Has the 'organized gay' led us down the wrong path?

[thoreau]

I had a real intense conversation with a gay coworker today about the recent rulings and laws that have come down around the issue of the rights of gay couples to get married. In the course of our discussion we talked about the term "gay community."

We talked about how disappointing the No on 8 campaign was - and he said he felt the worst about how the gay community treated and continues to treat gay people for whom gay marriage isn't their pet issue. My coworker felt that while he identified as a gay man and has a partner of many years that he didn't feel part of a 'gay community' nor does he feel compelled to seek it out - - - if it even exists in the first place.

Marriage isn't #1 on their radars - they have wills, domestic partnership papers, power of attorneys and all the documentation and legal power of married heterosexual couples. (minus federal recognition and tax status)

I spoke up that I thought many people in the community feel that getting out about gay marriage is a solidarity issue - that folks should get out and help the cause even if it's not their #1 issue. His response was that it's unrealistic to think that gay people (or ANY people for that matter) will rally unanimously around any issue - leave alone this issue.

It was like a lightbulb came on.... the more I thought about it.

To negatively judge a gay person that doesn't entry the fray screaming like Don Quixote with their pocketbooks or ballot box is a poor choice that will have far-reaching negative impact. We're no better than the religious right if we decide to demonize our brothers and sisters that don't put gay marriage at the front of their own personal path to equal civil rights for everyone.

and I realized that I had lost the wider-view....

This conversation stuck with me really hard - and then I had a 45 minute phone conversation with Brett septimuswarren about the "Day of Silence" at his school and other issues. and while out on Kateywalk^tm I gave some thought as to what I might say here on my blog.

here we go....

We can all recall how the blogosphere felt the first few days after Prop 8 passed in November. The biggest lesson it had for me was the abolition of my notion that I moved to a liberal state when I moved to California.

The California of 1979 perhaps - yes. California in 1979 was 60% white and Democrat. 30 years later California is 48% white and a destination for immigrants. Immigrants tend to vote Republican - and I'm not talking "right wing whacko republican" - but simply for the traditional GOP platform of less government. All the charts from the November election showed the incredible divide California has on social issues. The divide pretty well matches the percentages of the vote.

I think if the NO on 8 folks had run a campaign on civil rights vs. the campaign about marriage the YES on 8 folks ran; we would have come out on the winning side last November.

Even with that conservative immigrant driven change in political demographics coupled with an embarrassing No on 8 Campaign - the measure only passed by 2.5%. Anywhere else in the country that would have been an incredible election even with the loss. Other states passed these amendments with 67% approval (Idaho) or higher.

To lose that measure by such a slim margin - was/is/should be heartbreaking.

....but back to my point.

What do I think the turning point in this debate over our rights is? I think that the battle will turn dramatically when it's about gay equality on EVERY issue; not just marriage equality. Why? Because then it becomes a movement everyone can get behind; not just those progressives and queers that want to get married.

nudewoody posted an essay by Bob Ostertag Historian, Journalist, and Professor of Technocultural Studies and Music at UC Davis back in December that I've read and re-read. (entire posting here)

..."Gay marriage" turns the real issues of equal rights for sexual minorities upside down and paints us into a reactionary little corner of our own making. Yes, married people get special privileges denied to others. Denied not to just gays and lesbians, but to all others. Millions of straight people remain unmarried, and for a huge variety of reasons, from mothers whose support networks do not include their children's fathers, to hipsters who can't relate to religious institutions. We could be making common cause with them. We could be fighting for equal rights for everyone, not just gays and lesbians, but for all unmarried people. In the process we would leave religious institutions to define marriage however their members see fit.

That's how you win at politics, isn't it? You build principled coalitions that add up to a majority, and try not to hand potent mobilizing issues to your opposition in the process.
We (the gay community, the 'organized' gay) have done the opposite. Instead of tearing down the walls of privilege enjoyed by the nuclear family, we are demanding our own place at the married couples' table (leaving all those other unmarried people out in the cold)...

...The fact is most of us won't marry even if we have the right to. We are putting all our resources into winning a right that only the few of us in long-term conventional couple relationships will enjoy. What's more, we are creating a social climate in which young queers are encouraged to recast their vision of the relationships they seek to favor the married couple. This is not only a loss for the vibrancy of queer culture, it is a disservice to young people who will not be well served by their nuclear family ambitions. Just consider the high number of gay and lesbian divorces (yes, the rate is already high despite the fact that we have not even fully won the right to marry yet).

