Joe Solomnese Appears on Hardball To Discuss President Obama's LGBTI Policy Moves - Lez Get Real

We’re about ready to storm the castle, and no, this time it isn’t just a few people and Andre the Giant. Right now, many gays, lesbians and transpeople are furious over President Barack Obama’s administration’s slow pace on LGBTI rights. While there have been a few gestures in our direction, they have not addressed the issues head on, specifically the Defense of Marriage Act and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. It has been uncomfortable for Joe Solomnese of the Human Right’s Council. The fired up LGBTI base are pressing him on these issues, and he is finding a difficult time getting anything through Congress. The effectiveness of the HRC’s lobbying efforts have been brought into question. Recently, Solomnese appeared on Hardball along side Lorri Jean to discuss the growing impatience that the LGBTI community is showing towards President Obama. (video)

[get over it]

We need to get off our asses! The only way anyone will remotely listen is to have a
MILLION GAY MARCH IN WASHINGTON D.C!!!!!!
Come on people we need to UNITE and let people know we are not going away! We will not be pushed down! WE NEED TO DEMAND COMPLETE EQUALITY! Nothing more, nothing less! EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW! ALL GLBT, SUPPORTERS OF OURS, ANYONE ON OUR SIDE..........WE MUST TAKE A UNITED STAND!!!! SOON!!! THE TIME IS NOW!!!

[Rose T-H]

get over it wrote:

We need to get off our asses! The only way anyone will remotely listen is to have a
MILLION GAY MARCH IN WASHINGTON D.C!!!!!!
Come on people we need to UNITE and let people know we are not going away! We will not be pushed down! WE NEED TO DEMAND COMPLETE EQUALITY! Nothing more, nothing less! EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW! ALL GLBT, SUPPORTERS OF OURS, ANYONE ON OUR SIDE..........WE MUST TAKE A UNITED STAND!!!! SOON!!! THE TIME IS NOW!!!

I agree......so who leads us and how do we get this moving.

[Daniel P from Long Island]

Obamaniac is a typical lying politician and a typical black homophobe.

IMPEACH this bum !

[Inquisitarian]

Marching on DC will accomplish nothing. We've done it before, and it was great for networking, but it doesn't do zip to change anyone's mind on the legal issues.

Demand equality all you like. But you won't get it by making demands. You'll get it by persuading the people at home, in the community where you live, one at a time, by the example you set in that community, and through learning how to persuasively argue the issues without making people feel threatened. You have to pick who to talk to, what to say to them, when and where to say it, and why you're saying it very carefully.

Marching in protest, waving rainbow flags, chanting slogans, getting in people's faces with angry demands or outrageous behavior pursued for its shock value won't get the job done, and some of this is actually counterproductive.

If you don't believe me, ask our opponents how effective protests and marches have been at persuading them.

[Sei]

Inquisitarian wrote:

Marching on DC will accomplish nothing. We've done it before, and it was great for networking, but it doesn't do zip to change anyone's mind on the legal issues.
Demand equality all you like. But you won't get it by making demands. You'll get it by persuading the people at home, in the community where you live, one at a time, by the example you set in that community, and through learning how to persuasively argue the issues without making people feel threatened. You have to pick who to talk to, what to say to them, when and where to say it, and why you're saying it very carefully.
Marching in protest, waving rainbow flags, chanting slogans, getting in people's faces with angry demands or outrageous behavior pursued for its shock value won't get the job done, and some of this is actually counterproductive.
If you don't believe me, ask our opponents how effective protests and marches have been at persuading them.

Our opponents will never be persuaded no matter how much they get to know us. One of Reverend Pat Robertson's good friends was a gay man and he continued to spew bile on this issue for a long time. Reverend Warren talks about having a lot of gay friends, and yet he still talks about homosexuality being like pedophilia. Those who do not like gays, lesbians, and transpeople will not like us any more if we get out there and get to know them. For some of them, their hatred is so embedded that they will turn us out of their families rather than acknowledge even having one of us as a relative.

The outrageous behavior will not change things, but the protests and the marches do have an effect. After all, you can look at the Civil Rights Movement of the '50's and 60's, until it becomes rioting in the streets, marches have an effect.

[Inquisitarian]

Sei wrote:

<quoted text>
Our opponents will never be persuaded no matter how much they get to know us. One of Reverend Pat Robertson's good friends was a gay man and he continued to spew bile on this issue for a long time. Reverend Warren talks about having a lot of gay friends, and yet he still talks about homosexuality being like pedophilia. Those who do not like gays, lesbians, and transpeople will not like us any more if we get out there and get to know them. For some of them, their hatred is so embedded that they will turn us out of their families rather than acknowledge even having one of us as a relative.

