We're Not Serious

[The_Reaper]

This is going to make me sound cold and callus, but it needs to be said.

The problem with the gay community, is for the most part, the lack of leadership. In the gay community, we don't have leaders, we have martyrs.

I have to say again, that that statement makes me sound cold and uncaring, but that's not my intention. The gay community is capable of organizing and coming together, but it seems that it always takes tragedy and heartbreak to force us to come together to demand better of the society around us.

The problem with martyrs, is their voices are silenced. We can carry their banners, and we do, but after awhile the community moves on. We have our days of remembrance; our signs and symbols that pledge that we remember those we have lost to intolerance and hatred, but we never seem to get further than that.

Martyrs do not move a community forward, they only ignite the flames for a short time, and perhaps get some good work done through their loss, but ultimately things move too slowly for the world to remember the loss. Take Matthew Shepard.

How long has it taken Congress to move the Matthew Shepard Act through? How long did it take California to recognize Harvey Milk Day?

These things took long, in my opinion, because the gay community lacks cohesive leadership to keep the anger and determination we gain through our martyrs alive. We've relied on politicians, often straight ones, to get the work done for us. We've relied on those outside of our community to do the work we should be doing for ourselves.

Look at the African American community, for a moment. Martin Luther King Jr, Malcolm X, and other figures had a tremendous impact on their culture because of their lives and their deaths. They were leaders, not only martyrs for the cause of advancing the equality of their people.

Again, I feel I need to say that this post may misconstrue me as cold and callus, or uncaring, but that is not my intent. The loss of anyone in our community is a horrible thing, and I wish very much so that we did not have to lose another LGBT member to suicide or hate crimes ever again.

But to ensure that, we need leadership. We need to be ready to stand alone, for a time, until we can influence the events around us. We need to come together, not only to demand retribution for our dead, but equality and compassion for our living.

We need our leaders to step forward and to champion the cause. We all need to do our part, however large or small, to help make this world a better and safer place for all members of community. And we can only do that by looking forward, planning ahead, and coming together.

 

[quasar]

While the Stonewall Riots certainly kick-started the modern American gay rights movement, it is taking a very narrow view to say that they "created" the gay rights movement in the USA, much less everywhere....

I'll accept that. Kick-started was the word I was looking for but couldn't think of at the time.

 

[barnbuddy]

Hey Reaper - I understand your frustration, but your wrong. I can remember 25 years ago, when I was newly out, and physical survival was the issue. I mean, do you think the REAGAN administration did anything in the fight against AIDS? We had to pressure drug companies, we marched with the quilt in DC. And we made allies that helped put Clinton in the White House which at least giving us a semi freindly ear at "court." Thus Clinton's half and half reconrd, but hell, if you don't remember the Reagan years, you don't know the meaning of out in the cold.

Back in the 80's I listened to the older guys describe the 50's and 60's. There was no out of the closet. There was getting fired and possibly committed to an institution. There was "wear a red sweater on thursday," which sort of meant you might be gay.

I guess what hit me this past week was that I thought, with all the gay straight alliances and the internet, that it was far easier on todays students. But the struggle continues. And if we want to honor those bullied into an early grave, we fight.

 

[gsdx]

And if we want to honor those bullied into an early grave, we fight.

If by 'fight' you mean 'violence' and 'rioting', would you really gain more than innocent people lose? You go about smashing buses and tossing trash cans through windows and overturning cars and setting fire to homes and businesses in hopes of making some headway in your fight. Sometimes people die. You cost the government and public millions and millions of dollars.

But - and this is a very big 'but' - the chances are very good that you will be hurting other gay people as well as gay sympathisers, either financially, emotionally, or with their very lives. How can that make people more sympathetic to your cause?

Violence gets attention, yes, but is the cost worth it on the off chance that something is done because of them?

 

[gsdx]

I don't think he is using fight in a literal sense, I've used to word earlier and I didn't mean in the literal sense either.

That's why I used the word 'if'.

I don't believe violence is necessary or particularly beneficial. I think it does more harm than good.

Fighting for your rights is a good thing, but you can fight quietly and peacefully, and you'll probably gain a lot more sympathisers at the same time.