It is no secret that marriage isn't working for straight people. That's why religious institutions are so up in arms about it. The institution of marriage is in crisis. On what basis does anyone imagine it is going to work better for queers?"

Here's a few questions that I'd like to put to you....

1) Have organizations that represent the 'organized gay' (e.g. The Human Rights Campaign, The Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund or The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force) lost the "wider-view" in their response to the marriage equality issue?

2) If yes - we have lost our wider 'rights view' - how do we address, politically, the wide variety of opinions in our ranks as GLBT Americans without devaluing someone because they don't share our opinion on what our "civil rights" priorities should be? How should the leadership of these organizations respond to this dynamic?

3) If you feel that a focused - narrower defense against marriage equality is the right tactic - how do we do so without alienating part of our community that disagrees with that tactic. How do we engage them rather than dismiss them, which has been the prevailing behavior?

I really want to hear your points of view. This discussion is the most important one we can have - how do we make the journey towards civil rights for GLBT people one that everyone can get behind?

Comments

[jawnbc]

Whenever a minority community is discriminated against--for anything, no matter what, or how important that issue may or may not be to individual community members--every single member of that community needs to stand up and say "this is [homophobia/sexism/racism/xenophobia] and it's wrong." Period.

Equivocating and rationalizing and querying whether the issue is important or a high priority is missing the point. it's discrimination against all of us.

A secondary question is whether this point can be won here and now. Or whether it's important to me. But when we don't stand up for ourselves (plural: selves), we're saying "yeah, sure, shit on us. Because we'll let it happen. As a community."

[low-fat-muffin.livejournal.com]

but are you defining community for someone else when you state that? (believe me its rolling around in my head at 900mph)

Marriage isn't the same kind of issue as say employment protections or hate crime protections or equal access to health care. Even heterosexuals that get married do so because they want to - not because they have to. Everyone is not affected by marriage rights like everyone IS affected by equal protection against job discrimination and health care. Marriage is different - because even with the rights established - its not something we MUST do - or MUST be involved in. That is where I think the issue changes.

and in making gay marriage the lead topic, as Ostertag states - "we are creating a social climate in which young queers are encouraged to recast their vision of the relationships they seek to favor the married couple." we're saying that emulating our heterosexual peers is more important than any other issue on the table.

Jawn - I'm just throwing this out there. I'm not "angry" or "ranting" just looking to debate the topic. so thanks for being the first into the fray.... so to speak.

[septimuswarren.livejournal.com]

I agree with jawnbc here. Whenever a group is discriminated against it is the responsibility of everyone to stand up and take action. A nation is weakened when its citizens are repressed. Right now the national stage for gay rights is marriage so that is where all the energy is being directed.

As for the gay community, well, it's fragmented with everyone from twinks to silver daddies to dykes on bikes, so for me, the compound noun holds little value. I still have certain expectations, however, for those individuals who are LGBTQ. Some of those expectations are mentioned in the first paragraph.

I agree with your original point, Robert, that marriage is a fragmentation of the overall picture of civil rights for gay people in America. We have lost the forest through the trees and are focused too specifically on ONE issue, as if granting federal marriage rights will somehow magically allow all our other rights to fall into place. But marriage is the last real vestige of government-sponsored hate in America.

At the end of the day, I don't care if gays can marry or not, but I want them to have the same rights as heterosexuals. That's why gay marriage is important to me. I hear gay people speak of how they don't want gay marriage and how fucked up marriage is and look at what marriage has done for the straight people and all that, and as a result they opt not to get involved. Nothing makes me more crazy. These people are being repressed and they don't stand up for themselves because they act like civil rights is a cafeteria line. I don't care about this right, but you'd better damn well give me that one. Sorry folks, but it doesn't work that way. If you want to live in the land of the free and the home of the brave and you want everyone to be free, then you have to be willing for stand up for everyone, including yourself, even for issues that are not important to you.

With all that said, if gay people are going to have equal rights in America they are going to have to befriend both gay and straight people with whom they do not agree. And I very much agree with your point about militant gays who get in the faces of people who do not support this right or that. Just because something is important to me does not mean it has to be important to you, but as I said above, I expect you to help me stand up and fight for that right so we call be free to make the choice we want.

