As to the junior Senator from New York (D'Amato) I must tell you that as appreciative as I may be of his speaking up on the Hormel nomination process and his open criticism of the Republican leadership on this issue, it is not the kind of definitive action on his part that merits my support. His silence on the SONDA bill speaks louder to me than his window dressing press release everywhere on Hormel. He does have the power to have taken an action that would have concretely helped the average lesbian and gay New Yorker. He did not. If he had he would have taken a leadership position in his party for human rights.

Also, I want to thank you for comments about our work on Trent Lott and other recent GOP anti-gay rhetoric. It has been an incredible month and promises to be an interesting election year.

Which brings me to Senator D'Amato. While HRC has not yet made an endorsement in the race, we have spent time examining his record as an incumbent on gay and lesbian issues. Since we are a national organization, we score members -- and assess challengers -- on their record in Congress. While we acknowledge good (or bad) work at the state or local level, this is not our main focus.

My understanding of Senator D'Amato's actions on the state bill were that he made calls and publicly called for passage of the bill. We here at HRC were working with our members, trying to get calls in to D'Amato and other state senate offices in the waning days of the session in Albany. Working with the Empire State Pride Agenda, we were able to contact hundreds of members. We all wish -- and worked for -- a different result. However, I'm not sure HRC can pin the blame on D'Amato.

As you know, D'Amato has a solid 75 percent voting record with HRC. He is an ENDA cosponsor and supporter of gays serving in the military. In addition, he has been one of the few GOP-ers to speak out in opposition to recent anti-gay rhetoric. This is terribly important -- in fact, it is interesting -- and very helpful -- that the Mayor has also spoken out against Lott.

HRC has no litmus test for endorsement although ENDA is a most critical issue. We are a pro-choice organization, but have supported others who are not. In fact, Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) is one of HRC's biggest boosters, yet opposed to choice.

I hope this helps. Please feel free to contact me, or Tim Smith, with other questions. And thanks for your support.

Thank you for your response to my query as to how New York State HRC members could be involved in the endorsement process in the current New York State Senate Race.

I am disturbed by the core of your response if I understand it correctly. While I support HRC in its political work, I do not support a single issue litmus test. I believe that any single issue must be seen in the context of actual practice.

Yes, Senator D'Amato has taken public positions on a number of what I would, with all due respect, call gay & lesbian window dressing issues. When push comes to shove and he could be held responsible for actual passage of law that would concretely improve the quality of live of individual gay and lesbian people he waffles.

The New York State gay and lesbian civil rights bills is a good example. It would have been in his best interest with his gay and lesbian constituency in an election year to have publicly and privately put New York State Senate leader Joe Bruno on the spot by calling for Bruno to release the bill from committee. Although you wrote of his public acts on this matter, I can find no record of such. His private acts, if any, did not change Bruno's action. Bruno again successfully blocked the release of the (anti-discrimination) bill that appeared to have the necessary number of votes to pass if allowed to be voted on by the legislature.

This kind of concrete action is relevant in any discussion of his or any other politician's record. While his statements on Hormel's nomination are welcome, his statements to both the Right-to Life Party and the Conservative Party need to also be put into the discussion.

I appreciate HRC commitment to dialogue with different kinds of politicians.

I also have many times voted for a candidate using the "best of loathsome" criteria as my selection process. I do think the exercise of voting privilege is always relevant. Here is where I do believe the other issues become essentially significant.

I suggest that an equal examination of all the other candidates and not just the incumbent be employed. Has HRC also interviewed and examined the public record of action on all the major candidates in the Democratic and Republican primary?

I must state that I am too old to be sweet-talked by a politician, Words are cheap. Actions matter. To me, in addition to the essential record on gay and lesbian issues are political practice on the right of an individual to controls his/her body and the right of equal pursuit of constitutional guarantees.

D'Amato's public record on choice, conflict-of-interest, immigration, job protection, insurance, campaign funding are among the issues I would also apply to any candidate seeking my endorsement and vote.

Am I correct that there has been no public solicitation of the constituency, the local state constituency of HRC, most affected by a HRC endorsement? If this is in fact true, I do not think the prospect of building local state centers of HRC support will succeed.

It also opens HRC up to what can be a bloody battle over grass roots vs. back room politics. I am not naive about the political realities in these issues, but I do believe there is a way to engage local membership in a democratic process.

I hope I have understood your basic response to my query to Elizabeth Birch correctly: that HRC does have a litmus test in endorsements and it is the public record of support on gay and lesbian issues; that non-gay and lesbian issues are not relevant in the endorsement process.

I would hope that if this is in fact true that you are better prepared to defend such a position.

Peace,