Subscribe to Breaking News
Loading ...Corvino: Are our opponents like segregationists?
In terms of gay-rights progress, brace yourself for a difficult year.
This is not because things are getting worse. It’s because the national conversation on gay-rights issues is getting harder.
One reason is that, as cliché as it sounds, we are more polarized than ever. Gone are the days when House Speaker Tip O’ Neill could lambaste President Reagan by day and play cards with him after 6 p.m.It has become too easy to surround oneself solely with like-minded people. (The internet is one key factor.) The result is a bunch of echo chambers, where opponents seem not just wrong, but borderline-insane.
The second reason is that the gay community’s specific goals have shifted. We are no longer asking merely to be left alone, as when we were fighting sodomy laws and police harassment. Our central political goal, for better or for worse, has become marriage.
Marriage is not merely a private contract between two individuals. It is also an agreement between those individuals and the larger community. It requires, both legally and socially, that community’s support. And so the old “leave me alone” script no longer quite works.
A third reason the conversation is getting harder is that the gay community is at a crossroads regarding how we treat our opponents.
On the one hand we talk about reaching out, promoting dialogue, emphasizing common ground. On the other hand we are quick to label our opponents as hate-filled bigots.
This combination obviously won’t work. A bigot is someone whose views, virtually by definition, are beyond the pale of polite discussion.
One sees this contrast in the fracas over Obama’s choice of Pastor Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration.
Compared to most evangelical pastors, Warren is a moderate, who focuses on common-ground issues such as poverty over the usual culture-war stuff.
But Warren supported Prop. 8, the California initiative that stripped marriage rights from gays and lesbians. (He has since suggested some possible support for civil unions.)
Obama’s camp is taking the “big tent” approach, acknowledging differences but emphasizing shared values. In a similar vein, Melissa Etheridge has opened a dialogue with Warren.
Most gay-rights leaders, by contrast, have decried Obama’s choice of Warren. As one friend put it, “it’s like inviting a segregationist to lead the invocation. I don’t care what other good things the guy has done.”
And there’s the rub: Warren does indeed espouse a “separate but equal” legal status for gays and lesbians (at best). Should we treat him the way we treat segregationists?
Before answering, remember that the majority of Californians, and a larger majority of the rest of the country, hold the same position as Warren on marriage. So does Obama himself (though he did oppose Prop. 8).
So in asking whether inviting Warren to lead the invocation is akin to inviting a segregationist to do so, we are also asking whether the vast majority of Americans are akin to segregationists.
It’s a painful question to confront. And the only fair answer is “yes and no.”
On the merits, yes. For practical purposes, no.
From where I stand, the arguments against marriage equality look about as bad as the arguments for segregation. They commit the same fallacies; they hide behind the same (selective reading of) scripture; they are often motivated by the same fears.
But I’m mindful of the fact that “from where I stand” includes decades of hindsight regarding segregation. The nation isn’t there yet on gay equality.
Today, nearly everyone finds the following sentiments repugnant:
“I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with White people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the White and black races which will ever FORBID the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.”
The segregationist who wrote that? Abraham Lincoln.
It is easy now to paint all segregationists as hatemongers, waving pitchforks and frothing at the mouth. Easy, but quite wrong.
The fact is that most segregationists were people not unlike, say, my grandmothers, both of whom were wonderful, loving, decent human beings, and both of whom – much to my embarrassment – opposed interracial marriage.
Their reasons had to do with tradition and the well-being of children. Sound familiar?
My grandmothers were not hatemongers. They were products of their time. So was Lincoln, so is Rick Warren, and so are you and I, more or less.
I don’t mean for a moment to let Rick Warren off the hook. He ought to know better. Maybe someday he will.
In the meantime, prepare yourself for a challenging 2009.
John Corvino, Ph.D. is an author, speaker, and philosophy professor at Wayne State University in Detroit.
For over fifteen years he has traveled the country speaking on homosexuality and ethics. His writing has been featured in regional and national periodicals, at the online Independent Gay Forum, and in numerous scholarly anthologies. His column “The Gay Moralist” appears Fridays on 365gay.com.
For more about John Corvino, or to see clips from his “What’s Morally Wrong with Homosexuality?” DVD, visit www.johncorvino.com.
