Chaps of Pride

by on

New York's affluent gays and lesbians stayed away from Sunday's Gay Pride Parade "in droves, taking with them the money that has kept a 37-year-old tradition alive," reports the New York Observer in "Goodbye, Mr. Chaps."

"Queer" journalist Richard Goldstein opines:

"White people say they experience the parade as being tired and corny.... They'll say it's unattractive to them. The reason it's unattractive to them is because there are all these faces of people of color from all over the world."

Yes, I'm sure that's it, since all successful gay white people simply must be racists. But it also just might be that the parade has to a large extent, and for a long time, become too much of a mix of knee-jerk leftism and arrested-development sexual exhibitionism.

That's the dominant image, unfortunately overwhelming the contingents of civic, religious and professional groups who do participate. And you can't blame the media for focusing on the most outrageous elements while demanding "full and inclusive representations" of the LGBT community. That's why I'd submit that a growing number of gays (who are, as Paul Varnell points out, increasingly bourgeois) simply find pride parades at best useful as part of a coming out rite of passage, at worst an embarrassment, and in any event not representative of our lives.

31 Comments

Outside of Massachusetts

by on

Increasingly, many of the states that have banned gay marriage are beginning to revoke the domestic partner benefits of public employees. One result: local governments are extending benefits more widely, to anyone that an employee might designate.

Elsewhere, convoluted work-arounds are being tried, such as at Michigan State University, which, in order to ensure that no same-sex spouse-like relationship is even hinted at, is extending benefits to those it labels as "other eligible individuals," defined this way:

a person must have lived with a non-unionized Michigan State employee for at least 18 months without being either a tenant or a legal dependent. They also can't be automatically eligible to inherit the employee's assets under Michigan law, which means no children, parents, grandparents or other close relations.

And no spouses, since they are covered under the traditional benefits package. Needless to say, the recordkeeping and administrative burden on employers is greatly increased. And just how privileging nonspousal relationships above committed same-sex coupledom is meant to "strengthen marriage" is anyone's guess.

In a related development, in Virginia, a state which probably leads the nation in the number of times it has banned gay marriage, a small victory was gained when the University of Virginia was permitted to extend gym benefits to same-sex couples. Thus are the steps by which, in some places, progress is measured.

25 Comments

Becoming Bourgeois

by on

It has been only 56 years since the 1951 publication of Edward Sagarin's pseudonymous "The Homosexual in America," which can be said to mark the beginnings of the American gay rights movement. And it has been only 38 years since the Stonewall events of 1969 that gave the movement a valuable boost.

Gays and lesbians have made remarkably fast progress in the intervening years, although viewed on a day-to-day basis it seems painfully slow. Millions of gays are now out of the closet, public support for the acceptance of gays is growing, substantial majorities favor ending the military ban on gays, gay marriage or full civil unions enjoy majority support, and more.

The combined effect of our everyday visibility and the cogency of our arguments continue to undermine long-standing and deeply rooted prejudice. That is something to celebrate in the run-up to our late June festivities.

Think how frustrated the zealots of the religious/social right wing must be at this progress. They endlessly criticize us as "radical homosexual activists"--enemies of family, church, and nation. No doubt there is a lingering handful of old gay Marxists and Marxian lesbian feminists, but don't forget that for the religious right, "radical homosexual activist" is their term for any person who is open about his sexual orientation. In their view, that is "radical" because our very visibility constitutes an argument "in the flesh" for our benignity and the legitimacy of our claim to equality.

Far from being radicals of any sort, most of us are just plain ol' bourgeois. How much more bourgeois can you be than wanting to marry the person you love and wanting to serve in the military? What we want, in short, is full inclusion in society--something we had (at considerable psychological cost) when we were all in the closet, and something we still deserve now that we are out.

Interestingly this same inclusion is feared by the radical left as well as the religious right. The radical left scorns our full inclusion as "assimilation," with that word's implication that, once included, gays will somehow lose all those unique qualities they have--qualities that could not survive without the continued pressure of hostility, discrimination and exclusion. I don't know if gays have any unique qualities, but I doubt if any such would be lost if we achieved equality.

Consider how bourgeois we really are. Much of the early "gay liberation" polemics seemed heavily focused on sexual liberation--the liberating of the libido (a la Herbert Marcuse). Certainly the legitimacy of gay sex needed to be vigorously asserted in the face of harsh state sodomy laws and discomfort among many gays about their sexual desires.

But sexual liberation is now much less an issue and more of a background assumption. It is an availability rather than a mandate. The task for most gays has become not so much one of obtaining more sex with more partners, but that of finding a way to integrate their sexual desires with their emotional longings. In this gays are no different from most heterosexual Americans.

