Video/The Gay Agenda: What is a gay issue?
Why isn’t poverty a gay issue? Why do we focus so hard on the military and marriage? Jennifer Vanasco and Jon Mallow discuss what the criteria should be for issues our organizations and media consider “gay.”
Ahhh, but the way you are defining a gay agenda has a particualr liberal/left slant. While that won’t get any complaints from me, it might make our brothers and sisters who lean right a tad bit uncomfortable. Are you saying a gay agenda by its very nature has a liberal bent?
I’m not so sure things like poverty and the death penalty qualify as “gay” issues. Gay people are, by and large, just as varied as straight people (_except_ on actual gay issues like marriage, DADT, HIV related issues, adoption etc.). And so it’s naive to think that gay people, as a collective, could rally around lifting the death penalty or a specific solution to poverty in the same way that they rally around actual gay issues.
To try to address James Wither’s comment above, what constitutes a gay agenda might be defined narrowly or broadly, and maybe Jennifer and Jon can come up with appropriate names for the narrow vs. broad perspectives. And I would recommend avoiding the urge to label one “left” and the other “right”.
But first we can define the narrow perspective agenda as comprising only issues of an explicitly sexual nature or impact. These would of course include the repeal of existing sodomy laws which occurred by SCOTUS in ’03 with Lawrence vs. Texas; all laws and ordinances which discriminate against same sex relationships such as marriage laws; any so called pornography law which is applied selectively against only gay imagery or gay positive content; in fact, ANY law of a sexual nature which it could be demonstrated is only or preponderantly applied against LGBT people. There are probably other categories and undoubtedly grey areas, but I’ll leave them up to Jennifer and Jon.
On the other hand, the broad perspective agenda would contain issues suggested by Jennifer and Jon to be of interest to LGBT people because we comprise at least the standard percentage (4-10%) of the population effected by that issue. Using this logic, they could spend a whole video decrying the tribulations of Billionaires since 4-10% of Billionaires are LGBT. Well there are a few, and I’m sure we would all love to tell them how to spend their money! More appropriately we should be looking at issues which effect a greater than average percentage of GLBT folks. This is going to require Jennifer and Jon to do some demographic home work, but not much.
For example, on military issues, the Michael D. Palm Center, formerly the “Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military, uses rigorous social science to inform public discussions of controversial social issues, enabling policy outcomes to be informed more by evidence than by emotion”. Is this a “narrow” issue because the Palm Center explicitly studies sexual minorities, or “broad” because it studies them in the military?
Since Jennifer suggested poverty, I wonder if the SPLC hasn’t already studied the sexual politics of poverty? Is this a “broad” issue simply because poverty can effect anyone, or “narrow” because study shows GLBT people are under employed due to discrimination?
To suggest an issue which is hot right now, the mortgage market melt down, is anyone tracking the same sex characteristics of defaulting households?
And one final issue closer to home for me: retirement. Gay/Lesbian retirement communities are just beginning to happen now. I see this as “narrow” issue similar in fact to marriage because it is about our needs and abilities to define our relationships in a broader sense and create community space for ourselves.
To try to address James Wither’s comment above, what constitutes a gay agenda might be defined narrowly or broadly, and maybe Jennifer and Jon can come up with appropriate names for the narrow vs. broad perspectives. And I would recommend avoiding the urge to label one “left” and the other “right”.
But first we can define the narrow perspective agenda as comprising only issues of an explicitly sexual nature or impact. These would of course include the repeal of existing sodomy laws which occurred by SCOTUS in ’03 with Lawrence vs. Texas; all laws and ordinances which discriminate against same sex relationships such as marriage laws; any so called pornography law which is applied selectively against only gay imagery or gay positive content; in fact, ANY law of a sexual nature which it could be demonstrated is only or preponderantly applied against LGBT people. There are probably other categories and undoubtedly grey areas, but I’ll leave them up to Jennifer and Jon.
Gay issues are those issues that directly affect gay people, like marriage equality, DADT, and ENDA. The death penalty is a general issue, one that all people, regardless of sexual orientation, need to grapple with.
I can certainly see connections between gay rights and women’s issues or other struggles for equality, but when you try to connect it to the death penalty the connection is a gray area. Gay folks as a group are not monolithic in our opinions.
Regarding DADT, viewing it as a “good” thing for gays is rather like suggesting that not being allowed to eat at the Woolworth’s lunch counter was a good thing for African-Americans because the food was bad. It misses the point. If folks wish to serve in the military, they should have that option.
This “Gay Agenda” feature could benefit from having two commentators who don’t see eye-to-eye on every issue. You know, diversity.
