"give us a place to stand and we will move the earth..."

[thoreau]

As a political activist and outspoken writer in Idaho in the late 90's and early 2000's – one of my political idols was (and still is) Idaho Senator Nicole Lefavour. Not only is she the only openly gay member of the Idaho Senate – she is an overtly calm and highly affective speaker and community organizer. As I watched Barak Obama campaign and work over the last two years – his tone and attitude constantly reminded me of Nicole.

I had the privilege of going lobbying with Nicole once when we were on the board together of a rights organization in Idaho. A central Idaho legislator was discussing gay rights with us- and the legislator said she had faced discrimination as a Mormon – and understood discrimination but that she could not equate the discrimination she had faced with the discrimination we spoke of.

I was a very young activist at that point – and Nicole knew I wanted to confront the legislator's point of view. Nicole (not so gently) stepped on my foot under the table and told the legislator that she respected her taking the time to speak with us – and thank you for listening to us about the needs of gay and lesbian Idahoans.

In that one moment in time, Nicole taught me the most powerful lesson I have ever learned in politics. You can't make forward progress if you cast your advisaries as "the enemy" ("clueless homophobes" or "liberal San Francisco faggots"). You can't win by dismissing someone's point of view carte blanche then expect them to listen or honor yours in the next breath. Change simply doesn't happen that way. The right wing evangelical goes back to his corner - the leftist San Francisco faggot (me, for instance) goes back to his - and nothing was accomplished in the exchange.

As a result of my work in Idaho - I have friends across the political spectrum - on Facebook, on LJ, on blogs, at work, in my personal realtime life - who I regularly engage in conversations. I have friends with deeply held conservative religious views with whom I am able to discuss things without it ever turning to a single disrespectful word.

I've read a lot today - from people here on LJ - to blogs across the spectrum. Daily I read the blog of The Idaho Values Alliance - a neo-conservative religious blog written by Brian Fischer, a former political opponent of mine in Idaho; I read the Huffington Post; I read the conservative World Net Daily; I read JoeMyGod - every single day. I read several dozen blogs on a weekly basis - and today was a very odd day across that entire blogosphere.

What I saw across the board - whether it was reading comments from the far right - the center or the far left; was a total lack of respect for one another.  Liberal bloggers challenging the liberal-ness of commenters, radical right bloggers calling people tyrants, and just a hip-shooter kind of response from everyone.

I think it is powerful for like-minded people to disagree. Very powerful!  An example of that like-minded respectful debate was in a trade of comments with paulintoronto

today - he said to me:

"Ultimately, though, speaking of diversity, I think that our discussion here is a genuine and legitimate example of diversity: you articulate a reasoned and respectful position on this issue, and I assert a contrary one, hopefully with the same degree of reason and respect. Neither of us is attempting to take away the other's rights, or to diminish the other as a person. On the contrary, you are actually facilitating the diversity by allowing me to comment on your own blog.”

Others were not nearly as cordial. How did it become so acceptable to let debate dissolve into name-calling and labeling? My point is that it wasn't simply on LJ around gay men talking about the issue – it is happening across the blogosphere on the right and the left and the center. The entire blogosphere has lost the ability to debate reasonably without devolving into name calling and dismissal of opposing points of view.

We lose as a movement when our only argument against someone is “he's a homophobe” – the same way a right wing speaker/debater loses by simply dismissing us as “a whiny/liberal fag.”

Lets face it – on any gay rights issue we have more explaining to do than the opposition does - it makes our work A LOT harder; which means we have to maintain that level of respect even MORE vigilently.

The opposition can say it’s talking points about 5000 years of this – and a tradition of that. And until we can articulate a reason for our rights to marriage, our rights to equal access to healthcare, or workplace discrimination better than “because we want them” it is always going to be that way.

And that debate has rightfully started within our community – particularly since the passage of further anti-gay rights bans in Arizona, Florida, California and Kansas. That debate is showing signs, however, of lacking respect for differences in opinion. And having it out in the open on blogs – gives our opponents cut-and-pasteable evidence that even queers cant respect one another enough to organize.

How is the religious right accomplishing so much? – mutual respect of one another and organizing effectively behind a cause. These people - our political opponents - mean very serious business.

How do we as a queer movement get past the "if I disagree with you - I must verbally destroy you?" place we are in right now? Somehow us queers need to find our way out of this tar baby of a debate we are having and get to the real struggle to real answers for our community's problems and issues in greater society.

The title of this post is a paraphrase of the famous quote by Archimedes who said "give me a place to stand and I will move the earth." He was talking about math and mechanics - but the same can ring true for our movement.