[joebehrsandiego.livejournal.com]

Robert - I agree with Jawn here.

I - personally - have a Very Little Dog ... smaller than KateyDog ... in this fight. But it is an issue bigger than me, or any of us as individuals. Jawn's paragraph #2 puts it as well as I ever could.

We stand or fall together. I see and understand your analogies re. building bridges with straight folks on common issues ... and in general I wholeheartedly agree. But ... we can't equivocate on this one. We just can't. It spins off into too many other facets of life that - no offense - your co-worker is not thinking of.

Thank you for starting this discussion, and letting me say my piece. I look forward to seeing what your other friends have to say.

[philhasablog.livejournal.com]

I don't have any special attachment to legal marriage, so long as we have equal rights and responsibilities. In truth the most expedient way to accomplish that is marriage equality.

I think it's time to push through. I wouldn't have gone this way but as long as we've started down the road and we're picking up speed, we better go ahead. The next chance could be a very long time coming.

At the same time, this is not the most pressing issue for most gay people. Nondiscrimination laws to protect individuals should be first. Protecting the rights of each individual should be the first priority of the electorate AND legislative representatives AND the judiciary. Subsequent to individual protections, (afforded through establishment of protected classes in most cases) we should support social institutions such as marriage and religion.

But that's just me.

[joebehrsandiego.livejournal.com]

Phil - In all seriousness, I wish society parsed these issues the way you outlined them in your last paragraph here. That's the way I like to structure thoughts and actions myself.

But politics and social change/advancement are only tangentially about logic and critical thought. Primarily they're about customs ... mores ... and emotions.

By winning the "married" struggle we get society to think of us in a much more inclusive way ... often unconsciously but ultimately very powerfully.

[excessor.livejournal.com]

I guess I sort of agree with what your commenters have written so far, but I think I would put it in a different way.

Marriage is the single lynch-pin issue for our community. Once we have same-sex marriage equality, all others have very little or no legal standing. Marriage is that important to our society.

When I came out, what I wanted was to not be different because of my gayness. Marriage equality gets me there.

So fast-forward 25 years (when I'm 50): say that we have an equal opportunity to marry under the law and that the discrimination and societal opprobrium we face today are gone. Are we still then a community? To jawnbc's point, we are shit upon now; once the shitstorm stops, are we any different from anyone else? We say that's what we want, but I always thought my gayness was special. I'm not certain that my issues are the same as those of a poorly educated, unskilled immigrant laborer who happens to have a sexual and emotional preference for members of his or her own gender. My point is that economic issues have a lot to do with this (which is why discrimination issues are so huge for us).

[low-fat-muffin.livejournal.com]

as I said above - I'm not sure I'm convinced that gaining marriage-equality is going to create bridges to these other topics. I worry we're blowing our financial and political wads on a topic that is an elitist, old-fashioned rite.

[eric-mathgeek.livejournal.com]

Marriage is the single lynch-pin issue for our community. Once we have same-sex marriage equality, all others have very little or no legal standing. Marriage is that important to our society.

That was my thought too.

[joebehrsandiego.livejournal.com]

Paul - Thank you for (especially) pargraphs #2 and #3 here.

@Bob - this is what I was trying to get at in my two initial comments; Paul summarizes it better.

[broduke2000.livejournal.com]

Well I'm for Gay marriage. But am I for the Gay community?

No.

99% of the Gay community is non-bearded shorthaired disco (although they don't call it that anymore) "queens."

At any pride celebration I've ever gone to, I feel alienated. Ditto in a Gay bar.

So I'm for Gay marriage, but that don't mean I'm invited to a victory celebration, if there is one.

[low-fat-muffin.livejournal.com]

I get really sad when I read notes like yours. I REALLY dislike that mainstream gay talks out the side of it's mouth about inclusion but labels and assumptions and bullshit start peeling people off almost immediately.

I was on the board (for instance) of the Bear group in Boise for a year or so. and they did an annual float down the river; and I got voted OFF the board because I suggested we invite the Lesbian dinner group to float with us.

I'm sure that the inclusion battle isn't simply a "gay" issue - but the way we divide and them subdivide again? is really sad. and I'm just as guilty - setting myself up with a friends list of like minded people sometimes and not "including" voices I don't want to hear.

