The coming year will provide an all too brief respite from all too many people's focus on politics. We do not have to face threats from a GOP Congress, but we aren't going to get much out of a Democratic Congress since they don't want to give the GOP ammunition to attack them with in 2008.
Instead it is an opportunity for community building, for attention to promoting social acceptance of gays, and heading off future assaults from the religious right. Here are some possibilities. If you don't like these, create your own.
We need far stronger gay organizations at the state level. Because of America's federal system, many gay issues are and even more can be determined at the state level-marriage, civil unions, child custody, adoption, non-discrimination, etc. For years the national organizations appealed for funds to fight the GOP hegemony in Congress, starving our state organizations. Now that that threat is absent, it is important to build up state advocacy organizations and community centers, providing for a staff and adequate technical support. This is particularly important in states with a strong conservative presence.
We need a small specialty think tank of gay-supportive theologians to issue counter-arguments when the Catholic Bishops or other religious groups condemn gays, gay relationships, or gay sex. The religious round table of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force seems to limit itself to issuing feeble press releases praising this or condemning that, but it never offers sustained arguments against whatever conservative religious groups say. Over the years I have tried to respond to the Catholic bishops and other homophobic religious statements (in pieces now posted at the Independent Gay Forum), but I am a journalist, not a theologian, so I undoubtedly overlook many excellent arguments-and I am only one small voice.
We need a study of homelessness among gay adults. A new NGLTF study drew attention to the fact that a disproportionate percentage of homeless kids are gay. But we have little information on the proportion of gays among homeless adults. I was talking recently with a homeless man in his 30s. He said simply, "What about people like me?" I had no answer. I know of no studies of homelessness that indicate the proportion who are gay. Nor do I know what unique issues they face, nor where to suggest they go for help, nor how best to help them.
Many of us have urged gays to come out to more people. Let me be more specific: Come out especially to older friends and relatives. A larger percentage of older Americans vote than any other group. And older Americans are the most likely to be anti-gay. Born in the 1930s, '40s and '50s, they grew up when most gays were not open, so they may never have known a gay person when their social and cultural attitudes were formed. Since older Americans are living (and voting) longer, we need to try to remedy those formative impressions.
In states where it is most practical to advocate gay civil unions rather than marriage, we should start using a film clip of President Bush's statement late in the 2004 campaign that if states want to offer civil unions for gays, "They should be able to do that." What more effective propaganda could you offer to conservative voters than Bush's own non-opposition? I do not understand why that clip hasn't been used repeatedly.
Drop "queer." The attempt to "reclaim" it has failed utterly. For most of us it sets our teeth on edge. Gabriel Rotello, a former publisher who once promoted "queer," renounced it in an Advocate opinion piece titled "The Word That Failed." (The literary allusion is obvious.) Some younger gays all full of youthful rebellion-without-responsibility adopted "queer" for a time, viewing it as "edgy" and "in your face." But let me tell you, dear ones, gay liberty and equality are not going to be won by being self-indulgently "edgy" and "in your face." You are just helping our opponents.
We need more heterosexuals to speak out for gay legal equality, but I have no idea how to go about making this happen. The Advocate recently featured comedian and talk show host Bill Maher who regularly speaks out on behalf of gays, but can we somehow induce 10, 20, 100 people with a national reputation to take up our cause? Most prominent whites began supporting black civil rights only when the level of violence, intimidation, and denial of rights in the south was made crystal clear on television news shows. But how often is a gay bashing broadcast? Or a child being yanked away from its lesbian mother or gay father? And how can you film a marriage ceremony that doesn't happen?
13 Comments for “Seven Ideas for 2007”
posted by James on
Having gay theologians is a great idea. However, for this to work, those theologians must be clearly committed to orthodox doctrine. That means no doctines based on Gnostic gospels or attempts to prove Jesus and John (or Lazarus or Judas) were having an affair. Gay theologians need to show they are just as faithful to the the traditional doctrines of Jesus being fully God/fully man, the Empty Tomb and a real Resurrection, the inspiration of Scripture, etc. We need to get rid of spokespeople like Mel White, John Spong, and Elaine Pagels who simply prove the stereotype that all gays are left-wing liberals. We should look to Brian McClaren, Jim Wallis, Tony Campolo, and other evangelicals for direction. The best clearinghouse for a truly Christian approach to homosexuality is Gaychristians.net run by Justin Lee.
