I thought this letter of mine might be of interest to folks around here, so I've posted it for all to read.


www.mpetrelis.blogspot.com

[This email sent to: eb@hrc.org, david.smith@hrc.org, mark.shields@hrc.org.]


July 16, 2003

Elizabeth Birch
Human Rights Campaign
Washington, DC

Dear Ms. Birch:

One of the most important issues for your organization and the gay community is securing equal marriage rights for gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender individuals.

The Human Rights Campaign's survey of Democratic presidential hopefuls shows that two of the leading candidates, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean and Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, oppose equal marriage rights for the gay community. [Source: http://www.hrc.org/campaigns/2004/candidat...est_summary.pdf .]

So I was quite dismayed and shocked to learn that you have personally donated money to them.

According to Federal Election Commission records, on September 30, 2002, you donated $1,000 to Dean's presidential campaign, on April 25, 2002, you contributed $1,000 to Kerry's senatorial reelection bid. [Source: http://www.tray.com ]

When you write a check to presidential candidates who are against full access to the institution of marriage for our community, in my opinion, you send a message that it's acceptable to oppose our right to marry and still receive funds from the leader of America's largest political organization.

I ask that you request a refund from Dean and Kerry, to show them that until they come out and endorse equal marriage rights for our community, they won't receive any donations from you.

Anything less delivers a mixed message to candidates who aspire to the White House.

Please have Dean and Kerry immediately return your donation to their presidential and senatorial campaigns.

Regards,
Michael Petrelis
2215-R Market Street, #413
San Francisco, CA 94114
PH: 415-621-6267

Well, I'm suffering a quandary now...I just promised HRC Washington, D.C. a contribution later this year (and, I would have been more than happy to give, as in past years), and now, I think I'll wait to hear if you get a reply.

Glad this thread is printable and savable (I guess I'll have to create a back-up copy for my records).

Thanks, Petrelis - wow... :confused: ...I really want an explanation. I understand that HRC needs to cover as many bases as possible without sacrificing integrity; yet, I want to hear on this from her.

- - - - -

BTW, I saw one of my friends listed on that site! I guess you can check up on ANYONE to see where their political donation are going! eek!

[ July 16, 2003, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: bluebird48234 ]

What gives you the right to demand that Elizabeth Birch ask Kerry and Dean for a refund? I'm not discounting the importance of marriage for gays, but your letter reminds me of some of those pro-life conservatives that focus only on one issue, at the expense of all others.

Seems like Ms. Birch donated to the campaigns that likely have the best chance of gaining the Dem nomination for President. Should she have instead thrown that money away on losers like Dennis Kucinich or Big Al Sharpton in order to appease those in the gay community who demand that she do as they say? Leave the woman alone...I can understand your ire if she donated to Bush or the Republican, but c'mon!

Further, there are plenty of gay folks out there -- like myself -- that don't give a rat's ass about calling something "marriage" -- just as long as we have the same rights as heterosexual couples under the law -- something Governor Dean fully supports. (I believed Kerry felt the same way -- but I haven't heard him say it as clearly and recent statements have left me cold.)

Let churches have marriage -- I want equality.

But while the emotions on this are simple, the law is not. Not supporting bills that demand marriage equality for same-sex couples on the federal level is NOT the same as not supporting marriage equality for same-sex couples.

The government has no business defining marriage, in my opinion. But when it has, it's been done on the state level. And when the federal government has said anything about it, it's typically been ugly (like DOMA).

So in other words, this isn't a battle that's going to be won by the federal government stepping in and demanding all states change their laws, and I don't think it should be. It's something, like gun control, that needs will be decided by each state. What we need is someone in federal power who will not stand in the way of the state's decisions and who is not beholden to a constituency who would put their own theological beliefs before the Constitution.

There are plenty of positions the HRC has taken in the past that I don't support. But this isn't one of them.

(I also don't feel comfortable with the idea of telling a person -- no matter who they work for or what position they hold -- where they should make their political donations -- unless I'm a consumer and they are spending my money for said donation -- but even then, I vote with my wallet by not giving them any more cash, not tell them what to think. Perhaps you think it sends a mixed message for Birch to donate -- but Citizen Birch is entitled to hold opinions that may not be in-line with the gay community or even the HRC and to give that money accordingly.)

Also, isn't Governor and Dr. Howard Dean the man who's put his career--and life--on the line by signing the nation's ONLY civil union bill? Doesn't that stand for something? Because while I couldn't give a damn about the HRC with its screwed up politics, I certainly am glad that people are supporting a candidate like Howard Dean, who is smart, has a vision for this country, and would represent a 100% turnaround ideologically and politically from the person who now occupies the White House. Dean's actions concerning equality for homosexuals speak for themselves.

From the original post, I am assuming here that we are talking about Ms. Birch's own $$, and not HRCs, being donated. In that case, what is the problem? Although she heads (for now) the largest gay rights group in the country, she is also a private citizen who can donate to those politicians she chooses.

private citizen or not, when she does something, it reflects on the HRC.

I am currently rethinking my support for one of the candidates because of this issue.

With everything going on, marriage or whatever you want to call it should be an issue for gays and lesbians and who we support for office.

Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by "[w]ith everything that's going on." Is it worth winning the battle of gay marriage by trouncing on someone's free speech? I personally don't think so. Stepping on some basic rights in the pursuits of others isn't the way to a lasting victory.

Maybe my defense of this position is skewed because I don't agree with the original poster's reading of the candidates' stands on gay marriage.
But I've defended the right to speak for a lot more offensive speech than a campaign donation.

Folks I know would find it funny that I'm actually defending something to do with the HRC, since I'm usually the guy who scoffs at the = sticker -- but there you go. Sometimes ideological similarities do trump political differences.

WHATEVER she does, I respect her and the HRC enough to be open-minded. Yet, taking our money, she and/or the HRC has the American duty (at least, in spirit) to put on the table what that financial strategy is AND LET DONORS DECIDE WITH COMPLETE DISCLOSURE OF RELATED FACTS.

To call Howard Dean an "anti-gay marriage Dem" is misleading. As someone else pointed out, Governor Dean signed the nation's first and only civil union bill, which gives same-sex couples in Vermont the same legal rights enjoyed by married couples. That Dean did so even though the majority of Vermonters opposed the bill underscores both his unabashed support for gay and lesbian civil rights and his political courage.

I don't care whether the state calls my relationship a "civil union" or a "marriage"; what I want is to make sure that the state extends to my boyfriend and me the same rights -- and the same responsibilities -- that it confers on my straight friends who are married. Governor Dean strongly supports this principle, despite the political risks. For doing so (and for lots of other reasons), he deserves a great deal of respect.

Id like to all remind you that youve been misguided by the HRC for years. Theyre just another money grubbing PAC with political being a loose term.

The HRC has been just another office for self aspiring gay folks to deem themselves self-important in the world of US policy.

Can we look back and see that theyve done anything for us? For human rights? For anyones rights?

Other than the right to have a neat logo sticker for my car, I havent seen anything. 2 guys caught having sex on their apartment floor have done more for this country in the line of gay rights than the multimillion dollar collecting HRC!