(supersigh)

[designerotter.livejournal.com]

my two-cents worth on the issue: I think all the points and angles you've pointed out have merit and are worth considering. However, I see a bigger picture. To begin with, fundamentally it's not about the "M" word .... it's about the "R" word: r-e-s-p-e-c-t. My logic has always been this: marriage is one of humankind's oldest and most respected institutions (the "D" word notwithstanding). Any group on whom the privilege of marriage is conferred automatically gains a common level of respect across the society as a whole. If the right to marry were granted to us, the repercussions of respectability down the road would be cumulative over time, and huge. I've long suspected that our wiliest enemies have figured this out, so of course they're willing to lie, cheat, and move heaven and earth to keep gay marriage from happening.
Whether a gay person specifically favors marriage is virtually irrelevant...nobody says you have to get married under any circumstances, even if the right were granted. I think it's one of the quirks of fate that the whole marriage issue has risen to prominence ... serendipity, more or less. But it's the issue that's here. It offers uncanny opportunities we'd be foolish to turn our backs on.
BTW, I'd never chastise anyone for not joining a particular bandwagon ... we should each work with whatever moves us. But, having lived through a lot of history, it seems to me that when the zeitgeist beckons, we can each pay attention and make a choice. Sometimes joining with others turns individual choice into community milestones.
And incidentally, I've always been a tad ambivalent about 'gay community'... too often it seems like some mythical euphemism, the links among individuals being all too tenuous. So part of me shrugs skeptically. Nevertheless, I can still notice the larger waves in the ocean. At some point I'll have to blog about that rare 'gay community' that really deserves the name ... in my experience, the moniker seems to fit LJ uniquely well.

[low-fat-muffin.livejournal.com]

We are far to into this issue to turn our backs on it; that was never my suggestion. but some people talk about gay marriage like it's the endall/beall - that once we have marriage equality everything else will fall into place. I have a hard time believing that in America. Just look at the continued mistreatment of African American communities decades after their mainstream civil rights struggle. The fight to win a notch on the power pyramid of American politics is never going to end. I just hope we have the stamina for "whats next" after we fight and win to achieve marriage equality.

[nyrimmer.livejournal.com]

The whole concept of rights for any given segment of society is bogus at best and in reality hideous. By giving any one group recognition of a certain "right" you are saying that it's ok that others don't have these same rights.There can be no freedom and rights until we have equal rights for all human beings . Going about getting rights for any one specific group of people just hinders that process by dragging it out.What we really need is a comprehensive declaration of human rights stating that all people have the same rights.The right can't argue about that and neither can the left.But, our spineless politicians will never go here out of fear of loosing campaign contributions and elections so the bigotry continues and will long after gay marriage is a distant memory. We will be all warm & fuzzy feeling and some other poor bastard will still be fighting for his rights.

[jawnbc]

Actually your point is ahistorical. In places with a universal declaration of human rights, the fight for those rights for gays has still necessitated activism and changes in law. Because until it was explicit that human rights included gay rights, organizations and individuals still denied us those rights. The EU, Canada, South Africa all have a version of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in their constitutions or laws, but queer people have--and still have--had to assert these rights.

But it doesn't have to be "I get mine and I'm done." In fact, one of the reasons queers have done better over the last 20 years is the ability of many activists to work in alliance with activists from other communities. "Help us now and we'll help you too" has proven sustainable and effective.

But I do agree: I wish it were different and I wish all the bullshit could just stop. I really do.

[hwynym.livejournal.com]

My coworker felt that while he identified as a gay man and has a partner of many years that he didn't feel part of a 'gay community' nor does he feel compelled to seek it out - - - if it even exists in the first place.

Marriage isn't #1 on their radars - they have wills, domestic partnership papers, power of attorneys and all the documentation and legal power of married heterosexual couples. (minus federal recognition and tax status)

OK - let's take that argument back to the 50's:

My coworker felt that while he identified as a black man and has a dark skin that he didn't feel part of a 'black community' nor does he feel compelled to seek it out - - - if it even exists in the first place.

Not being forced to ride in the back of the bus isn't #1 on his radar - he has taxis, friends with cars and he can still walk if he has to.

Back to today -

In this case, the "community" isn't about HIS perception. As I illustrated above, just because someone doesn't perceive himself to be part of a community, the people oppressing that group of people WILL see him as part of that community whether he likes it or not. He's free to disassociate to his heart's desire. That won't change the perception of Bill O'Reilly one iota.

The further point is this: I have been married. I'll never ever get married again. But I will fight for someone else's right to get married.