I'm thinking of that recent photo posted here of the Phelps clan counter-protesters. The group continued to grow until the Phelps group were far outnumbered, and they were the ones getting the attention instead of Phelps.

People join quiet protests for all the right reasons. They join riots for all the wrong ones.

 

[Purplebic]

I frequently post articles on facebook regarding injustices throughout the world, most recently the kidnapping of a russian gay activist by the moscow police and the lack of reaction from the Canadian gov't. But no one seems to take notice or even care. Posts on Celine Dion and Lady Gaga get more attention. Its hard to organize any kind of activity when most kids dont want to look past their own weekend.

But that's the facebook generation for ya, join a group, fan a page, and your conscience is appeased (while nothing is accomplished).

 

[barnbuddy]

I don't think he is using fight in a literal sense, I've used to word earlier and I didn't mean in the literal sense either.

thanks - ah no, I did not mean riot, I'm mean the political fight. My earlier posts on this thread are clearer -

 

[wooffy]

This is going to make me sound cold and callus, but it needs to be said.

The problem with the gay community, is for the most part, the lack of leadership. In the gay community, we don't have leaders, we have martyrs.

Maybe that's just a local thing, because here in Ottawa we have plenty of leaders. In fact we have an annual awards ceremony for them! We have, for example, the people who founded Pink Triangle Services 25 years ago, one of the first gay and lesbian registered charities in Canada (if not the first). We have leaders like Jer Dias who sued his school about 10 years ago, and used the money to launch Jer's Vision - Canada's Youth Diversity Initiative. People like Barry Deeprose, a PTS founder and key person at the Gay Men's Wellness Initiative. They couples across the country who sued for, and won, the right to marry. The owner of Little Sisters Books, who keep fighting against censorship by Canada Customs. The list goes on.

We have many local and national leaders and heroes... and few, if any, martyrs.

 

[Teddybear71]

I have seen quite a bit of stir over these completely insane "Tea Party" people lately (yes, domestic US politics even reaches across the Atlantic) - and I sometimes REALLY feel like signing IGB's original post in this thread! As a group, we should conciously boycott people and places that are persecutionist and anti-gay - time and time again until the message gets through. The day that Sarah Palin, Christine O'Donnell and the rest of those crazy idiots disappear from the scene (and they will) will indeed be a day for celebration!

 

[altlover85]

Maybe that's just a local thing, because here in Ottawa we have plenty of leaders. In fact we have an annual awards ceremony for them! We have, for example, the people who founded Pink Triangle Services 25 years ago, one of the first gay and lesbian registered charities in Canada (if not the first). We have leaders like Jer Dias who sued his school about 10 years ago, and used the money to launch Jer's Vision - Canada's Youth Diversity Initiative. People like Barry Deeprose, a PTS founder and key person at the Gay Men's Wellness Initiative. They couples across the country who sued for, and won, the right to marry. The owner of Little Sisters Books, who keep fighting against censorship by Canada Customs. The list goes on.

We have many local and national leaders and heroes... and few, if any, martyrs.

Canada is different than the US, but even with that said, I think Reaper was talking about a unified leadership, not multiple leaders on multiple projects.

 

[wooffy]

Canada is different than the US, but even with that said, I think Reaper was talking about a unified leadership, not multiple leaders on multiple projects.

That's not how I read his message, perhaps he will clarify. And Reaper`s location makes him Canadian, though as US-centric as this site is I guess all posts are assumed to be about the USA.

Why would we want unified leadership, though? We are not a political party, nor would any one voice represent all of us. I would actively vote against any attempt at a unified leadership for the queer communities. That would be as destructive to the diversity of our communities as the 'white picket fence gays' have been when telling us to keep the drag queens and leather men out of the public eye.

Buying into heterosexist norms of patriarchy/hierarchy would greatly damage the queer communities and the wonderful variety of grass-roots movements we have. Let every individual fight for what he/she believes in, create leadership as needed, and join together when we have common ground.

This isn't theory for me, or some abstract debate. This is, and has been, my life for 20 years. I read the OP as a call to band together, not a call to compromise under some pseudo-unity. That would only end up with parts of our community oppressing other parts - as happened in the equal marriage fight here several years ago, as happened recently with Toronto Pride, and as will keep happening whenever people fall for the "one central voice" mindset.