Also, we need to make it clear that the ideal gay relationship is a lifelong, sexually exclusive partnership–no playing around with “open relationships” or “creative monogamy.” Gays and straights need to work together to support each other as they struggle toward this ideal relationship–but we can’t play by different rules.
posted by Casey on
Better Peggy Campolo than Tony, as she’s entirely with us- and James, please- beggars can’t be choosers. Where there is the courage to stand up for us in Christian circles, I wouldn’t attack them. Mel White and Soulforce have done tremendous work, and for many glbt folk who have left the church because of spiritual abuse, liberal Christianity makes a path home. The church is diverse, with many gifts – and while I’ve made the argument that writers would be better served citing more mainstream theologians than John Spong (who truly is extreme), we had to start somewhere. Above all, remember Ephesians 4, my friend.
29Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. 30And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. 31Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. 32Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
Umm, James…I think your post needs to address gay CHRISTIANS, not gay Theologians. There is a difference between the two. Pull your head out.
posted by jomicur on
I really love the way you look at the world, James. Let’s “get rid of” everyone who disagrees with us.
So: I guess we also have to “get rid of” everyone who eats shellfish; of men who permit their wives to stay under their roofs when they’re having their periods; of people who don’t kill disobedient sons; of people who revere images of God (since that’s most christians, I’m for it); etc., etc., ad nauseam. As the Bible itself reminds us, “A man’s enemies are the men of his own house.” Gays like you are worse than useless, James. It’s really time for you to abandon your fantasies and learn something about the real world.
posted by John on
Dropping the word “queer” would be welcome. The ” appropriating the language of the oppressor” crowd never has had a sense for the limits of words and their resonance. The ubiquitous reference to “lifestyle” as in “gay lifestyle” is in my opinon far more poisonous, however. I’m not optimistic about any attempt to combat the strict adherents of Semitic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) . We are forced to rely on the 19th century elucidation of the psyche, which, being immaterial, can always be effectively, if not rationally, dismissed. At any rate, James makes me think the challenge is truly great. Having lived in San Francisco for a year, the plight of the homeless, whatever their sexuality has never left my mind. We gays who hope for a better future know we have to prove our humanity again and again. I can’t think of a better way than trying to eliminate the nightmare of homelessness.
posted by Bob on
I guess I don’t uderstand why gays don’t cut through the religious crap and just ask God.
posted by Dana on
Let’s not forget fighting for federal rights like family and medical leave, separate from the fight for marriage equality. (Not that we should abandon marriage equality; we just shouldn’t wait for it.) Last August, for example, President Bush signed the Pension Protection Act that extended important financial protections to same-sex couples as well as other Americans. One-at-a-time rights won’t replace the grand collection of rights that come with marriage, but little by little, each one makes our lives more secure.
More on the Family and Medical Leave Act at:
http://mombian.com/2006/12/20/the-government-wants-your-input-on-the-family-and-medical-leave-act/
posted by raj on
John | December 22, 2006, 9:26pm |
Dropping the word “queer” would be welcome.
Agreed.
The ” appropriating the language of the oppressor” crowd never has had a sense for the limits of words and their resonance.
Well, not necessarily. In Germany, former home of the notoriously anti-gay Paragraph 175, German gays turned the word “Schwul,” which used to be an amazingly derogatory term for gay people, into a term of respect. Indeed, the official name of the German gay-rights organization, the LSVB, is “Lesben- und Schwul-Verband.”
The ubiquitous reference to “lifestyle” as in “gay lifestyle” is in my opinon far more poisonous, however.
Indeed. It is important to recognize that the use of “lifestyle,” as in “gay-” or “homosexual-lifestyle,” is a code for the speaker or writer’s contention that there are no gays or homosexuals, only heterosexuals who have been corrupted into doing things that they should not be doing.
posted by raj on
oops missed a “close italics” tag at the end of the 2d to last paragraph.
posted by shawn on
I don’t think we should shuck off individuals for using the term “Queer”. You said “Some younger gays all full of youthful rebellion-without-responsibility adopted “queer” for a time, viewing it as “edgy” and “in your face.” I disagree with this. They did not claim the term “Queer” to be edgy. They did it because there was such a division between the Lesbian, the gay male, the bisexual and the trans community when it came to semantics. At least here in Madison, WI, I have heard repeatedly from each subgroup on how one group doesn’t do enough for the other groups or how there is a huge disparity in addressing issues with each group. When I began identifing as Queer, it was not to be edgy. It was because using the gay male label seemed pretentious in our community. I felt close kinship with the trans community and with the lesbian community and didn’t like that I had to seperate myself from those groups. My friends label themselves queer and so do I. We are equal. You are right. Using Queer won’t win us much support from the heterosexual community. Neither will our support of the Transgender community. But I think we need to solidify as a community before we try to win approval from them. Not everyone in our movement is Gay. Maybe you should stop forgetting about those who aren’t just Middle Class Gays.