More gays are even procreating children or adopting them through U.S. adoption agencies or from abroad. One couple I know adopted a baby from China, another from Russia. As one male friend explained to me, "The biological clock was ticking."

I have never heard the ticking of that particular clock, but I can accept it as a metaphor for some people's nagging sense that something is incomplete in their lives as a gay or lesbian couple. Only polemicists for the religious could argue that it is better for a child to have no parents rather than one parent or two parents of the same sex.

The gay neighborhoods of many of our largest cities seem to be slowly losing their gay density as more gay men move to other areas of large cities or to the suburbs. San Francisco and Chicago are good examples. Often this follows finding a partner and their desire to have a house of their own.

Sometimes they move to find lower living costs but equally often they move to find peace and quiet. I have not seen sociological research on this, and we probably won't have a clear idea until a new edition of Gary Gates' valuable "Gay and Lesbian Atlas" based on the 2010 census data. But that population drift could also have an impact on gay business.

And finally, let's point out that "queer" is pretty dead. It never really caught on. Longtime gay writer and activist Gabriel Rotello called it "the word that failed." It was floated as a generic term for gays (etc.) on the assumption that adopting a term of opprobrium would somehow reduce the hostility of homophobes among whom it originally arose. To paraphrase Orwell, that is a belief so absurd that only an intellectual could believe it.

13 Comments

The Right to Offend

by on

In "A Conservative's Answer to Wikipedia," Los Angeles Times staff writer Stephanie Simon looks at a religiously rightwing web encyclopedia, Conservapedia.com, created by Andy Schafly (one of Phyllis's three sons, and not the gay one).

Type in "gay" and the search is redirected to "homosexuality," with all the homophobic pseudoscience you'd expect.

But there was something even more disturbing in Simon's article. She reports that:

In recent months, Conservapedia's articles have been hit frequently by interlopers from RationalWiki and elsewhere. The vandals have inserted errors, pornographic photos and satire... The vandalism aims "to cause people to say, 'That Conservapedia is just wacko,'" said Brian Macdonald, 45, a Navy veteran in Murfreesboro, Tenn., who puts in several hours a day on the site fending off malicious editing.

Such aggression has reinforced the view among some Conservapedia writers that left-wingers are out to suppress their free speech.

What the left doesn't get: The cost of living in a free society is to suffer being offended-without trying to silence those you find offensive (another example: campus "progressives" who steal conservative student newspapers from their distribution sites and destroy them). Conservatives have a right to their media; and the answer to arguments we find appalling is to criticize them. After all, it's not as if gay-supportive information isn't also easily available online.

Another recent Stephanie Simon piece, " New Ground in Debate on 'Curing' Gays," examines how some who are involved in "ex-gay" ministries are beginning to admit that being gay is not a "lifestyle choice." Slowly, the truth usually gains momentum and displaces falsehood. But dialog and debate are much more likely to advance that process than are censorship and sabotage.

72 Comments

Loving Speaks

by on

Mildred Loving issued a powerful statement on the 40th anniversary of Loving vs. Virginia. Excerpt:

not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others.

The Bay Area Reporter has more, and links to the YouTube video of the press conference where Loving's statement was released.

112 Comments

Illiberal Liberal Citadel to Close

by on

A cautionary tale on American liberalism run amuck-the death of Antioch College. Writes former public radio correspondent Michael Goldfarb:

Antioch College became a rump where the most illiberal trends in education became entrenched. Since it is always easier to impose a conformist ethos on a small group than a large one, as the student body dwindled, free expression and freedom of thought were crushed under the weight of ultraliberal orthodoxy. By the 1990s the breadth of challenging ideas a student might encounter at Antioch had narrowed, and the college became a place not for education, but for indoctrination.

It's a telling account of what passes today for "progressive liberalism."

7 Comments

Big Love

by on

Reuters on "The growing confidence of polygamists and their willingness to go public...." Fundamentalist Mormon multi-wifers are, in fact, using our rhetoric, as they understand it: "As consenting adults, which is the key, we ought to have that choice to live that lifestyle."

Yeah, but don't hold you breath waiting for LGBT+P.

94 Comments

Marriage Lives in Massachusetts

by on

A 2004 court ruling led Massachusetts to become the first state to recognize legal marriage for same-sex couples. In many other states, less sweeping court rulings (requiring spousal rights through civil unions, but not marriage) provoked backlashes leading to passage of anti-gay marriage amendments to state constitutions. But the Massachusetts state legislature has now voted down an attempt to place an anti-gay marriage ballot initiative before the voters in November.