I acknowledge the above to sadly be true. However, it doesn't square with what followed:

Sei wrote:

The outrageous behavior will not change things, but the protests and the marches do have an effect. After all, you can look at the Civil Rights Movement of the '50's and 60's, until it becomes rioting in the streets, marches have an effect.

I have to disagree - marching and protesting is a lot less likely to persuade people than interpersonal dialogue. What, you think that these people are suddenly going to give in because they're scared we might riot? More likely, they'll call for our further repression by trying to limit our right to peaceably assemble.

It's true that there are people who aren't the least bit persuaded by knowing someone gay, engaging them in dialogue, etc. Some people are so entirely close-minded that it's not worth the effort.

But those people are hopefully in the minority. What's needed is to persuade a critical mass of the people who aren't so entrenched. That takes a lot of time, and a lot of one-on-one personal engagement. Marching in protest is not a shortcut. It's effectiveness is considerably more limited - especially when it deteriorates into little more than an annual party.

[WeTheSheeple]

get over it wrote:

We need to get off our asses! The only way anyone will remotely listen is to have a
MILLION GAY MARCH IN WASHINGTON D.C!!!!!!
Come on people we need to UNITE and let people know we are not going away! We will not be pushed down! WE NEED TO DEMAND COMPLETE EQUALITY! Nothing more, nothing less! EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW! ALL GLBT, SUPPORTERS OF OURS, ANYONE ON OUR SIDE..........WE MUST TAKE A UNITED STAND!!!! SOON!!! THE TIME IS NOW!!!

Yeah, because the last million whatever march was sooooooo successful! Who was marching again?

If you want to do something then call, write, or visit your reps in congress. They are the ones who need to move on this issue, and direct contact is WAY more effective than a parade. Talk to your friends & neighbors & coworkers and encourage them to call/write/visit your reps in congress. Call all your old high school and/or college and/or military buddies and have them call/write/visit their reps in congress. Talk to...(you get the point)

If you feel you absolutely must march, then march as an openly GLBT in you local 4th of July parade.

[OutVoice]

Joe Solomnese did NOT mobilize the GLBT community! That is an outright untruth. Personally cannot find three people who say he or HRC had anything to do with thier political involvement. The extreme frustration with Bush and the general political tone was the power. This does nothing to garner Solomnese any respect. Sounds like another untruthful and headline grabbing politician to me.
I agree marches are exciting and attention getting. However each one of us loudly holding our elected officials to the issues will get faster results. Suggestive violence and unthought activism is irresponsible and negative. Think first, then act.

[Sei]

Inquisitarian wrote:

<quoted text>
I acknowledge the above to sadly be true. However, it doesn't square with what followed:
<quoted text>
I have to disagree - marching and protesting is a lot less likely to persuade people than interpersonal dialogue. What, you think that these people are suddenly going to give in because they're scared we might riot? More likely, they'll call for our further repression by trying to limit our right to peaceably assemble.
It's true that there are people who aren't the least bit persuaded by knowing someone gay, engaging them in dialogue, etc. Some people are so entirely close-minded that it's not worth the effort.
But those people are hopefully in the minority. What's needed is to persuade a critical mass of the people who aren't so entrenched. That takes a lot of time, and a lot of one-on-one personal engagement. Marching in protest is not a shortcut. It's effectiveness is considerably more limited - especially when it deteriorates into little more than an annual party.

If you look at the history of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1950's and 1960's, the people who stated just as you did that we should change behavior through interpersonal dialogue were in power for some time. It got them just about nowhere. Once the protests started, then things began to change.

In many ways, you are talking about two different things. You are talking about social and political change and confusing the two.

You see, the interpersonal dialogue works wonders for social change. We are seeing that right now. The more of us who come out, the more of us who talk to other people, the more society accepts us.

The problem is, that does not work for political change. Getting to know people and getting them to know us doesn't change lobbyists, it doesn't change the political structure, and it sure as heck doesn't change the laws. For that, we need political pressure. That means peaceful protests. That means scathing editorials. That means getting the politicians to dance to our tune.

Just getting people comfortable with us won't get us anywhere. It's all in the histories. So long as we do not start sequestering ourselves away or start rioting in the streets, change will happen. Political change HAS to come from protests. Social change HAS to come from getting to know people.