Ron in Dallas,
I’ve got to correct you on a point. The Mattachine Society, as well as the Daughters of Bilitis, and several other gay organizations, predate the Stonewall Riots by more than a decade.
Gay liberation didn’t start in New York in 1969, it started in Los Angeles and San Francisco in the 40s and 50s.
Take a look at the language used to characterize the opposition. ‘Segregationists’. Revival of an old term that isn’t synonymous with bigot, but is less to the point (no segregationist can fail to be a bigot, but…). Yes, there are more important things that need to get done like ENDA, dadt repeal, and passage of the federal hate crimes bill including orientation and gender identity….but to simply call them segregationists instead of bigots is exactly what would be preferred by said bigots, and is something I would expect from a terrified closet case. Bigot is tame compared to what they ought be called. But instead you opt for euphemism and politeness because you don’t want to upset the scum. Civility, ladies…civility!
I’m sorry, Ron in Dalls, but you lost me when you said we should be proud that we suck dick and eat pussy. What is this pride going to get us? Will it keep me from getting fired for being gay? Will it allow me to visit a loved one in the hospital if I need to? Will it let me serve openly in the military if I choose? We’re not fighting for acceptance – at least I’m not. We’re fighting for our rights and sometimes our lives. If my declaring that I’m fabulous will save someone from being harassed until they take their own lives, then ok, I’m fabulous. But I don’t think it will.
Once again another softball collum for the LGBT community. The only ways times will change is by us pushing for them to change. And part of that pushing is for calling people out. Not saying. Oh they don’t think they are hateful. Most hateful people don’t think they are.
Very well stated John. Your DVD preview was also very eloquent. When intelligience such as yours is utilized to examine the heterosexual-superiority complex that rules most of the world’s institutions, it shows the blatant hypocracy of heterosexual supremacy that is flaunted everywhere all the time.
Intelligience and logic, however, do not address the emotional issue of how much fun it is to put somebody else down, how much fun it is to hate, and how people who really feel inferior get a big boost out of trying to make others feel inferior.
This human failing is at the root of all “isms.”
Now it’s our turn to be the target of heterosexism, since non-heterosexuals are beginning to affirm ourselves openly and honestly as we demand equal civil rights, including civil marriage.
The current-day backlash is very dramatic in its display of blatant ignorance and ugly violence. Yet it’s a temporary stage that will eventually pass out of power.
Thankfully, the human race does eventually improve over time, grow in intelligience, and learn from its mistakes of the past “isms” that dominated those times.
Our time has come to witness the beginning of the end of heterosexism.
Two Husbands married in Canada in 2003, the first county where two American men could marry without emigrating there.
We’re grateful that our awesome Canadian marriage is immune to heterosexual-supremacy in America.
Well stated, but it misses what I feel is an important point. Segregationists by and large didn’t raise black children. Rick Warren and his congregants on the other hand do raise children that are not heterosexual and his preaching against homosexuality does great harm to them. Unfortunately if we bring this up he will call us pedophiles and recruiters (of course he has already compared us to pedophiles).
A recent study came out documenting the grave damage done to gay kids growing up in unsupportive households. A summary can be found at http://www.equalitynetwork.org/resources/news/study-tolerance-can-lower-gay-kids-suicide-risk
The actual study can be found at
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/123/1/346
Also, reducing Warren’s position to “separate but equal” is an unfair characterization. Warren’s website says that non-repentant gays may not be members of his church, so his church essentially has a “gays not welcome here” sign on it. That is far more negative than “separate but equal,” and actually does make him sound more like a segregationist.
This is about much more than marriage. This is also about the current and past victims of people like Rick Warren. It is also about the bashing that he has been doing of the LGBT community now that Obama has given him a national platform – the new phrase “Christophobes” that he has coined will probably hold particular resonance to gay Jews. It is about the politics of division and bringing that message to the forefront of the upcoming Presidential inauguration.
One thing the Gay Community can do to reduce our separation from other groups is emphasize our inalienable right to liberty including freedom of religion and freedom of association. All individuals have the inalienable right to Liberty and thus every person is affected when anyone’s inalienable right to Liberty is attacked. Reform Jews, many Christians and most seculars believe in Gay Marriage and not allowing Gay Marriage is an infringement on religious liberty.
If Prop 8 should stand, then anyone can have his/her right to liberty removed by a majority vote. Thus, Prop 8 threatens us all.