Celebrate diversity, not conformity.

 

[altlover85]

That's not how I read his message, perhaps he will clarify. And Reaper`s location makes him Canadian, though as US-centric as this site is I guess all posts are assumed to be about the USA.

Why would we want unified leadership, though? We are not a political party, nor would any one voice represent all of us. I would actively vote against any attempt at a unified leadership for the queer communities. That would be as destructive to the diversity of our communities as the 'white picket fence gays' have been when telling us to keep the drag queens and leather men out of the public eye.

Buying into heterosexist norms of patriarchy/hierarchy would greatly damage the queer communities and the wonderful variety of grass-roots movements we have. Let every individual fight for what he/she believes in, create leadership as needed, and join together when we have common ground.

This isn't theory for me, or some abstract debate. This is, and has been, my life for 20 years. I read the OP as a call to band together, not a call to compromise under some pseudo-unity. That would only end up with parts of our community oppressing other parts - as happened in the equal marriage fight here several years ago, as happened recently with Toronto Pride, and as will keep happening whenever people fall for the "one central voice" mindset.

Celebrate diversity, not conformity.

I would think equality for LGBT people on a legal and federal level would be something we would all believe in. You can be for marriage without having to get married.

I still think if we all pooled our resources instead of just making things an issue by issue thing we would be better off.

 

[wooffy]

I would think equality for LGBT people on a legal and federal level would be something we would all believe in. You can be for marriage without having to get married.

You missed my point entirely. YES we can, as I stated, "create leadership as needed, and join together when we have common ground", that does NOT imply any sort of unified leadership for the whole community(ies).

Can I ask you something? Have you been an active participant in the movement for equal marriage? I mean actively - going to rallies, protests, writing to elected officials, attending fundraisers, personally challenged people on it, etc.? Let me tell you, for me it was both very rewarding and very frightening.

Rewarding, because the tide was turning - day by day, week by week, you could feel the country's awareness shifting. From opinion polls to media coverage to the wording used by politicians, the shift was evident and (once we hit the turning point) amazingly fast.

Frightening, because of the oppression building up in our community and the lack of support for the other issues. Every rally I went to excluded me and my family more and more, explicitly. Every day we had more comments about keeping the drag queens, leather-men, and other 'freaks' out of the public eye. We had less support for our fight to get cops to stop harassing men having sex in parks. We had less support to keep bath-houses and back-rooms open. In fact we had a very conservative swing in the community, which we are still recovering from today. I remember being told that I was not welcome at an event if I took both my partners!

We won the marriage fight, and by so doing dealt a HUGE blow to homophobia. Unfortunately we also saw a huge WIN for heterosexism. And that was without single leadership - I can't imagine the damage that would have been done had we followed that route! Equal marriage was a big win because of the social change and Charter precedents, but it was not without its collateral damage. I still have mixed feelings about the support I gave to that cause.

But who am I to talk? Speak to my transgendered friends, who were completely pushed aside during that "unity", and are still being told to this day that they don't fit the "party line" of the "GLBT movement".

Equality is the easy fight to win. Being allowed to be ourselves and lead our own lives, that is the hard fight. Good luck getting that from your "unity". I didn't see most of the thousands of people wanting to get married show up when I was fighting for what was important to me!

 

[altlover85]

You missed my point entirely. YES we can, as I stated, "create leadership as needed, and join together when we have common ground", that does NOT imply any sort of unified leadership for the whole community(ies).

Can I ask you something? Have you been an active participant in the movement for equal marriage? I mean actively - going to rallies, protests, writing to elected officials, attending fundraisers, personally challenged people on it, etc.? Let me tell you, for me it was both very rewarding and very frightening.

I went to a Mass Equality fundraiser, donated some money, and wrote my senators. I could do more of course. Most of my friends agree with me on marriage equality. The people I know that vote Republican vote that way for other reasons and I haven't been able to convince them to do otherwise.

We had less support for our fight to get cops to stop harassing men having sex in parks. We had less support to keep bath-houses and back-rooms open.