Just take a look at what our movement has managed in the last three decades? How much of that has come just from getting people comfortable with us? There were marches and protests in here VT before we passed marriage equality. The same in New Hampshire and Maine. They were not huge, but they were visible.

Acting as if, somehow, we're going to get our rights just by sitting in a room talking to someone is foolish. Going to the extreme and rioting, looting, and hurting people will also accomplish nothing. But, until there is pressure on the politicians to change what is going on, nothing will happen.

Right now, the majority of Americans support repeal of DADT. They have for the last two years! Until we are making a cry about it, nothing will happen.

[get over it]

Women did not get the right to vote by persuasion! Blacks did not get equality by persuasion! We did not become a free country by persuading England! All were fought. Now i am in NO WAY advocating violence of any kind whatsoever! But persuasion alone is NOT enough! How long have we been persuading for ENDA? DADT? DOMA? I would never be an advocate for being demanding if it was something so over the top like a 'child demanding ice cream before she had her dinner!' But we can demand equality! Equal protection under the law! Writing to your representatives is not enough! I am not talking about angry demands and outrageous behavior either.
Peacefull, but forceful protest in UNITY!! WE DESERVE IT!
And we cannot just go around repeating the same thing that Obama is a bum...impeach him--Daniel P!!! I do not care what anyone says, but he is the best we have had as a president for our cause!
I ask all of you... HOW LONG HAS IT BEEN SINCE STONEWALL OR SINCE HARVEY MILK? Too long! Women and blacks did not have to, from when they started protesting, wait so long for equality!
WHAT WOULD HARVEY MILK DO IF HE WERE HERE WITH US NOW?

[get over it]

you are brilliant sei

[Sergio23]

OutVoice wrote:

Joe Solomnese did NOT mobilize the GLBT community! That is an outright untruth. Personally cannot find three people who say he or HRC had anything to do with thier political involvement. The extreme frustration with Bush and the general political tone was the power. This does nothing to garner Solomnese any respect. Sounds like another untruthful and headline grabbing politician to me.
I agree marches are exciting and attention getting. However each one of us loudly holding our elected officials to the issues will get faster results. Suggestive violence and unthought activism is irresponsible and negative. Think first, then act.

Some gay friends of mine forwarded an email from HRC to me several months ago. While it did not change my opinion (I was already a supporter of marriage equality), in all fairness I have to say that the messages from HRC did influence me to be more actively involved.

One of the reasons I lurk (and occasionally post) here and on other threads is that I'm curious about strategy. How do we reach straight people in the middle? The wing-nuts, fundies, etc., are not reachable, IMHO. Waiting for the natural evolution of consciousness as more and more people get to know their gay colleagues and neighbors seems too passive and will take too long. So, HRC and similar efforts might be important.

What do you think?

[OutVoice]

I agree they are important. Just don't think Solmnese and HRC have the clout they claim. Glad they are making a difference. Not looking to close anyone down. But saying that a lobbyist had that social clout is just not relaistic. Not focused. INMH we gain more and more quickly but being visible and making individual change. But in all cases thanks for your post!

Sergio23 wrote:

<quoted text>
Some gay friends of mine forwarded an email from HRC to me several months ago. While it did not change my opinion (I was already a supporter of marriage equality), in all fairness I have to say that the messages from HRC did influence me to be more actively involved.
One of the reasons I lurk (and occasionally post) here and on other threads is that I'm curious about strategy. How do we reach straight people in the middle? The wing-nuts, fundies, etc., are not reachable, IMHO. Waiting for the natural evolution of consciousness as more and more people get to know their gay colleagues and neighbors seems too passive and will take too long. So, HRC and similar efforts might be important.
What do you think?

[Inquisitarian]

Sei wrote:

<quoted text>
If you look at the history of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1950's and 1960's, the people who stated just as you did that we should change behavior through interpersonal dialogue were in power for some time. It got them just about nowhere. Once the protests started, then things began to change.

Gross oversimplification. You really think those protests would have been effective without the dialogue that went before them???

Your framing this falsely, as well. It's not as if we haven't protested and are just getting started at organizing. Quite the opposite - our protests have been going on since before Stonewall - long enough that they lack any real impact anymore. In some places they've become more about having a party than staging a purposeful, targeted protest.

Sei wrote:

In many ways, you are talking about two different things. You are talking about social and political change and confusing the two.

BS. Social change and political change are not separate, independent movements. Each impacts the other.