Instead Gay Marriage was based on a on-existent right and was based on divisiveness. There is no Right to Equality. There is no inalienable right to Equality. That is why the California Attorney General had to change the challenge to Prop 8 to the inalienable right to Liberty.
The average person is not supposed to know that there is no inalienable Right to Equality. The leadership on Gay Marriage had a duty to know the difference between “equal protection under the laws” and inalienable rights.
The use of Equality caused us other serious problems. It lead foolish people to start comparing Gays to other groups. Then Gays started saying that they had it as bad as Blacks and Blacks were insulted. Inherent in the idea of Equality is that your group is only so big and it is distinct from the rest of society. By using Equality, we exclude everyone else. We deprive all Americans from seeing that a denial of our inalienable right to liberty and freedom of religion can turn into their deprivation. The use of the silly theme of Equality isolates s into a small group and subconscious says that whatever happens to Gay stays with Gays.
The California Supreme Court may protect Gays from the inept Gay Marriage leadership and overturn Prop 8, but Gays need to stress each individual’s inalienable right to Liberty. Then the fact that we are everywhere may have more impact.
Yes, Prof. Corvino, segregation is still poisonously alive and thriving in America. But there is a difference; that is, only one group in society remains which can be legally terrorized. I grew up in segregated county and, sadly, I’ll probably die in one too before things will completely change. What other minority, besides the GLBT community, suffers legally sanctioned discrimination on a daily basis in the not-so “United” States?
Below is small slice of my own personal history with discrimination — first witnessing it; then experiencing it.
I was just nine years old in 1960 when the first black family moved into our quiet, middle-class, all white, little neighborhood in Kansas City. It was a pleasant place to live. There was a beautiful forest behind eight blocks of homes for childhood adventures, and a nearby school within walking distance. For many years, all of the kids grew up together; played games together and walked collectively to a little elementary school – some even married one another when they became adults.
Most of the men were family men who lived there. They were a mix of skilled blue collar workers and college educated white collar mid-management employees. The women who lived there were mostly stay-at-home moms. All of the neighbors knew each others kids. Friendly back-slapping shindigs were the order of the day as the perennial aroma of backyard barbeques waffled through the air every weekend, and people just came over whenever they felt like it. It seemed like one great big happy extended family of people with remarkably similar interests. But, that all came to a rapid end because stupidity has a way of crashing the party when you least expect it.
One hot mid-day summer weekend, the gentle easy-going nature of our little idyllic community changed radically when the first black family moved into our neighborhood. I remember very clearly, as the moving van unloaded their modest furniture, seeing a young twenty-something black couple warily carrying belongs into their new house.
Slowly, a small, stunned crowd gathered in front of their home. An elderly woman had once lived there, but she had passed on. People there assumed that someone else in her family would be moving in. But that summer neighbors were scratching their heads in bewilderment; no one knew exactly what had happened. But everyone felt that their pastoral, uneventful little lives were about to change dramatically, because the one area where civility broke down, in this neighborhood, was on the subject of change. They hated change. In fact, they loathed any kind of detour from the comfortably reality which they had carved out for themselves and their families in this hermetically-sealed microcosm of middle-class predictability.
I remember how the crowd grew, and how the hushed grumbling from separate little groups of people converged to form one large vociferous beast undulating with impatient anger. As more people gathered, their children stop their playing and joined them.
Someone’s voice, a woman’s voice, Mrs. Bloome, I believe her name was, shouted shrilly: “What do you think you n*ggers are doing in our neighborhood?”
This was followed by men, I once looked up to and admired, who demanded: “We don’t want no damn coons in our neighborhood. Go back to where you belong!”
Then a bevy of little children, clinging to their fathers’ trousers and their mothers’ skirts joined the angry chorus chanting, oblivious to it meaning: “Spook! Spook Go away! Spook! Spook! Go away!”
I recall how I tugged at my dad and looked up at him only to see his face, red like all of the others, seething with hate. The terrified black couple retreated into their unwelcoming new home.
Then a stuttering man’s voice yelped out from the house: “If you all don’t go away, we’ll call the police!”
But the angry taunts and threats continued. White-knuckled fists pounded the hot summer air as racial epithets and profanities ensued. No one thought about the children standing there. The children thought it was a game. A cruel schoolyard game.