Why?

Because I've seen the face of hatred on the people who fear this change. If the fight isn't made, is there anyone who beleives that they will stop with this issue? I certainly don't. These people are homophobic and many see it as their calling in life to persecute those they fear. It will not stop with this issue.

More recently - how many people died of HIV while the government under Reagan sat back and did nothing until the outrage was organized? If people weren't still vigilant about gay rights, then how long would it be before we were back to a government that didn't care about the lives of "...a bunch of sick homos who probably got what they asked for..." ?

I'm sorry if that last example seems harsh, but this is how the people behind Proposition 8 and other anti-gay marriage groups think and they don't make a distinction for your coworker - and given an inch, they'll take as many miles as they can get away with.

So, if your co-worker doesn't want to join the fight, that's his choice. nobody's telling him that he can't make that choice. But I don't see him as anything but a person who is willing to sit back and be comfortable while others do the work of fighting for his rights. Not a hangable offense, surely - but not someone I'd probably be friends with. If he has espoused his views to others who feel as I do and been received less than warmly, then I understand his trouble in finding a gay community that's accepting.

[joebehrsandiego.livejournal.com]

Yes - and this is exactly why the Radical/Xtian Right is simultaneously Mad as Hatters and Scared Sh*tless over the advancement of G&L marriage. Thsy *know* once that battle is won, the rest of their nonsense will come collapsing down like the rancid house of cards it is - if not immediately then pretty damn soon.

@Bob - Sad to say, but you, I and most of your friends/"friends" are visually and socially a lot less frightening than Black folks, to most people. Once they start having to equate us=married=OK legally it won't take long (my prediction) for it to be a non-issue socially and emotionally; much less longer than Black folks have had to wait.

Once again, that's a sad thing to say but I strongly suspect it's true.

[wescobear.livejournal.com]

IMHO marriage equality is crucial because it sets a 'new normal' where society is forced to treat the LGBT community as equals. I'm not in a relationship right now, so there is no husbear waiting to meet me at the altar, but I pay the same damn taxes and I want exactly the same damn rights as everyone else.

Having come out in the decade after Stonewall, the progress made by our community is amazing to me. In 40 years we've gone from when the police still thought it was just fine to go into a bar and rough up a bunch of fags to where we have legal marriage for everyone slowly creeping across the USA.

Even though marriage equality has not yet made it to Pennsylvania, I've been thinking a lot about what marriage would mean to me personally, and where a relationship would need to be in order to commit to marrying my (future) boyfriend. And if it ever does happen, I'm thinking of a simple civil ceremony - no "Big Fat Irish Wedding" for me!

[abqdan.livejournal.com]

To paraphrase a famous author - "that's an interesting question, but the wrong one".

There is a gay community, but that doesn't mean every gay man has to be a part of it. There are fundamentalist gay Christians, Mormons, and Republicans. (I know a gay Mormon who is continuously depressed by the fact that he is going to burn in hell fire for all eternity. It doesn't stop him sucking dick).

Reasonable men can disagree about any issue. I don't expect 100% support from any population on anything. There is however an overwhelming majority of gay men who believe marriage equality is THE major issue. I don't actually fall into that category; but I'm not as complacent as those you spoke to either. With all the money and time Bill and I have spent on legal protections, we still lack just over 1,000 rights my friend is about to receive automatically just after her 20 minute walk down the aisle and marriage to her second husband, for the cost of a marriage license.

And no, I don't think a broad approach to civil liberties will work; because the REAL question is "How do we achieve civil rights in Washington?" And the answer to that is incrementally, one issue at a time. Our enemies would love us to attack all issues at the same time - they can divide those up and defeat the whole movement very easily. Given focus on one single issue though, they have to find the focussed arguments that will defeat that one issue. That's why they try so hard to broaden it - like the 'Storm' advertisement, which tries to conflate marriage, education, hate crimes and other issues into the infamous 'gay agenda'.

[low-fat-muffin.livejournal.com]

I don't think that my co-worker was being complacent at all.
and if that was what I communicated I'm sorry.

all he was doing was questioning the energy and direction that the current 'organized gay' community is taking is all.

He just doesn't hold much stalk in the "institution of marriage" and doesn't see it as the #1 battle he thinks organized gay rights groups should be fighting. Unfortunately - organized conservative groups HAVE made it the front and center issue - - - and I think they've done so in order to keep up from battling for national hate crime protection, equal access to health care and other issues.