On Reason magazine's Hit & Run blog, David Weigel shares former Massachusetts Gov. (and current GOP presidential candidate) Mitt Romney's response:

Today's vote by the State Legislature is a regrettable setback in our efforts to defend traditional marriage. Unfortunately, our elected representatives decided that the voice of the people did not need to be heard in this debate. It is now even more important that we pass a Constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage. Marriage is an institution that goes to the heart of our society, and our leaders can no longer abdicate their responsibility.

Does Romney actually think it's the legislature's duty to allow any proposed referendum to go on the ballot? As Weigel writes, "Seven months ago Massachusetts voters had the chance to elect a legislature and governor who would have opposed gay marriage or supported a vote on the ban. They chose to elect a bunch of pro-gay marriage Democrats."

In any event, the legislature's action should weaken arguments that same-sex marriage is just a plot between gays and overreaching judges. It also shows that once people have time to adjust to the idea of same-sex marriage and even live with it for awhile (or with civil unions, as an introductory step), popular opposition evaporates.

27 Comments

Advance Guards of Unreality

by on

On Friday, June 1, I called my friend Robert on his cell phone shortly before 6 p.m., when he is usually preparing to leave his office in Manhattan. This time he was in Brooklyn, approaching Lafayette Avenue Presbyterian Church for the 10th anniversary celebration of the Audre Lorde Project (ALP), which calls itself a "Community Organizing Center for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Two Spirit and Transgender People of Color." As Robert pronounced this I added, "When the Rainbow is Enuf," referring to the famously long name of Ntozake Shange's play For Colored Girls.... He laughed and said, "Yes, when does it stop?!"

Titled "Living a Legacy: Celebrating Action, Imagination and Struggle," the fundraiser was to start with food and gallery at 6 p.m., and performers and speakers at 7:30 p.m. The program included several speakers plus performances by the Lavender Light Gospel Choir and the Legendary House of Ninja (those are two separate groups, incidentally). I told Robert I had enjoyed the music of Lavender Light, a member of the Gay and Lesbian Association of Choruses and the world's first non-church-affiliated LGBT gospel choir. By then he was at the church door, and we hung up.

The next morning I returned from breakfast to find this message in Robert's rich, bass-baritone drawl:

"The goddamn thing went on - it started at six with the dinner, and lasted until ten minutes till eleven. And I have to tell you that I knew something about the Audre Lorde Project, and I laud some of the work that they do, but I owe you an apology for some of the things that I've been dismissive about that you've said about some of these groups [meaning leftists]. Some of these people are crazy.

"It's like, America's a horrible place, and we're neo-colonialist and need to open our borders and let everybody in the world come in if they want to for whatever opportunities they want, and we need to end the war on terrorism. Perhaps we need to end the war in Iraq, but why the war on terrorism? Oh, let's just be sitting ducks and let them kill us all. And how America is no longer a democracy despite the fact that you can stand up in this church and say all these things."

Experience suggests that if I were to express these views myself, I would be charged with neo-colonialism, based on the idea that as a white person I have no right to oppress people of color with my opinions. Robert, on the other hand, is African American, though I doubt it will go any better for me on this account with the professionally outraged left, who can charge me with arrogantly appropriating opinions of color. As Katharine Hepburn once said, "Never. The less."

The ALP website (at www.alp.org) includes statements on war, immigration and marriage. In each case, as Robert suggested, they take things to extremes.

ALP opposes not just the war in Iraq but the war in Afghanistan and the war on terrorism. In the case of Afghanistan, the U.S. overthrew the Taliban regime for refusing to turn over the Al Qaeda terrorists who were behind the 9/11 attacks and whom the Taliban were harboring. As to the war on terrorism, ALP throws out the anti-terrorism baby with the Bush Administration bathwater. Many of us who oppose President Bush's use of torture, warrantless wiretaps and suspension of habeas corpus nonetheless recognize the need to defend our country against Islamist extremists. Similarly, one can oppose Bush's unilateralism, military overreach and doctrine of pre-emptive strikes without ignoring the need for a strong military.

ALP not only opposes the recent nativist hysteria on immigration, but states, "Full legalization is a nonnegotiable demand." They oppose the "path to legalization" compromise, oppose all guest worker proposals, and support "immediate access to full legalization" for all illegal aliens. I agree with their call for repeal of the HIV immigration ban; I agree that undocumented workers contribute to America's economy; and I would like family unification with my own foreign partner. But the notion that we have no right to control our borders amounts to a denial of national sovereignty, which is radical indeed. And ALP's rhetoric about dismantling the "prison-industrial complex" is designed to persuade no one.