Sei wrote:

You see, the interpersonal dialogue works wonders for social change. We are seeing that right now. The more of us who come out, the more of us who talk to other people, the more society accepts us. The problem is, that does not work for political change. Getting to know people and getting them to know us doesn't change lobbyists, it doesn't change the political structure, and it sure as heck doesn't change the laws. For that, we need political pressure. That means peaceful protests. That means scathing editorials. That means getting the politicians to dance to our tune.

Political pressure also comes from constituents who have become better informed as a result of interpersonal dialogue.

You're acting as if I think talking about the issues is a panacea. Which tells us nothing apart from the fact that you make snap judgments and jump to unsupported conclusions. Protest has its place in the process, but it's no more a panacea than interpersonal dialogue. The effectiveness of either one is dependent on understanding not only its power, but also its limitations. The people who think a march on DC is somehow going to magically jumpstart this movement or propel it forward are operating from an extremely naive and uninformed position. We are at a place in this movement where there needs to be a much greater focus on state and local politics, and on persuading the voters who participate in that process. You don't get there by marching on Washington D.C.- that's outmoded thinking - we've been there, done that several times over already. It has already served its purpose.

[Inquisitarian]

Sei wrote:

Political change HAS to come from protests. Social change HAS to come from getting to know people.

Change on either front comes from multiple sources. Maybe you shouldn't presume to lecture people on the history who actually lived it and made it.

Sei wrote:

Just take a look at what our movement has managed in the last three decades? How much of that has come just from getting people comfortable with us?

A lot more than you seemingly give credit to. Is it the only game in town? No.

Sei wrote:

There were marches and protests in here VT before we passed marriage equality. The same in New Hampshire and Maine. They were not huge, but they were visible.

...and they would have been completely meaningless without all the efforts that took place on other fronts.

Sei wrote:

Acting as if, somehow, we're going to get our rights just by sitting in a room talking to someone is foolish.

It's also not the position I've taken.

Sei wrote:

But, until there is pressure on the politicians to change what is going on, nothing will happen. Right now, the majority of Americans support repeal of DADT. They have for the last two years! Until we are making a cry about it, nothing will happen.

You think we haven't been making a lot of noise about it? You think that having a march on Washington will make politicians sit up and take notice where they haven't before?

You have much to learn.

[Inquisitarian]

get over it wrote:

WHAT WOULD HARVEY MILK DO IF HE WERE HERE WITH US NOW?

Harvey Milk was all about putting a human face on the movement for our rights - by engaging in interpersonal and political dialogue. That isn't to say he wouldn't have also helped organize protests - when and where they would be effective.

What Harvey Milk would be doing if he were here is, however, largely irrelevant. What matter is what each of us as individuals do. Which Harvey understood.

[Sei]

Inquisitarian wrote:

<quoted text>
Change on either front comes from multiple sources. Maybe you shouldn't presume to lecture people on the history who actually lived it and made it.
<quoted text>
A lot more than you seemingly give credit to. Is it the only game in town? No.
<quoted text>
...and they would have been completely meaningless without all the efforts that took place on other fronts.
<quoted text>
It's also not the position I've taken.
<quoted text>
You think we haven't been making a lot of noise about it? You think that having a march on Washington will make politicians sit up and take notice where they haven't before?
You have much to learn.

No, I don't have 'much to learn', you do. What I don't have is enough space to go through and give you a twenty page paper backing up every last point I would love to make. Read your **** history.

What you are doing is saying "let's all sit down to a spot of tea and hope, wish, pray that we can get change to happen."

Yes, what I said is a 'gross over simplification. A comment box is not exactly a g** d*** term paper.

And, no, we haven't been making a whole lot of noise. We haven't been making noise on a large scale. The protests of the past came at a time when they were no longer effective.

Basically, SIR, you are ignoring the history of not only this nation but of India. So long as protests are large scale, and so long as they are consistent, they are effective. If all they are is sporatic, small scale, and laughable, they are ineffective.

Of course, you know, Martin Luther King Jr. was able to get civil rights legislation just by sitting in his church hoping to change the minds of the people across the street beating up the black kids for being 'uppity'. Of course Mahatma Gandhi was able to liberate India by inviting over the British government and politely asking them for his country's freedom.

Change comes through many means. Yes, talking and getting people to know us helps. That is social change. Protests help push government into moving, as does lobbying. Lawsuits also move the legal system in our direction. What you are demanding is that we abandon everything but talking to people to achieve what we want. Like it or not, IT WILL NOT HAPPEN if we do it that way. How about taking a few classes on the Civil Right's movement some time.