Then, I remember, there was a sudden ear-splitting shatter of glass. Afterwards, everything grew as silent as a tomb for one awkward moment. A picture window, at the front of the ranch-style house, had imploded. Someone had launched a brick through its once wide friendly smile so only jagged transparent teeth remained to mirror the intentions of the mob.
But, just as suddenly, a young black woman ran out onto the front porch with a baby in her arms; shielding its face from the intensity of both the midday sun and the blinding hate surrounding her.
I recall how she shouted: “Please! Please, leave us alone. Can’t you see we have a baby here.”
Through her tears, and joined by her visibly shaken young husband, she stretched out her arms which held a crying infant, though safely cradled in her embrace, like an offering of peace, and pleaded: “ Please! We have a baby!”
At that same moment, two police cars arrived and some leaders of the protest, if you can call it that, spoke with a couple of uniformed, and very annoyed, white police officers. I heard one of them speak, at my daddy’s side, and explain that there was nothing they could do about the fact that the n*ggers, his words, were taking over.
Then I saw a younger, and more sympathetic, white officer walk over and asked the black couple if they and their baby were okay. He was joined by the older policeman who reprimanded them and told them that they brought this on themselves. He threatened that someone was going to jail, if he had to come back out again. And he wasn’t talking about the white folks.
The young black couple, with their little baby, moved out late that Sunday night. Come Monday morning, young children tricycled again together while some kids returned to front yard rubber swimming pools on our sleepy cul-de-sac. Just a block away, older boys shot baseballs towards the hazy summer sun to impress teenage girls who picnicked with their rayon clad families at the local ball-diamond in the neighborhood park. Everything returned to normal – for a while.
But by summer’s end, old fears returned as surrounding neighborhoods became integrated. A neighborhood committee of frightened white property owners was formed. I remember my dad coming home from one of those meetings and telling my mom that no one trusted one another. One neighbor who lived at the end of the block, never really befriended before the integration began, assured everyone that he would stick with the other property owners, but he moved out a few weeks later and a black family moved into his home.
His house was far from the center of the neighborhood, closer to the main street entrance, so no one came down to protest. But soon adjoining property owners were quick to put out their own “For Sale” signs. No one wanted to lose all of the money they had put into their property. Many white property owners had been approached by real-estate agencies that specialized in selling homes to black families. My father called them “block busters”. My father refused to sell. Our next-door neighbors said that they too would not sell their homes to blacks.
By the middle of the following summer, almost one year to the day, more than a quarter of the homes in our neighborhood were black owned. In the next three years, ninety percent of the homes were black owned. My father finally sold our tri-level that stood on over an acre of land that merged into a beautiful hardwood forest at back of our property. He lost most of the equity he had in our home, because no one white, no one with much money, would buy it. He’s always been bitter about that.– especially, when it happened again eight years later after we moved to southeast Kansas City.
That is the genesis of the white flight from the city. My brother, after he grew up and married, moved out of the city proper to a suburb far north of Kansas City. He is four years younger than me, but he is more like my father. So, he moved too. He didn’t want his children to be “exposed” to the same disruption of his childhood. That is the legacy of our self-imposed exile from our cities of birth; it is the apartheid to which our racial fear and hatred condemns us.
For my part — even with all of the fond memories of childhood which I truly cherished as I grew up in our little slice of middle class heaven — I’ve still lost so much. I lost the opportunity to grow up along side fellow human beings who might have looked past the superficial and found a common good. But as a person in a same-sex relationship for nearly thirty years, as I write this, I too have stared into the face of bigotry and I know it has no boundaries.
Fifteen years after that racial incident in my old neighborhood, my partner and I went to one of the first Gay and Lesbian Pride Week events to take place in Wyandotte County near Kansas City, Kansas. It was 1975. The authorities were tipped off later to the nature of the event, but only after we had already applied and received a permit to use a local park for our community picnic.
When we arrived, the only road that led to the park, in this sleepy little predominately white and Christian cul-de-sac, was blocked by a large orange and white road repair barrier. But oddly, a group of little kids playing in the road told us that the road was fine and they actually moved the barrier out of the way for us so that we could drive the next block to the park for our picnic.
