm not holding my breath—I don't have much sympathy for him where his plate is concerned. Yeah, there's a lot on his plate. No doubt. But until he takes DADT off his plate I'm not interested in listing to him or his apologists whine.

Queerty... just see for yourself

Of course, they wasn't pleased. You can't please them. However, here's a few things they need to remember.

• Obama will keep the majority of the LGBT community on his side. Let's be real... Where else are we going to go?
• A timeline for a repeal is not realistic. I think it's best to work continuously on any repeal so it will get done right. It may takes months or a year. Again, we want this done RIGHT, right?
  
• If none of you have a realistic tangible plan, then shut it up! What is your plan Dan, John, Andrew and the twinks at Queerty?
  
• Go to Congress, bitches!
• And get over yourselves. Believe it or not, most of us are not feeling you or your rants. To be real part 2, you are not the voices of the gays.
  

Do we need HRC?

Andrew Sullivan wrote an interesting article about the relevance of the Human Rights Campaign. He feels that the group came up short in its support of No on Prop 8. Andrew has never been a fan of HRC, but in this article I can almost understand why.

In the biggest rise to battle, HRC was not really as vocal as some of the grassroots groups. Joe Solmonese wrote a letter addressing some of issues we already have discussed. And in someways, he wants us to be nice. But I needed to hear more from this group. I needed to know what else do they have in store for the battle.

Andrew would like to know as well. He really wasn't feeling the HRC and had this to say:

HRC claims to have spent $3.4 million on No On 8. The Mormon church was able to spend over $20 million, by appealing to its members. Why are non-gay Mormons more capable of organizing and fund-raising on a gay rights measure than the biggest national gay rights group? I mean: they claim (absurdly, but bear with me) 725,000 supporters and members. In the summer, the major problem for No On 8 was insufficient early funding. If HRC had led, they could have thrown their money weight behind it. If every supporter had given $20 - chump change for the biggest ever battle yet for civil rights - they could have delivered $14 million overnight. So why didn't they?

That's a very good question. Sure there are a lot of Mormons, but with all of the HRC star-studded galas, funraisers, and big time events, shouldn't they been ready for war? I, like Andrew is concern over the reactive stance of HRC. I need them to act like the JLA, be out there fighting for us, not coming in at the last minute. I need to feel secure in their purpose, as well as, secure in their existence. I'm not so sure that we need them, some of grassroots groups are doing just fine. And all the money they get from us, what is it really going to?

Right now, I wonder if HRC is a after High School popular club for the gays that were picked on. I wonder are they really working for us or just title-hungry folks. I need you to be more HRC, we need you to be more. Please step it up.