The only thing that these protests hurt is our standing with the people who want to hurt us already. They hate us already and they don't care how many of us there are.

What protests do is make politicians aware of the number of people who feel strongly about this issue. It gives them something of a count when it comes to the issues. People may not make up their minds on a given issue, but they are passionate enough to get out there and make their views known.

Of course, if you want to sit in your house and hope/wish/pray that we get our rights, fine. Do not expect some more complex answer from me any time soon because, like it or not, this format is not exactly conducive to long, complex explanations. There are, however, dozens of books out there which will explain to you just how the Civil Rights movement worked, and just how effective it was because of a variety of different factors.

It is YOU who are simplifying this whole thing into 'protests are not effective only sitting down and having a conversation with the guy who's fist just connected with my face because I'm gay and he hates people like me is the only way to change things.'

I will not be responding any longer. Go and hide, don't bother to reply, we know where you stand on this, and I know where I stand on this, and neither of us are going to agree.

[Inquisitarian]

Sei wrote:

Read your **** history.

Try getting out of the library, off the computer, and actually making some.

Sei wrote:

What you are doing is saying "let's all sit down to a spot of tea and hope, wish, pray that we can get change to happen."

That isn't what I've said. Obviously you haven't bothered to read what I've actually written, and decided to label me as something I'm not just so you can attack me for the purpose of building up your own obviously already oversized ego.

Sei wrote:

Yes, what I said is a 'gross over simplification. A comment box is not exactly a g** d*** term paper.

A term paper isn't required. Intellectual honesty is. But at least you admit that you're a lousy debater.

Sei wrote:

And, no, we haven't been making a whole lot of noise. We haven't been making noise on a large scale.

For a protest to be effective, it has to be about more than just making noise and getting attention.

Sei wrote:

The protests of the past came at a time when they were no longer effective.

...and they will remain ineffective in the present unless have a specific purpose, take place in the right time and place, garner media coverage, etc.

Let me say it one more time in hopes that maybe this will finally sink in: My complaint isn't that protest is utterly worthless. My complaint is that unfocused protests that try to cover multiple issues, which aren't targeted to a specific audience, and which are undertaken to create a spark instead of as the flame that builds from one, are not only ineffective but may dilute the impact of protests that do have purpose, placement and momentum.

Sei wrote:

Basically, SIR, you are ignoring the history of not only this nation but of India. So long as protests are large scale, and so long as they are consistent, they are effective. If all they are is sporatic, small scale, and laughable, they are ineffective.

What a ridiculous comparison. The U.S. is not India. The issues and culture surrounding them are very different.

I never said anything about sporadic, small scale and laughable. That’s a purposeful mischaracterization on your part, and further betrays your intellectual dishonesty. What I’ve said is sparingly, targeted and with a purpose. Not at all the same thing. It’s no secret that the overuse of protest since the 60’s has rendered it less effective. Instead of having the impact of shock value, the reaction has become a cynical “what are they protesting now?” Multiple marches on Washington have likewise diluted their value.

The size of a protest alone is not what makes it effective. Its focus, timing and placement are what make it effective. And yes – size does matter, too. It can help make a difference between what is perceived as strong or laughable. But it’s not the only important factor.

[Inquisitarian]

Sei wrote:

What you are demanding is that we abandon everything but talking to people to achieve what we want.

I’ve made no such demand. That’s a completely dishonest characterization of everything I’ve written here. That makes you a liar.

So I have to ask: Are you at all interested in the truth? Or merely in defending your prior bad argument? Seems like it’s the latter, to the point of presenting complete fiction in describing my position.

Sei wrote:

Of course, if you want to sit in your house and hope/wish/pray that we get our rights, fine.

Not what I’m doing, and not what I’ve done.

Sei wrote:

It is YOU who are simplifying this whole thing into 'protests are not effective only sitting down and having a conversation with the guy who's fist just connected with my face because I'm gay and he hates people like me is the only way to change things.'

Again, a complete fictionalizing of my position.

Sei wrote:

I will not be responding any longer. Go and hide, don't bother to reply, we know where you stand on this, and I know where I stand on this, and neither of us are going to agree.

I’m glad to hear that you won’t be telling more lies about me, won’t be arrogantly telling me to study the history, etc. When you insist on repeating such nonsense, it pretty much makes us discount the rest of what you have to say.

[get over it]

Please someone get this crazy, neurotic Inquisitarian some desperately needed help!! Some pychotherapy, perhaps some time in a mental institution! you are as whacked as some of these right wing fundies that blab on these!