There were only about sixty people at the event – a big crowd in those days. Gay Pride in the early seventies was sparsely attended and it usually was spread out over several smaller events. Still, every one was friendly and it felt good to be with so many people who shared similar lives. Lesbian mothers and gay fathers brought their children, and there were an equal number of single gay men and lesbian women — as well as a few straight friends and family members. But an unexpected tempest hit our little gathering; as dark and ugly as any unwelcome summer thunderstorm intent upon ruining a Sunday picnic.
Police cars with ruby lights flashing descended upon our picnic grounds. Sirens shrieked and children fled to their parents arms.
My partner, Bill, and I counted at least three patrol cars and a paddy wagon. An angry and impatient police officer exited one of the vehicles and shouted:
“You have exactly five minutes to get your things together and get your faggotty asses out of here! This is a family neighborhood. You’re not welcome here!”
Then he added, hatefully: “And go tell the queers in the bushes that they better clear out or we’ll be busting heads in less than four minutes now.”
Needless, to say, we all left.
Complaints were made by picnic organizers, which fell upon the deaf ears of county parks commissioners, but nothing came of it. Our kind was not desirable; our kind was a threat to a community of people who were not our kind.
All of this just makes me wonder, is it our primitive fear of losing the power of numbers and the security of the tribe, and losing influence if the tribe is mixed with another tribe, is it that which frightens some people so very much? Is it the terror of assimilation and loss of group identity that the majority fears?
Do they fear that they will be swallowed up and ingested into irrelevancy, like the majority has done to so many groups which once made up the cultural patchwork quilt of America? The Judeo/Christian bible is replete with this fear and often calls for severe consequences to befall those who violate the status quo and wander off the reservation to mix with other tribes — hence, its obsession with forced conformity and a vengeful deity to enforce the rules.
How often the familiar is elevated to an established and societally protected norm, whereas the unfamiliar is marginalized, ghettoized, or condemned. Some people say that marriage equality and the civil rights of same-sex oriented individuals are the last frontier of this movement towards a more accepting society – I say that it is just the beginning. There is so much unfinished work left to do in order to bring down all barriers which make so many of us intentional strangers to one another.
The color of a bird does not improve nor diminish its song, and neither does the nesting preference of one kind of bird undermine the nesting behavior of other birds. In other words, our diversity will continue to reveal aspects of humanity which positively contributes to society as a whole — not in spite of our differences, but because of our differences. Moreover, regardless of these racial, gender, religious, ethnic, sexual or political disparities, we all still have a lot more in common than our fears would have us believe.
© “Bud” E. Lewis Evans
From the essay, “Paradise Lost and Nothing Gained”
(Lessons Learned — The Real Plague on Society is Bigotry) by “Bud” E. Lewis Evans
– first published in “Axis of Logic“.
Homepage: http://rainfish2000.blogspot.com
Fear not John Corvino…
You probably don’t remember the last time we collaborated…
When my thousands of Swarm Theory, Anonymous, Japan Anon, Furries, and teh geighs hordes get retasked on this issue it will mind numbingly blow you and Wayne (the treasonous bastard) Besen’s heads…
Gay marriage will be a reality nationally…
But on our terms
Every time I see corvino’s face I know there’s going to be some dancing and singing for the straight folk. Thanks for never disappointing, by always being incredibly disappointing. Some say we must act up, some say we should just roll over and die, and you? Clearly are a breeder sympathizer. They must pay your salary.
Menstruator, how do you muster so much bitterness this early in the morning?
I certainly know many str8 folk that I have no animosity for. Heck, I’d venture to say that I’d agree with a lot of str8 folk on more issues that you and I would even come close to agreeing on.