I agree that rights will be achieved incrementally - I just wish that we weren't spending a decade on "gay marriage" at the expense of so many other issues that would benefit a much larger segment of gay americans.

[bitterlawngnome.livejournal.com]

Turn the question around Robert - who stands to profit from you being distracted by this relatively minor issue (I say minor compared to for instance people being killed by their government for being gay, or, in the US, universal health care).

[low-fat-muffin.livejournal.com]

oh I agree - there are lots of groups from HMO's to other groups. Politics is insidious.

[bluebear2.livejournal.com]

What I find odd in Canada is when immigrants and ethnic minorities vote for the Conservative (formarly The Reform Party). Don't they remember that not too many years ago those same people were wanting to deport them?

[joebehrsandiego.livejournal.com]

Immigrants from your (Canada's) and our major focii of emigration are - culturally/religioiusly - as whole more conservative than native-born folks (I would posit even more so in Canada than the U.S.).

[pklexton.livejournal.com]

1) Yes, I think they have to some extent. On the one hand, solidarity is important, discrimination on marriage is bad. On the other hand, I question the prioritization of this issue. In many (most?) states I think you can still legally be fired, denied housing, not served, etc. just for being gay, not to mention booted out of the military. Teenagers - and even some sitcoms on tv (I saw it on Two and a Half Men just yesterday) - still use "that's so gay" as a derogatory term - not as derogatory as it once was, but it's still there. People still get beaten up just for being gay. Personally I would rank all of these injustices higher on my list of priorities than marriage. These organizations often seem more concerned about the issues of the pampered A-list gay elite who make up their boards and donors than the folks who are hurting most, though they obviously do a lot of good work and I know I'm not being totally fair.

And yet ... all of the vitriol and nastiness from the reaction on the right to the marriage campaign has had its effect on me, and I'm fired up because their reactions are so disgusting.

I don't know what the right answer is. Big picture, I think we have to fight on all fronts - I would personally focus a little more on basic anti-discrimination laws though - and I am glad that I've seen so much progress in my lifetime. For all the blame that gets tossed around within the pro-gay marriage campaign, I actually think coming as close as we did on 8 was a huge step forward. Not enough, obviously, but I'd prefer to look at it in the positive light.

[stivalineri.livejournal.com]

What's going to happen I wonder when the general populace finds out that marriage between gay men is more often than not an open marriage? Fidelity for gay men means something completely different than what it does for straight people.

My problem with putting marriage first in gay advocacy is that it's mainly about materialism, protecting money and stuff. That's important, but lives and freedom from violence are orders of magnitude more important. And even in gay haven cities like New York and San Francisco, gay people, especially gay people of color are bashed and killed and driven to suicide. Stopping the deaths and violence should be our first goal. Anyone that puts anything else before that is just plain wrong.

I don't have much right to express an opinion, but...

[balanceinchaos.livejournal.com]

...I am part of the LGBTQ community. I suppose I'd be considered "mulato" instead of "black" and am mostly rejected by the "community", by I whole heartedly support equality and protection against discrimation for everyone (even a "fence sitter" like me). I however, am not particularly fond of government being in the business of "marriage", which I consider a religious institution... Wife and I agree that the government's role is only to assure the rights to property and protection of children, and as such should only provide civil unions for people, straight or gay. People can get married at the church, and whether that church discriminates is a matter of the members, but government shouldn't. Were the government to change to civil unions, we'd turn in our "marriage license" and obtain a civil union.

As for this particular battle, I think "Gay Marriage" should be changed to "marriage equality"; be inclusive instead of exclusive... but that's just me


I agree with your assessment of the fracturing of the LGBTQ community. There is no group I can think of that segregates its members as absolutely as the LGBTQ community. Twinks, Bears, Wolves, Otters, Hunks, Muscle Bears, Silver Daddies, Chicken Hawks, and so on... the entire LGBTQ Zoo creates its own cages and walls to keep each "type" in its own zone.

I think it is an admirable goal for the LGBTQ community to become in all ways equal to the straight community, rights, thoughts and everything else. When that happens, after a generation or two, though there will still be gay advocacy and so on, being gay won't be a "rally point" for the common person, and no more an issue than whether someone is tall or short, blonde or brunette.

That's a long way off... but I hope to see it in my lifetime.