If we create a unified base with which to move forward - we can move the earth. We can create undeniable change. But so far - the queer community hasn't found that base of unity other movements like the civil rights movement of the 60s or the rise of the religious right to power with GW Bush in 2000.

It is time to radically change the strategy moving forward. If we really want to effectively organize behind our mutual cause – we need to start having a debate that leads us to a unified solid movement.

Who knows what meeting in what city will include the next accidental activist who will be this century’s Harvey Milk? The quickest way never finding out is to continue treating each other with displaced anger, disrespect and intolerance. Faced with that – he or she is likely to get up and walk out when the meeting is over and never return.

Comments

[starzinked.livejournal.com]

VERY well stated.

[grizzlyzone.livejournal.com]

Very good, Bob.

I'm reminded of Reagan-Carter debates when Carter is trying to make a point, and ol' Ronnie just stops, cocks his head and says "Well, there you go again." I thought Reagan won the election at that point.

You see a similar thing when Pat Roberstson explains his POV on his "news" program. He explains everything in his "Reagan" voice, and automatically seems "rational".

[quirkstreet.livejournal.com]

I am finding the anger circling within our communities regarding disagreement on these important issues at least as debilitating as the scariness of the haters. Thanks for this.

[wescobear.livejournal.com]

LFM -

I appreciate your passion on this issue, but I am at a loss as to how to deal the the other side. Frankly I find them to be nearly completely irrational.

Take the abortion issue. If you truly want to stop abortion, wouldn't it be significant progress to greatly reduce the number of abortions performed? So logically you would want comprehensive sex education, access to birth control in schools and extensive social welfare programs to support pregnant women so they keep their children. Well the Religious Right has fought all of these things. They seem to want to turn the clock back to the 1950's and wish away everything they don't like.

I find similar behaviors with the Religious Right on LGBT issues. They cite their religious beliefs and quote passages from the Bible to oppose rights for the LGBT community. Yet they selectively ignore inconvenient passages in the Old Testament in their own lives, such as subjecting disrespectful children to death by stoning. Just how do you reason with someone illogical? How do you convince them that we don't live in a theocracy and their religious beliefs don't veto someone else's civil rights? I don't even know where to begin...

[truthfeather.livejournal.com]

If we want peace, we must first make peace with our own violence.
This was well written Robert, have you by chance read Chogyam Trungpa? He has some things to say about this that might be useful to further dialog.

[low-fat-muffin.livejournal.com]

the point of my post was that we too busy sniping at one another to find any sort of unity behind causes.

As for abortion? The radical right has as many "I don't care what the left and left of center have to say - I'm right" types as we have the far left "the right is all irrational whackos" types.

Fighting someone's deeply held religious views is very tough waters to navigate. What I encourage - is engaging people with opposing abortion views on the very topics your brought up with a respectful tone. Ask them why there are not for comprehensive sex education, access to birth control in schools and extensive social welfare programs to support pregnant women so they keep their children. All totally fair questions.

The change of tone though might open your eyes to some new ways to challenge them - if you don't go INTO the argument casting them as completely irrational. Make sense?

[grizzlyzone.livejournal.com]

I gave a great deal of thought about the "Biblical" POV, and one day came to the realization that it really didn't matter what the Bible said, what the writers actually meant or the context of the time. Their religious beliefs weren't my religious beliefs, and therefore, I was being persecuted for having a different belief system.

[low-fat-muffin.livejournal.com]

I spent my kateywalk talking on the phone on this topic with a dear treasured friend of mine. (Lance, althrman) and when I voiced this post outloud - he said "you have just found the answer." I am so blessed to have wise people to counsel with and find a path that tries (not always successfully) to find the path of respect and truth. Having to churn through so much to get there is tough going sometime.

[low-fat-muffin.livejournal.com]

The beauty of a democracy - is that everyone is entitled to thier respective religious views. Declaring yourself persecuted because you disagree with someone on a topic - sounds confrontational. Why can't the answer be that you simply disagree with someone - not "since I think differently I'm being persecuted" - don't giveaway your power by claiming persecution. (wink) Stand strong - and powerfully disagree. then debate can be responsive and respectful - rather than reactive and from a place of persecution. Does that make sense?

[joebehrsandiego.livejournal.com]

Robert and Pete -

Do you think some of this is a gender issue ... and if so, any ideas of how to get beyond it?

My point: Gay men are men first, and gay second ... and men in general seem to have a hard time parsing the drama in their heads from the larger issue/goal, working collaboratively and (frankly) knowing when to STFU.

My two cents ... I hope we can collectively address all of these.

[grizzlyzone.livejournal.com]

Absolutely.

[audrabaudra.livejournal.com]

Don't know where to begin agreeing, Bob!