Matt, re Ron in Dallas: Thanks. My response was removed, but was in complete agreement with the issues you addressed that were originally raised by Ron. Pride based only sex acts – and cultural segregation based on the same – are actually pretty weak foundations for communal pride. There are a lot of things to take pride in, but blowjobs are not among them. What’s fabulous today is drabulous tomorrow. And what the hell is wrong with straight people? I like them. I act like them. I’m friends with many of them. Luckily, I’m in Canada, and after years of basic equality with straight folks on issues that concern law, many Canadians JUST DON’T CARE ANYMORE about gay pride in the way Ron describes it. Why? Because for too many years we were told we were special, exceptional, fabulous, creative, fun, stylish… and it’s left most of us pure slaves to consumerist – not hetero – culture. Here in Canada, we are not special. We are like left-handed people, we are like intellectuals, we are like bigots, we are like Jews and Muslims and Buddhists: AN INVISIBLE minority. We are neither good nor bad, we are a minority. A scientific curiosity, at this point, though some recent scientific theory on why gays (and left-handed people) have not been subject to natural selection is insightful. It may explain some things that, when all is said and done, I don’t really care about. Why we are here is less important to me that what we do here. But back to Gay Pride: my hunch is that the US’ “Gay Community” (oxymoron, so far) is terrified of losing it’s “special, fabulous” place in society. It’s fun to be oppressed, it liberates you from many responsibilities. And it allows you to think that you’re special – just because you’re gay. Guess what – we’re not special because we’re gay. We’re certainly entitled to equal treatment from our governments. Our ability to achieve that will determine how strong the foundations of our community are, and on what issues we may derive pride from. I can list a million reasons why I’m special, and have solid proof that I’m fabulous. And gay. Yet I’m being asked to toss every non-sexual accomplishment aside and take pride in the fact that I can suck dick. Uhh… No. I’m being told that there’s something inherently wrong with long-term couples; that heterosexuals are worse than homosexuals; and that there’s no place for gay people who want kids at Ron’s table of gay pride. I don’t know if I want a place at that table. What Ron seems to suggest sounds to me like a form of segregation that allows for us to continue to be preyed upon by consumerism (travel the world for a few decades if you want to see what I mean), that divides us from our straight brothers and sisters, and keeps us well away from children. With friends like these, we don’t need to worry about our enemies. We’ll segregate ourselves into oblivion. With Ron’s model in hand, we can buy a big tropical island, reject those who refuse to value themselves based solely on their sexual proclivities, and what… die off, as raising kids is FOR STRAIGHT FOLK ONLY? While I appreciate my uniqueness, I don’t want to be that unique.
I still believe in Gay Day Parades, I still believe in gay ghettos as a stepping stone for those who need a transitional safe-haven. But I don’t believe that it’s healthy or safe to base our pride on how different we MAY OR MAY NOT be from our neighbors, or from the majority. If we base our pride on sex acts, then we are acting in the same way as our enemies – singling out ONE FACET of our lives and blowing it out of proportion.
And as for Ron’s attack on the Mattachine society and others who don’t share his gay-supremacist views: what have you done for us lately? Does Ron have any idea how many people found comfort and safety in the Mattachine society? Does Ron realize that there was nowhere else to turn back then? Or does Ron not remember the days and people he so freely blames for all our ills?
From a foreign perspective, it is shocking that American gays are as politically inept as they are. Western Europe and Canada have eclipsed our country’s lead in the fight for fairness and equality. Their societies are much more conservative than ours. Yet they faced the gay marriage issue, acted humanely, and are doing just fine. I can assure you that none of these countries changed their laws based on the notion that gays ought to be proud of how well they give blowjobs. They changed their laws because gay people in those countries put their differences aside for a moment, united, and then pressured their governments to treat them in the same manner they treat straight couples. While such a notion seems unacceptable to Ron, as being treated like a straight person must surely cause him offense, my opinion is that the pride such successful activists may now feel is richer than Ron’s pride in being a participant statistically unusual sexual behavior. Statistically unusual is not a bad thing – it is like being left-handed, it is a simple truth, with no morality tales attached… Instead of emphasizing their sexual specialness, activists simply pointed out the obvious: it is not fair for a democratic society to deny rights and responsibilities to a group simply because they do things differently between the blankets. If the US’”gay community” can get that message through to our legislators, there will be much to be proud of. Especially for those that remember the really dark days of the Mattachine society, Stonewall, and GRID.
I disagree with your assessment that older people “ask” while the younger people “demand”, as well as your assessment of MLK and Black Panthers.
It is the generation of ACTUP and QueerNation and those before us that have marched and laid in the streets and shouted for the rights that we do have. had it not been for those of us who did those things, we would still be fighting for the right to have sex while in quarantine. Few of those people seem present in the “sweet little candlelight vigils” you see popping up around the country. Organizations like Queer LiberAction, choose to fight rather than ask.