“But let me tell you, dear ones, gay liberty and equality are not going to be won by being self-indulgently “edgy” and “in your face.”” Yeah, ACT UP never worked and neither did Stonewall. How quickly we forget where we came from when we are wearing suits and pulling down a good salary. I’m not against assimilating my “lifestyle” to that of mainstream, but I think that the real failur will occur when we allow only the intellectually elite and financially well off in charge of our movement. Remember that they were some of the last groups to admit that they were “Queer”.
posted by John on
Shawn – Think ahead to a day when you might not live in a liberal college town and enjoy being indulged because of your youth. I can tell you that among people who aren’t disposed to like us ( the majority of our countrymen ) simple honest language wins the day. For example – if you’re a gay male -” I’ve always just liked men” is far more disarming than “I’m Queer” ever could be. With the former statement people might begin to wonder if you don’t deserve some respect after all. It takes guts to be honest . With a word of defiance , like queer, you’re throwing up a wall – you’re not cool enough to understand me.
posted by Norttheast Libertarian on
we aren’t going to get much out of a Democratic Congress since they don’t want to give the GOP ammunition to attack them with in 2008
No, we aren’t going to get much out of a Democratic Congress because Democrats don’t believe in gay equality. They campaign on it to get gay money, and then laugh their asses off election after election when they see how much money pours in in exchange for how little they do. I even am willing to wager that there’s a contest in Dem Party HQ about how far Democrats can go before the gay money dries up.
there was such a division between the Lesbian, the gay male, the bisexual and the trans community when it came to semantics
Part of the problem is the assumption that there are monolithic “communities” to begin with.
I have nothing in common with the folks who run NGLTF or HRC. I’m not a lawyer or a politician, I have never lived in Washington DC, nor am I a lobbyist.
I have little in common with the gay media caricatures of gay men either — I’m not a carb-counting shirtless circuit boy, or a member of a gay bathhouse, or part of various “coalitions for the advancement of the latest oppressed subgrouped subgroup” trend-center.
I’m just a regular gay guy with regular gay (and straight and bi and trans) friends who is rather bemused by the pretentions of self-appointed “leaders” like Urvashi Vaid, Elizabeth Birch, Rich Tafel, Rich Rosendall, Joe Solomonese, etc. who deign to “speak for me” on issues.
The real grass-roots are already in action in ways that belie the centrally-planned “strategies” suggested in the article (and being debated in the comments). Grass-roots gays made gay marriage an issue when “gay leaders” like Paula Ettelbrick insisted that it “wasn’t important” and other “gay leaders” like Rich Tafel insisted it would “prompt a backlash.”
It was grass-roots people who lived honest family lives that brought gay parenting into the spotlight — not the “leadership” which viewed gay life solely as a fuckfest or as some “sexual liberationist” wankery where the only person who mattered was the self.
It was grass-roots gay people who promoted safer sex with a good dose of gay family values, grass roots gay people who worked to conquer breast cancer afflicting lesbians, grass roots gay people who won civil union judgments, grass roots gay people who made a difference in various community efforts in large and small cities across the country, and finally, it will be grass roots gay people who “set the agenda” in 2007 with their everyday living.
Our true leaders aren’t the professionally paid preening peacocks of the gay political and press establishments — rather, they’re the everyday gay men and women in this country (I include bi and trans folks in that group) who seek to be left alone, who work to advance their own family and professional lives without martyr complexes, and who think of their civil rights as something to which they’re entitled rather than something they can trade with politicians for “agenda items on behalf of the community.”
posted by Andy Lang on
Paul, a hearty “Amen” to your suggestion about a theological forum to respond to religous attacks on our community. And I agree with James that we need the support of “orthodox” theologians–responses from the theological left sail right past the theological right where virtually all of the Christian homophobic activism originates. They don’t hit the target, because they live in a different theological universe and speak different religious languages.
We don’t have a “think-tank,” but we do have a potential network of Christian evangelicals and centrists who are active in the debate: http://soulforce.org and http://www.ecwr.org representing the former, and the sites grouped under the heading “Third Way” on my blog at http://langohio.blogspot.com representing the latter. So maybe we already have the basis to follow up on Paul’s suggestion.