One of the reasons the Right keeps winning is because they keep everyone "on the reservation" and on message. We lefties cherish the individual and individual rights. Our ideals make it harder for us to accept the idea that winning isn't created by having superior ideas about justice, liberty, and fairness, but by a disciplined strategy in an approach to The Issues.

Karl Rove (Oooooh, one bullet...) and his ilk have mastered the game by grabbing the semantics. For all of our creative credentials across the board, they understand the power of communication and language better than we do. Your point, "Why can't the answer be that you simply disagree with someone - not "since I think differently I'm being persecuted" - don't giveaway your power by claiming persecution. (wink)" is crucial. When we leap from 0 to 60 by crying out "persecution," we have once more given the far Right the semantic upper-hand. We're allowing them to define our status, and that's giving them our power.

By the way, when I say "we," I obviously know that I'm not a gay man (Duh :-) And I don't mean to say that I understand what it's like to feel what persecution means. I don't. I'm an average, straight, forty-year-old woman who could easily get WMD onboard Air Force I, for god's sake, I'm so genially overlooked as "unexceptional." So I'm not aware of what life is like inside your skin, but I am an ally and supporter of the GLBT community, always will be.

So thanks for running a very "open tent" here, Bob, as a forum for someone like me to come in and talk with you about these very important civil and human rights issues. It will take a lot of us to turn the tide in the direction of what is truly right.

Wish we knew more about what's up the Obama camp's sleeve right now!

[quirkstreet.livejournal.com]

In the context of what I've been seeing lately, there could be a gender component, but so many of my friends these days skew menward, it could just be sample bias. When I was doing organizing in mixed-gender communities ... I don't know, my feeling was that the intensity of the rhetoric was sometimes a little lower but the tendency to lock in on drama and not listen to other people, including people within the same community, was still pretty intense.

Bottom line, for me: I hear a lot of people explaining why their anger is justified. I agree. The anger is justified.

But is it useful? Is it performing any political function that moves us forward? That's what I want to know.

[cuyahogarvr.livejournal.com]

Thank our for your insightful and powerful post. You've hit the nail on the head - it's not about anger, it's not about persecution - it's about........
....oh.... wait.... there's the issue... What IS IT about?

All of the successful movements that have brought about change not only in our country, but in countries acrosse the board had a "big picture" focus, whether it was national (Anti-slavery movement, prohibition, civil marriage in Spain, Britain, Canada, France, Germany etc.) or world focused (Gandhi). The Gay Rights movement in this country hasn't achieved that yet. Heck, the Women's Rights movement hasn't achieved that yet in this country either, but we need to do so in order to succeed.

We're moving there, slowly but surely, but until it truly becomes a NATIONAL movement with national goals, it will continue to creep along. As I've said before, and truly believe - IT WILL HAPPEN IN MY LIFETIME.

[dakoopst.livejournal.com]

Yes.

Absolutely, yes.

[nudewoody.livejournal.com]

Robert, you asked me in your last post if you could talk to me about this. Of course you can. I did not want to give the impression that you could not or that I would not hear you. I think we are still friends. For me it is not a sky is falling moment, but one more among many which I fear are a harbinger of things to come. But in the end you know, if you've been reading my blog, I think all of this ultimately is of very little importance.

[quietdanmn.livejournal.com]

What I saw across the board - whether it was reading comments from the far right - the center or the far left; was a total lack of respect for one another.

To me, this is a central problem - not only with this particular issue - in society as a whole. There seems to be little willingness to respect the differences that everyone has on various issues. It is ironic, that society becomes more tolerant of some things and less tolerant of others at the same time. It suggests, to me, that the idea of respect & tolerance is a sliding scale instead of an expanding circle of knowledge and perspective.

Thanks for sharing this well-written perspective. I appreciate the opportunity to read and learn.

Be well!

[low-fat-muffin.livejournal.com]

Turning that anger into social and political change is hard - because it asks people to DO something other than just be angry. and getting folks to take that next step is REAL hard.
Where were the marches on City Hall when the other 27 states in the union got gay marriage amendments? A lot of people are angry because it finally happened to them - and they are at a loss of how to change it. and it's heartbreaking and humiliating to realize that it may take YEARS and YEARS of work to undo Prop 8. Getting people behind the ISSUE - and not just a keyboard is the real accomplishment.

[altf4ljdrama.livejournal.com]

Wow. Quite a good point.

So, was A central Idaho legislator was discussing gay rights with us- and the legislator said she had faced discrimination as a Mormon – and understood discrimination but that she could not equate the discrimination she had faced with the discrimination we spoke of. this a certain legislator that is perpetually elected from E. Idaho (Challis) and helped kill mass transit planning/expansion for Ada and Canyon Counties...?

[low-fat-muffin.livejournal.com]

quite possibly the very same.