A front-page article in today's New York Times examines the struggle within the gay community to figure out what, if anything, it should do next in the wake of the 2004 elections, when 11 states passed anti-gay same-sex marriage legislation and the country re-elected a president who wants an anti-gay constitutional amendment. (Groups Debate Slower Strategy on Gay Rights)
There is a fear that we've been overreaching and that the backlash has been or will be insurmountable; that by pushing for full marriage rights while a significant proportion of the country remains uncomfortable with the concept, we have forced the hand of the religious right and mobilized them into enacting laws that set us back. Some wonder if we shouldn't aim just a little lower for now.
I think we need to look back at the effective civil rights campaigns of the past. I'm trying to picture Susan B. Anthony or Martin Luther King, Jr., telling supporters that their goals are unrealistic.
Yes, we need to examine our tactics. Be honest about what worked and what didn't. But let's also not put all our eggs in one basket. There is a place for measured, pragmatic, step-by-step legal techniques and social outreach programs, and it's right along side in-your-face activism.
I categorically reject any suggestion that we shouldn't shoot for the moon. In the short term, we're gonna lose some battles, especially if Bush gets to replace three or more Supreme Court Justices. Given the success of the 11 recent state initiatives, there will likely be more. But these are just laws. Laws are not permanent. Laws are interpreted, amended, and repealed. Sometimes they are judged unconstitutional. And none of the laws that are being enacted now change the daily reality for any of us. They take away rights we don't even have. Practically speaking, nothing is different today than it was six months ago.
Increasingly, however, public opinion is on our side. And that is where the final victory will be won, in the court of public opinion. Trent Lott was hounded out of his senate leadership position when he made casual remarks at a private function that fondly recalled the promise of a pro-segregation presidency. He didn't break any laws. When we can move society to the point where Rick "man-on-dog" Santorum incurs the same outrage, whatever laws passed today will be meaningless and not long for the books.
Specifically, I think we need a more aggressive public relations war. Call every bluff. Publicize every discriminatory remark. Challenge every assertion. Push all the science we can get our hands on. Recently it was exposed that 99.8% of the indecency complaints received by the FCC this year were filed by one organization. There's no reason we can't go after Fox News, the 700 Club and other mouthpieces for the amoral minority and tell the government we're offended.
It's going to be a long, hard fight, and we shouldn't look for any significant victories with Bush in the White House and Republicans controlling both arms of Congress. But we can't be so shortsighted. Looking back over history, the long term trends globally are decidedly in our favor. For the next four years, at least, we'll have to run to stand still. But if we don't, we'll have that much farther to go later.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
You make some very interesting statements here, and as the resident historian in your life, I'd like to contribute a bit.
You wrote: I think we need to look back at the effective civil rights campaigns of the past. I'm trying to picture Susan B. Anthony or Martin Luther King, Jr., telling supporters that their goals are unrealistic.
Both Anthony and King were told by the powers that be that their goals WERE unrealistic. Specifically, women's suffragists in the 1860s to "wait their turn" and to cede the post-Civil War amendments to African Americans. It would take another 50-some years for women to get the vote nationally... and I believe there's a very specific reason for that.
In both the women's suffrage campaign of the late nineteenth/early twentieth century and the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, two strategies were employed: one group using more traditional routes, typified by the Stanton/Anthony, legalistic, state-by-state method used by the National American Woman Suffrage Association -- and the more radical, in-your-face method, which can be represented by the National Woman's Party. Hunger strikes, picketing the White House, intense publicity campaigns, etc. And all this with a war on! (Sidenote: I'm currently obsessed with World War I and civil liberties... I'll have to blog on that later.)
I would argue that NAWSA needed the NWP to make their efforts more palatable to the mainstream, to keep the issue in the public's eye, and to get in the door with the powers that be. Picture Martin Luther King having a pow-wow with (white) Democratic politicians in the early 1960s, and basically telling them, "If you don't talk to me, Malcolm's the next guy you have to face. And I'll bet you'd rather talk to me."
So go radical or go pragmatic? Do both. Seems to me there's a historical precedent that shows it works.
Andy:
It seems to me that that the Gay Rights movement does not really have a clear organized voice. This may be my own ignorance but that is my perception. Although the Civil Right movement had its factions they seemed to be more unified in their approach. I grew up in a very conservative area of Ohio. I moved to Connecticut about eight years ago. Since then I have been "enlightened" as my wife puts it. I personally believe that anyone in the Gay community that wants to get married should be allowed and encouraged to do so. I think that their union should be allowed to be called a marriage. I also believe that Gay couples should be afforded every right that heterosexual currently enjoys.
