Originally appeared July 10, 2002, in the Chicago Free
Press.
On July 6, the day of England's annual Gay Pride parade, British
activist Peter Tatchell wrote a column for the left-leaning London
Independent deploring changes in the gay movement over the last 30
years.
"We had a beautiful dream," he wrote. "Our demand was
liberation. We wanted to change society, not conform to it. Our
radical, idealistic vision involved creating a new sexual
democracy, without homophobia and misogyny. Erotic shame and guilt
would be banished, together with compulsory monogamy, gender roles
and the nuclear family."
Tatchell went on to criticize gay organizations that focus on
issues such as gay marriage which reflect traditional heterosexual
goals, rather than "more contentious issues such as ... consensual
sex between underage partners, the censorship of sexual imagery,
the timidity of sex education lessons, and the criminalization of
sex workers and sadomasochistic relationships."
Tatchell articulates both the nostalgia and the bafflement
frequently expressed in the U.S. as well as England by old-timers
on the gay left. At some point, the gay movement seemed to slip out
from under them and they are not quite sure what happened, why it
happened or who to blame.
But Tatchell underestimates both the success of the gay movement
and the extent to which society has changed. To a great degree gays
and lesbians have achieved the liberation that Tatchell and his
colleagues sought from the repression imposed by government and
public opinion.
Increasing numbers of gays fully accept themselves and live
their lives openly and happily, accepted by family and friends,
their sexuality accorded respect and their relationships treated
with dignity. If that is not a revolution, then Tatchell is
forgetting what a revolution is.
We have even achieved some of the sexual liberation Tatchell
sought. Whatever Tatchell's "sexual democracy" means - and majority
rule over people's sex lives seems like a dangerous idea - we have
moved toward a more libertarian sexual individualism in which
people can determine their own sexual and romantic lives,
independent of what others think. The right conceptual model here
is free market individualism not some governmental "sexual
democracy."
Second, Tatchell and other early leaders on the left deceived
themselves in assuming that early participants in gay liberation -
the "we" he keeps referring to - all supported some sort of social
and sexual radicalism. A substantial number of leaders and
"activists" no doubt did since people with the most zeal about
their views tend to push themselves forward most vigorously.
But the majority of gays even then were all over the political
map. The thousands of gays and lesbians who marched in the earliest
Gay Pride parades were hardly affirming any left-wing or radical
agenda. They were simply making themselves visible, affirming their
existence and moral legitimacy.
Films of early gay pride rallies show thousands of
well-scrubbed, wholesome-looking gays and lesbians in T-shirts and
jeans, looking slightly bored as they are harangued from the stage
about the oppression of transvestites, prostitutes, gender roles,
etc., and you know they're sitting there thinking, "When does the
band get to play?" and "I wonder if that guy over there wants to
hook up later."
Third, Tatchell seems to assume that any social movement such as
ours should never depart from its original agenda (such as he
imagines it). This is the nerve of the current liberationist
position and it is repeated endlessly. Unfortunately, Tatchell
never offers any argument for it.
But any movement that wants to stay vital and grow has to
reflect the goals of its constituents and supporters. And if the
primary slogan of gay lib was "come out, wherever you are," gays
did come out in large numbers, bringing their own needs, beliefs
and personal goals with them.
And it turned out that what most gay and lesbians wanted was "a
normal life" - a stable, comfortable home, a primary relationship
with someone they loved, a degree of freedom to explore their
sexuality, and opportunities to live and socialize free of stigma
and prejudice. If they felt any concern about prostitutes,
transsexuals, sadomasochism, etc., it was hardly a priority.
Fourth, the good news for Tatchell is that he fails to consider
how the open participation of gays in our social institutions will
gradually change those institutions. If, as leftists sometimes
argue, there is an inherent gay sensibility, they should have faith
that it will have an effect wherever it is present. Dennis Altman
caught this in his book title "The Homosexualization of
America."
But more than that, the presence and legitimacy in our social
institutions of people with a slightly different way of engaging
with the world will result - is already resulting - in the
relaxation of social strictures and open those institutions to
other possibilities as well. In a free market of social behavior,
once a legal monopoly is broken, more options will offer themselves
for consideration.
This is, of course, an unintended effect, but it is a powerful
effect nevertheless, and impossible to prevent because it has no
direct cause. So Tatchell may obtain more of his goals than he
expects, but in modified form and by means he never
anticipated.