Have gay rights groups abandoned Bradley Manning?

[xchrom]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/30/bradley-manning-gay-rights-groups-support


Two of the largest LGBT rights groups have stayed quiet about Bradley Manning, his treatment in custody and his trial. Photograph: Jose Luis Magana/AP

Gay 25-year-old US army private Bradley Manning stood trial for supposedly aiding the enemy by passing classified information to Wikileaks, including several hundred thousand pages of army reports, diplomatic cables and information that detailed the killing of civilians by American soldiers. His verdict is expected today.

The trial, which ended last week, was marked by government intimidation of the media and comes after Manning spent almost a year in solitary confinement in Quantico, Virginia, prompting international outrage.

One of the interesting factors is that two of the largest and most well funded LGBT rights groups in the US have stayed quiet about Manning, his reprehensible treatment in custody and his trial. Why has Manning, whose revelations about the US Army's actions epitomize social justice in action, gotten the cold shoulder from the Human Rights Campaign and GLAAD (formerly known as the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation)? The silence of these groups has been deafening.

First, Manning is the opposite of everything that these groups seek to portray as the image of "gay Americans". I use those quotes because the majority of LGBT Americans don't conform to these upwardly mobile, white, polished, virile male stereotypes. Manning doesn't look like CNN anchor Anderson Cooper. With his slight frame, lower-class background, questioning of his gender identity, inability to hold down a typical job, general dorkiness and dysfunctional family life, Manning does not fit the poster boy image that GLAAD or the HRC would hold up and promote. It's bizarre because Manning is actually what many, if not most, LGBT people have been at one point or another – an outsider, a loner, a person who does not fit in or conform.


***IMHO -- too many of our 'gay rights' groups for too long have been more interested in cozying up to power.

[William769]

1. Agreed.

in something else unrelated, there are many 'Gay rights' groups in Florida on my shit list right now. You abandoned me & my brothers & sisters in a region, don't expect financial support from said place.

[Behind the Aegis]

2. Unless there was something related specifically to his sexual orientation...

...then why should they be involved? I didn't follow this case or the hysteria related to it.

Personally, I see this as another attack on gays. It is an article more about smearing the HRC and GLADD then it is about garnering support for Manning. I have problems with both groups, especially HRC, but this seems to be more about chastising gays who don't support Manning (or didn't get involved/pay attention).

If there was one group that should have been involved it would have been the American Veterans for Equal Rights. I don't know if they were involved or not.

For all the talk of "identity politics" this article swims in it!

[Smarmie Doofus]

3. Well, pretty much yes. HRC's swung way right in the last few years and I've stopped trying to figure

.... out what GLAAD is about.

So I haven't supported $$ either for a long time. The money I used to send , I send elsewhere.... including to Manning.

Who, BTW will take $$$ at: http://www.bradleymanning.org/

[Fearless]

4. Ehh

I don't think his sexuality is important to whether one supports him or not. At least I'd hope it wasn't, personally. Judge a man by his actions, not his orientation IMHO. That said, LGBTers have been mum on the topic, the same as many others. That is sad.