I think that the second problem that the Gay Rights community faces is a lack of understanding of the community that apposes them. You could argue that it is that community which lacks understanding. I recently read an article in my hometown newspaper(online) about the Gay community within the city. It was an informative article on the front page. About a week later I was on the phone with my Mother and out of curiosity I asked her about it. My Mother maintains that she has no problems with Civil Unions but has an issue with the word Marriage being used. Her response to the article(which was on the front page) was that it should not be on the front page because that was not news. That struck me as being odd so I asked her what she meant. She replied that their were much more important things that could be on the front page. I replied by asking her "large scale discrimination is not newsworthy?" She then told me that a small percentage of the population not getting what they want and crying about it wasn't news. So I followed by asking "what if half of America was Gay?" She had no response to that question. After I got off the phone with her I began to think about what she had said. What I took from the conversation was this. The states and areas that are so apposed to Gat rights are that way because they lack positive first hand experiences with the Gay community. As an example my parents came to vistit me in Connecticut a couple of years ago. On their trip we took them to Cape Cod. More specifically we went to Province Town. It just so happened that the day we went to Province Town there was a large Gay Parade with the entire spectrum present. They were in shock by the time we left. On the way back to our house we asked what they thought about the parade. Keep in mind this was the largest group of Gay people my parents had ever encountered in their lives. They said nothing directly derogatory but they only really commented on the few Drag Queens that we saw. At the time I thought that it was worth the shock value. However, now I think that it was not worth it. If listen to and watch how the media portrays the Gay community it is not very pretty. Whenever you read or watch a news segment on Gay Rights they alway show the few protestors that are flambouyantly over the top. In my opinio it unfortunately boils down to a large scale Public Relations battle. The Gay community needs to force the media to focus on the "normal" Gay community. If all the people in these "sheltered" areas see is this example they are going to continue to react in that manner. I understand this may only apply to the opposition that are not Fundamental Christians. That group can never be won. A positively focused, organized, and deeply funded movement is the only way the Gay community is going to win the confidence of all those Red states.
Well, in a nutshell, the civil rights movement -- in a most general sense -- is about diversity. Of all the minorities, gay people are the most diverse. We transcend every religion, every ethnicity, both genders, economic strata from top to bottom and every hue of the political rainbow. The point is not to find a single voice in unity, the point is to get the powers that be to recognize the many different voices out there. Under the Constitution, all voices have a right to be heard.
I also disagree that the gay community does not understand "the community that opposes" us. Children in this country -- or any country -- are not raised "gay." We are assumed to be heterosexual until, generally in the early teens, we discover otherwise. I may have lived in Manhattan for 11 years, but I grew up in Soccer Mom Hell in suburban Oregon. Just because most gay people tend to be found in large cities and not in, say, Wichita, doesn't mean gay people come from large blue cities. None of my close gay friends here are native New Yorkers; they are from Vermont, Virginia, Texas, Oklahoma, Ohio, etc. Gay people are found in urban centers for a variety of reasons, but one of them is certainly because we fled the hostile environments of our hometowns.
No, I think we understand the opposition all too well. Too often they are our own family.
I would agree with you that the more boring, less colorful faggots like myself need a more prominent role in the public dialogue so that people can really appreciate the diversity of the gay universe. But I don't accept that we should sweep our nelly friends and drag queens and leather daddies under the rug.
Because our elections are decided on majority rule, many Americans have reached the conclusion that when it comes to civil rights, only what the *majority* is comfortable with is what's valid. But that has nothing to do with Constitutional rights. The founding fathers wrote, "We hold these truths to be self evident; that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." It says nothing about the right of the majority to dictate what rights the minorities have or don't have. In fact, it expressly protects the civil liberties of the little guys.
Your views are valid, not least because they are so widely shared, and I really appreciate your taking the time to comment. But if you recognize that not all gay people are "flamboyant" (now I just need to get you to acknowledge that they have a right to be that way), then why are you writing to a non-flamboyant homosexual and telling me we've got it all wrong? When you see news coverage that only shows outrageous drag queens, why don't you call them up and say, "Hey! I'm a straight guy, but I recognize not all gays are like that. I would appreciate seeing more balanced coverage from you." OR better yet, write to that big chickenshit Powell at the FCC and tell him that, as a straight man, you are *offended* by the biased coverage of the gay community you see on television, and encourage your friends to write as well.
Thanks again, and keep reading!
Andy, I think by the picture on your blog the writer understands that you are not a "flamboyant" gay but he lumps you all together for ease of writing. After all, even you don't make the distinction between the two when you say "The gay community needs to...". The word "Community" involves everyone.
Sheez, with this new guy reading your stuff you have effectively doubled your audience over my blog!
Post a Comment