ALP supports gay people's right to civil marriage, but also embraces the more radical principles of the "Beyond Marriage" manifesto which I criticized last year, and of which ALP's executive director, Kris Hayashi, is a signatory. As an example of the lunacy to which their Marxist-inspired, all-oppressions-are-linked philosophy leads them, they criticize gay-owned businesses that encouraged gay wedding trips to Hawai'i during that state's marriage struggle. This is because "many within the indigenous Hawai'ian sovereignty movement - who had supported same-gender marriage - consider tourism to be one of the most destructive forces impacting Native Hawai'ians and their struggle for sovereignty."

Robert had nothing but praise for one aspect of ALP's celebration: the food. "It was quite ethnically diverse. They had Caribbean food and Indian food and soul food. They served several different kinds of meat, including pork. One of my friends pulled off some pieces of fatback, and this is a guy who's a big health nut, and he went back and had a second piece."

Let's give credit: while they may charge bravely into political irrelevance, seizing the furthest margins of the national conversation, they sure can lay out a first-rate buffet.

12 Comments

eDisharmony

by on

When I heard that someone was suing eHarmony for its refusal to provide dating services for same-sex couples, I winced.

It's not that I approve of their policy (I don't). It's not even that I think that their policy, while wrongheaded, is in fact legal (I'll leave that question to those who know California anti-discrimination law).

It's that the last thing the gay-rights movement needs is a frivolous lawsuit.

Some background: eHarmony is an online matching service founded by psychologist Neil Clark Warren (he's the smiling white-haired guy on the commercials). Users of the site must qualify for membership by taking a patented personality test, which creates a profile based on Dr. Warren's "29 areas of compatibility." But first they must indicate whether they are a "man seeking a woman" or a "woman seeking a man."

That last part troubled California resident Linda Carlson, who contacted the company to request a "woman seeking woman" option. They refused, and Carlson sued. Her lawyers are seeking to make this a class-action lawsuit on behalf of all prospective gay and lesbian clients.

Although eHarmony's founder is an evangelical Christian with ties to Focus on the Family, the company claims to have no objection to gays and lesbians per se: it's just that Dr. Warren's system (which is classified and proprietary) doesn't apply to them.

According to a company statement, eHarmony's research "has been based on traits and personality patterns of successful heterosexual marriages….Nothing precludes us from providing same-sex matching in the future. It's just not a service we offer now based upon the research we have conducted."

Let's all acknowledge that this rationale is probably a load of hooey. After all, how different can the needs and interests of same-sex couples be? Are you a smoker or non-smoker? Prefer nights-on-the-town or walks-on-the-beach? Love or hate American Idol? Etc.

(On the other hand, if I were designing a personality test to match same-sex couples, I might add some specialized questions: Madonna or Maria Callas? Volvo or Subaru? Mid-century modern or rococo? You get the idea.)

Whatever the reason, eHarmony offers a limited service, one that Linda Carlson doesn't want: it matches people to opposite-sex partners. Should it be forced by law to match people to same-sex partners?

Before you answer, consider the implications: if eHarmony is forced to offer services to gay couples, should Gay.com be forced to offer services to men seeking women (or vice versa)? Should JDate be forced to offer services to Gentiles? Should kosher delis be forced to serve ham and cheese? Where do we draw the line?

One might argue that eHarmony, unlike JDate or Gay.com, does not advertise itself as a "niche" service. But one doubts that Carlson and her attorneys would be satisfied if eHarmony simply tweaked their marketing to prominently feature the word "heterosexual." After all, they are not suing eHarmony for false advertising; they are suing it for discrimination.

Okay, but what if a company wanted to offer dating services only for whites seeking whites? What if they (unconvincingly) claimed that, while they had nothing against black people, they simply didn't have the research to support matching services for blacks?

This is the hard question, and it deserves serious consideration. There are times when discrimination is so ugly and pervasive that the law ought to step in. Traditional racial discrimination was certainly of that level, as is much discrimination against gays and lesbians.

Keep in mind, however, that we're not talking about discrimination in employment, or housing, or transportation. We're not even talking about the Boy Scouts. We are talking about a DATING SERVICE. There are plenty of such services that Linda Carlson could use (Gay.com, Yahoo.com, and Match.com, to name a few), not to mention better uses of the judicial system and movement resources.

Back to the hard question: if a company wanted to offer a service only for whites seeking whites-or blacks seeking blacks, or Asians seeking Asians, or what have you-I might question their motives. If I found them suspect (which they might not be: after all, there are legitimate niche dating services), I would publicly criticize them. If the situation were bad enough, I might support a boycott on the part of advertisers and prospective clients. But I would not advocate government interference.

Carlson's lawyer Todd Schneider claims the lawsuit is about "making a statement out there that gay people, just like heterosexuals, have the right and desire to meet other people with whom they can fall in love." Of course they do. But that doesn't mean that the government should force Neil Clark Warren, or anyone else, to assist them.

24 Comments