Why should men having sex in public be supported? I don't mind bathhouses, but I've never thought sex should be public.
[/B

]We won the marriage fight, and by so doing dealt a HUGE blow to homophobia. Unfortunately we also saw a huge WIN for heterosexism.

Was marriage a win for heterosexism?

And that was without single leadership - I can't imagine the damage that would have been done had we followed that route! Equal marriage was a big win because of the social change and Charter precedents, but it was not without its collateral damage. I still have mixed feelings about the support I gave to that cause.

But who am I to talk? Speak to my transgendered friends, who were completely pushed aside during that "unity", and are still being told to this day that they don't fit the "party line" of the "GLBT movement".

Well if we are just talking about marriage than transgendered people should be fine.

Equality is the easy fight to win. Being allowed to be ourselves and lead our own lives, that is the hard fight. Good luck getting that from your "unity". I didn't see most of the thousands of people wanting to get married show up when I was fighting for what was important to me!

If equality is so easy we would already have it.

 

[wooffy]

Was marriage a win for heterosexism?

Effectively, yes, in my opinion.

Well if we are just talking about marriage than transgendered people should be fine.

Huh? Do you not understand what I mean? The trans community was not "fine" that their issues were put on the back burner for several years because we all "united" for one single cause!

If equality is so easy we would already have it.

OK, you don't understand what I mean, clearly. Go back and read what I wrote a few times, and see if you can figure out why I am against having "single leaders" and "uniting on one issue". I'm moving on.

 

[altlover85]

Effectively, yes, in my opinion.

I would still rather be able to get married than not get married.

Huh? Do you not understand what I mean? The trans community was not "fine" that their issues were put on the back burner for several years because we all "united" for one single cause!

I think you are seeing things narrowly. People are still fighting for transgender rights. Just because the focus may have been on marriage, it doesn't mean that other things were forgotten. We are still working on hate crime laws.


OK, you don't understand what I mean, clearly. Go back and read what I wrote a few times, and see if you can figure out why I am against having "single leaders" and "uniting on one issue". I'm moving on.

The reality of the movement is that some things will come into focus at certain times and other things will not. You have to make priorities and everyone isn't going to be happy all the time. We want to form a bigger and more powerful group than just small groups working on their own issues.

 

[altlover85]

Can you move johaninsc?

 

[quasar]

...I still think if we all pooled our resources instead of just making things an issue by issue thing we would be better off.

Couldn't agree more. This thread alone shows how split people are. These tragic suicides of late have made me think alot about priorities. What is more important now? Marriage? DADT? Bullying? If we're realistic, we, as gay adults, can live without marriage, DADT affects a small group of gay people, but basic equality laws affect every single one of us - and once those equality laws are in place, it is just a small step to concentrating on other things like marriage and DADT.

Yes I live in the UK, and yes those issues don't exist for us, but if they did, I'd change my campaigning to basic equality laws that would make a difference to many, not just a few.

Unfortunately, as this thread (and others) show, until people can agree, and formulate a focused, co-ordinated campaign, the Christian wing-nuts will continue to maintain (and strengthen) their stronghold on American politics.

 

[gsdx]

I still think if we all pooled our resources instead of just making things an issue by issue thing we would be better off.

Couldn't agree more. This thread alone shows how split people are.

Why not just wrap it all up in 'Equal Rights'?

If it wouldn't get you into trouble, the best way to protest would be not to pay the taxes. When you buy underwear at Wal-Mart, refuse to pay the tax. When you buy a coffee at Starbucks, refuse to pay the tax. You'll certainly get noticed and people will pay attention to you.

 

[wooffy]

"IF YOU ARE NOT FULLY OUT IN EVERY WAY, YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM"
Wooffy

That's an easy thing for you to say since you live safely within the borders of a tolerant country.

No, that's not an easy thing to say. It sure as hell wasn't easy 19 years ago when I first came out! It wasn't easy having landlords refuse to sign leases, etc. But, as they say, Rome wasn't built in a day.

If you don't feel you can safely come out where you are, why not move? It might take you a year or even more to find employment in a less homophobic area, but it is possible.

I never said it was easy, but I still stand by the statement.