Civil Rights legislation was passed because BOTH MLK and Malcolm X fought on two fronts for the same rights. They just had different ways of doing it. I do’t recall them “asking” for anything.
I would say worst than them because some have been at the receiving end of segregationist policies themselves. But that hasn’t stopped them from doing to us now the same that was done to them.
I doubt any Gay person lacks unpleasant experiences of being Gay in an anti-Gay world. The vast majority of us probably grew up in anti-Gay households. I agree that your life has been as hard or harder than mine so I won’t compete for who had it worse.
We do have a crisis of leadership. My explanation is that our first generation of wide spread leadership organizations confronted the AIDS crisis. When Clinton was elected, Gays in the Military was killed by a back stabbing Clinton. Thus, for 8 years, Gays shut their mouths about being excluded from military service.
As AIDS transitioned into a barely manageable life time nightmare and not a death sentence, the organized Gay community kind of drifted. Then, the idea of Gay Marriage filled the vacuum by default.
Most Gays did not see any need for Gay Marriage and many saw it was a step backwards. Many Gays believed that Gay Marriage was a step back into a quasi closet where being Gay would be acceptable if and only if Gays mirrored Straight society.
Because the politically involved Gays end to be to the Left and very anti-Bush, pushing for Gays in the military was seen as pro-Bush. Thus, that issue was basically dead for his tenure.
As a result a very small segment of the Gay community played any leadership role in the Gay marriage issue. The result was a relative small cadre of inept “leaders” pushing for Gay Marriage. They have brought disaster after disaster on the Gay Community from one end of the nation to another. The few places where there has been “success,” it is generally through the courts because most anti-gay legislation deprives a Gay person of his fundamental right.
Right now the leadership of the Gay Marriage issue is essentially incompetent. They have ignored the sound legal basis of Liberty set forth in Lawrence v Texas. Instead they have pushed for Group Rights and they have incessantly pushed for Gays to have special rights — something which most Gays do not want. Probably 95% of the Gays do not realize that the Gay Marriage people are in fact pushing for Gays to be a Suspect Class and thus entitled to special protection under the law. I am quite certain that very very few Gays want to have special rights which their non-gays friends do not have.
Gay Marriage did not need to ask for Special Rights in order to have a solid constitutional basis. The Group Rights which accrue to Gays upon our being designated a Suspect Class will bring millions upon millions of dollars into the Gay Civil Rights organizations.
The law mandates that once any group has been accorded Special Rights as a Suspect Class, then all laws may be reviewed to make certain that they do not adversely impact Gays. If you did not get admitted to UCLA, sue the state for discrimination as there are not enough Gays at UCLA. If the Bd of regents doe snot know how many Gays are at UCLA, then sue the Bd of regents for not gathering statistics on the number of Gays at UCLA.
The same for housing and employment and for every other aspect of society. There will be hundreds of millions of dollars in federal grants to study all parts of society to make certain that each segment has the proper percentage of Gays.
In brief, the Gay Marriage leadership has persistently followed a legal course which would result in their lining their pockets with money. To aggravate matters, we have been down the Group rights road before and we have seen the inter-group hostilities it causes. In fact, we have already seen the fighting between Blacks and Gays. By basing our rights on our being a Suspect Class, we automatically invite comparisons with all other Suspect Classes — the main one being race.
if the Gay Marriage organizations should succeed in making Gays a Suspect Class, it will demean the life of very Gay person. we will cease to be individuals as our rights will be based on our membership in a group. The government will require schools and employers to gather statistics on who nis gay and who is not. If youw ant to play college football, you will have to tell the world that you are Gay and if you lie and say you are straight, you know that will reduce the official number of Gays in society and that will reduce the number of slots available for Gays.
What does the future hold? My guesses are:
1) California finds that Prop 8 is invalid as a deprivation of inalienable right to liberty (and religion);
2) California might continue “Sexual orientation” as a suspect class — this would be bad for Gays. (It also excludes Bi-sexuals and trans-gendereds and reduces Gays to a stereotyped uni-dimensional creature defined solely by our sexual preference.)
3) Obama will oppose changing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and explain that his refusing to allow Gays to serve openly in the military is due to his policy of being “inclusive.” For Obama the term “inclusive” means “Gays have nowhere to go so I am throwing them under the bus in order to attract right wing bigots into the Democrat party.”