[nlotic.livejournal.com]

It's a game of chess. I think part of concentrating on gay marriage is a response to DOMA laws and amendments.

In many ways the DOMA issues has backfired on anti-glbt forces. Opinion is changing and changing fast...especially with the younger folks. I don't think we'd have gotten the same amount of visibility with some of the other issue.

I personally want equal marriage/civil union rights. A "married lifestyle" is always the lifestyle I've wanted to live. I also think it's the fastest path to other equal protection rights.

you do know

[arkanjil.livejournal.com]

that there are still gays who hold (sometimes, rather militantly) to the view that 'assimilating into breeder culture' is the very last thing that we as a group should be doing. I've lost what I considered to be very good friends over having Beth, and I must admit to having concerns on the subject too. Gay, for the longest time was at it's base an identity carved out of otherness If we become more like the norm, than just how are we different from them?

Re: you do know

[kroyd.livejournal.com]

Assimilate? Not assimilate? What about just being ourselves. The one thing that makes us unique as a group is the one thing tha also dilutes our political power (sometimes); our diversity. We are homosexual, but NOT homogeneous.

I too lost a few friends by becoming a father. But I lost friends over politics, and over religion too. C'est la vie.

If we can overcome our differences and unite to overcome adversity, then we can be an example to the world to do the same. I think in this lies our potential for changing the direction of mankind on this planet.

[kroyd.livejournal.com]

I haven't taken the time to read the comments of others who have posted above and before me, but.....

Civil Rights even when granted in a blanket manner such as when slavery was ended is not a complete solution. It IS however a wonderful start. If we could get this as a community that would be great but I'm not holding my breath for that one. Even when granted (or fought for and won) there is the issue of enforcing it which is the second half of the battle, but at least then the law is established.

In most cases "Equal Rights" for any group is won in a peice-meal fashion; one at a time, and apparently state-by-state.

What struck me the most about your post is the idea that we persecute our own gay brothers and sisters who did not get out and push for equal marriage rights. I am not aware of that ever happening. First of all I haven't met any YES on 8 gay folks yet. I think most feel that even if we wouldn't want to get married we should have the right to do so should we choose.

And Oh My GOD!!! Who ever said marriage would work BETTER for gay people? No one that I know of. This brings to mind a comment that the radio personality Imus made when, much to his consternation, was asked by Larry King about his views on "gay marriage." His comment was "Sure! Why not. They can't mess it up any worse than straight folks have." Personally I think marriage as defined by religion is stupid. However, like it or not a social institution; not just a religious sacrament. In this, comes another problem in my way of thinking.

Marriage IS a religious rite; we can't escape that. WHY do we go to the state to put legal binding on a religious sacrament? Our church membership is not handled that way nor any other of the religious traditions. Bottom line is that The State needs to get out of this business.

The State needs to issue Civil Unions to everyone; heterosexual couples too. Civil Unions need to have all the same rights as "marriage" currently has.

This would seperate the issues and the religious right could rest assured that The State; indeed their own State; is not legitimizing something that is wrong according to their religious convictions.
This would put civil matters in the hands of the State where it belongs, and religious matters (marriage) back in the hands of the churches where it belongs.

This seems so blaringly obvious to me, but then.... that's me.
:)

[snousle.livejournal.com]

I think the battle was lost at the very point where the issue was framed as "the government should allow same-sex couples to marry".

Uncountable same-sex couples are ALREADY married and it behooves the government to RECOGNIZE those marriages. This is a totally different, much more empowering perspective that invites the strengthening of existing marriages and the creation of new ones.

What the gay community has done, instead, is to choose a path of helplessness and deference to bureaucracy. The idea that a marriage is not "legitimate" without the magic paperwork is kind of insulting when you think about it. It's not that the paperwork is irrelevant, but in its absence, there are highly effective workarounds available right now. Unfortunately, information about how to be married without state assistance is overshadowed by the "can't get married" message, which strikes me as explicitly counterproductive.

If gay men were to work to make the substantial part of marriage a reality (and make a habit of calling it marriage), then state recognition and its associated benefits would be more likely to follow. Unfortunately I suspect that the top-down approach, which is more melodramatic and thus more amenable to political activism, will have the effect of delaying legal recognition by many years. The few pro-marriage rulings have been overwhelmed by reactionary anti-marriage legislation that will take a long time to unwind.