Agreeing largely with Joe R, I think it’s perfectly legitimate to pursue issues such as poverty (as this also affects the gay community), but its partly a case of putting the cart before the horse. If we’ve got examples of homophobic legislation, or open discrimination in our society and particularly our government, it would make little sense to take progress for granted (as Ms. Vanasco did in referring to DADT and equal marriage rights). Jennifer mentions that we may have to wait 50 years for marriage rights, just as racial minorities did, but that’s not a very heartening example. Does she really want to see the equivalent of a lynching-noose at the office of a gay professor…in 2058? Again, before we start connecting gay rights to everything bad under the sun, I think we need to focus on what provides direct benefit for our community. 48 states still don’t recognize gay marriage; along with AIDS, DADT, and ENDA, I think we’ve got our work cut out for us.
i totally agree with what u guys r saying cuz i am a very big gay supporter(although i am not gay myself) and anytime i hear gay bashing, someones gonna get beat. i dont get why gays r considered sooo different! why aren’t they allowed in the military? r they less tough than someone who is straight? r they any less honorable cuz they r gay? and why arent they guaranteed health care? what if they get hurt? r u just gonna let them die or suffer b/c they r gay? why is it any different? i personally dont even think there should be a part of the law that states gays rights, it should just be human rights b/c we r all human and we r all created equal! ppl sometimes say that gay is not gods way, well then if that is true then why did god put gays on this earth? if god hates gays as much as some stupid ppl think, then why r there any gays on earth? god put them here b/c they r still human and should be treated equal! i have a story that proves my point… my friend is constantly being called gay when in reality, he isnt. its just his voice kinda does sound gay. and even if he was gay, why should it matter?? he is the nicest guy u will ever meet! he would give u the shirt off his back in the middle of a snow storm just so u could live!! but ppl never see that b/c they think hes gay. i am sick and tired of defending him b/c ppl r too freaking ignorant to see past that and see what rely matters, who he rely is,and who he is is the nicest guy u will ever meet! and he is always being treated differnt b/c of it; in school, he is always picked last for teams cuz kids r scared there gonna get r@ped as they say it!! thats just stupid!!!! gays r no different then anybody else in this world and shouldnt be treated any different!!!
Very well said, “nobody….. Said”.
At the risk of using a double negative - you’re not a “nobody”; you’re really a special “somebody”. “Somebody” who loyally defends his friend, as ignorant people torment and wrongly perceived him to be Gay. “Somebody” who has the moral character to truly see how wrong it is to discriminate against people who are Gay, or against anybody for any reason based on their real or perceived sexual orientation, or for any other irrelevant characteristic. We desperately need more Straight allies like you. Thanks! And the best of luck to you in life and in all of your endeavors.
To me, you categorize a “Gay Issue” as an issue which is directly related to “Homosexuality”. Poverty does not occur because someone is gay or lesbian. That is why Poverty is not a “Gay Issue”. (my opinion)
Do other groups have these sorts of discussions?
Like, do members of black civil rights groups argue whether gay rights are black issues? Or other equivalent questions?
Also, I don’t think the argument about the death penalty is a good one. If we accept the premise that the death penalty isn’t of interest to *everyone* (and therefore not necessarily of interest to gay people by virtue of them being people), then one could say, well, women voting used to be illegal, so women have a strong interest in criminality, so women should be very interested in the death penalty. And you could probably do that for basically any category of person based on old and stupid laws that used to exist. I haven’t heard of any historical case of a person in the US being executed, by the gov’t, for being gay, much less any recent case. I see no reason why the death penalty should be considered a gay issue. Now, I can see why it would be a *black* issue, because studies have shown a racial bias in the way the death penalty is applied. Maybe that could be shown to be true for LGBT criminals as well, in which case, I would agree that it is a gay issue. But as it is, I don’t see it that way.
I am also opposed to the death penalty - but I don’t think it’s a gay issue.
hello
))
I disagree with this take on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”. You acknowledge that it is a discriminatory practice, but allow this discrimination to continue because you don’t support the war. I also disagree with the war but I also believe that I should have the right to serve in it if I wanted to just like anyone else. All that your position does is promote the idea that gay people should take advantage of this discrimination, sending straight people to die in their stead. What image is that going to send?
Keep in mind that not every gay person has the same beliefs. How isolated will that gay or lesbian person feel when he or she realizes that much of the gay community is allowing this discriminatory practice in order to shirk what they feel is a national duty.
To be very blunt, stop preaching the use of bigoted ideals to cover your ass. If you disagree with the war, then disagree with the war. The worst thing you could do is try to protect your community by supporting a limitation of their rights. It gives both sides the wrong idea of what you represent.