79669587

by on

Hypocrisy and Hysteria Alert. Big Brothers-Big Sisters of America Inc. (BBBSA) finds itself at the center of a storm over its new rule requiring all 500 U.S. affiliates to allow gays and lesbians to serve as mentors to children. Funny how all the right-wing groups that argued that the Boys Scouts of America, as a private organization, had a right to order its local chapters to exclude gay men from serving as volunteers, suddenly feel justified in condemning the gay-inclusive decision of a different child-mentoring organization.

According to the Culture and Family Institute:

Children who are involved in BBBSA programs are primarily from single-parent homes. Many of these kids are emotionally fragile and desperate for attention and affirmation from an adult of their own gender. "While gay activists insist that there is no connection between homosexuality and the sexual abuse of children, the evidence indicates that a substantial number of gay men seek adolescent males or boys as sexual partners.

The alert from the American Family Association is, if you can believe it, even worse, leading off with a purported threat by gay activists to "sodomize your sons."

Increasingly, this level of discourse can only appeal to the true hard-core fanatics. So, in a sense, it's a sign that these anti-gay groups have given up trying to move broad public opinion and instead are focusing exclusively on feeding red meat to, and soliciting funds from, their base. But it's still ugly to behold.


Censorship or Civility? The AP reports in a July 30 story that a recent graduate of an Ann Arbor high school is claiming "censorship" because she wasn't allowed to oppose equal rights for gays and lesbians during her speech for the school's "Diversity Week" program. And a conservative legal foundation is bringing a federal lawsuit on her behalf. The school, for its part, says it merely asked the girl to reconsider the critical paragraph of her remarks.

The problem with events such as "Diversity Week" is that if you"re a religious conservative and you believe homosexuality is a sin, you don't want the school telling your kid otherwise. On the other hand, public schools don't let kids from racist or anti-Semitic homes express their opinions. The difference, alas, is that opposition to homosexuality still carries religious weight, whereas racism and anti-Semitic views are nearly universally condemned in today's America.

The AP story doesn't make clear what the diversity folks were saying about gay people. Possibly it was just a bland exhortation against prejudice and discrimination. Maybe something more, and maybe something less. The school says during an "open mike" students were free to express any opinion. And some student organizers of the event said the "views of people who oppose homosexuality are often heard, and therefore they sought panelists who supported homosexuality," the AP reports.

A public school is an institution you are forced to attend (unless your parents can afford the price of a private alternative). School officials can search you locker, test your urine (under certain circumstances), and make you get naked and shower publicly. Which is to say, public schools are not a great respecter of personal rights. While the purpose of education should be to work through competing ideas, all schools have certain values that they impart as part of the educational package. Which is why the "gay" issue (and, for that matter, the "God" issue) provokes such heat.

Let's hope that in this little microcosm of the culture wars the legal brouhaha will at least prove educational, as the parties try to adjudicate where, as far as public schools are concerned, civility ends and censorship begins.

0 Comments

Market and Movement

by on

Originally appeared July 31, 2002, in the Chicago Free Press.

Some gays and lesbians, whenever they see a corporate sponsorship of a gay event, or a product promotion to gays, or commercial support for a gay organization, grumble disapprovingly, "What we are, a social movement or a niche market?!"

Well, of course, we are both. And they know that perfectly well. But what they mean is that they think we should be only a social movement, and not an economic target market at all. They want us to fight with one hand tied behind our backs. And the religious right couldn't agree more.

But not only are we both a social movement and a target market, but those two can interact synergistically, each boosting the other; and in many cases the fact that gays are a target market can make its own contribution to our legal and social equality quite independently of any social movement, so we would be foolish to ignore its potential.

Consider a few examples of how the corporate desire to reach the gay/lesbian market helps us.

Corporations advertise their products in the gay press. If you want a gay press, a free gay press, you should be delighted that businesses and corporations view us as a target market. Gay newspapers have to pay writers, editors, sales staff, art and tech people, printing bills, office rent and distributors. The money comes from advertising. No ads, no gay press.

Corporations sponsor large numbers of community events, from Pride parades and festival to national and international gay sports events, from gay arts and film festivals to gay rodeos. Without those sponsorships, participation would be far more expensive, or the events would be greatly scaled down or might not even exist at all.

Corporations that want our patronage are learning that they have to have gay-supportive personnel departments, a non-discrimination policy and spousal benefits for gay partners. Gay consumers increasingly take such factors into account and businesses know that failure in these areas can bring charges of hypocrisy. As a result there is now more acceptance from corporations than governments.

One particular advantage of being viewed as a desirable target market is that by definition that includes all those gays and lesbians who would never, ever do anything overtly "political," but who simply in the process of living their lives buy food, housing, cars, CDs, entertainment, alcohol, etc. And they are part of the gay market just as much as the most zealous activist.

Given these as well as other obvious benefits, you might wonder why anyone, even those on the anti-capitalist gay left, would resist the idea - or the fact - that gays and lesbians are a target market. Let's think of some possibilities; buy the ones you like.

  • Fear that, as one book title put it, we would somehow be "selling out," losing something in the process of being a target market. But what could we be losing? We are getting products we want and helping generate the gay supportive results we want from corporations. So we gain twice while losing nothing. The only losers are the groups that don't get the corporate attention we do.
  • Hatred of capitalism and businesses. Some people believe that anything businesses do is bad, even being gay-friendly, because businesses are bad, because their primary purpose is to make money instead of providing jobs and manufacturing useful products just out of the goodness of their hearts. The idea seems to be that anything done out of self-interest is bad and should not count even if the effects are beneficial. This discounts 95 percent of the world's progress.
  • Hatred of advertising. Some people view ads as crass, repetitive, intrusive. But advertising is simply information and without advertising people would not know about most of the products available on the market or learn about new products that might save us time, entertain us better, improve our lives. And now that gays have a reputation as influential "early adopter" of new products and styles, we benefit from the early targeted advertising that produces.
  • Resentment of income differentials. Many people resent the fact that some people, including some urban gays and lesbians, earn more money because the jobs they do are more valuable to the employers who pay them. And they may resent the fact that some people, including many urban gays, have more disposable income to spend but do not spend it as other people wish they would. As sociologist Helmut Schoeck pointed out, many schemes for income redistribution are motivated primarily by envy.

Probably underlying all these is the nagging but unspoken fear that if gays and lesbians achieve legal and social equality within - and, worse yet, by means of - the free market economic system, they will not be interested in supporting revolutionary social and economic change. So they must by all means be dissuaded from making gains that way.

But that is all just 19th century revolutionary romanticism. Most gays and lesbians have never supported revolutionary social change and are not ever likely to. What has happened instead is that we learned how to make existing social and economic processes work for us to improve our lives. A good thing, one might think.

0 Comments

79533801

by on

More Gay Political Rashomon. Here's another example of how different sides have very different views of the same gay political development. Last week, the Bush administration announced that Scott Evertz, the openly gay director of the White House Office of National AIDS Policy (i.e., the "AIDS Czar"), was moving to the Department of Heath & Human Services, where he will coordinate the government's global AIDS program. The new domestic "AIDS Czar" is Dr. Joseph O"Neill, an openly gay physician who treated AIDS patients before entering public service. He is currently chief of the AIDS policy office at HHS.

According to a statement from Rich Tafel, leader of the Log Cabin Republicans (the gay GOPers), this is a welcome expansion of the AIDS policy team, with the addition of another high-level openly gay appointee. "With Scott Evertz and Joe O'Neill, we have two of the best qualified people in the nation on the President's team fighting the AIDS epidemic both at home and abroad," writes Tafel.

On the other hand, the liberal/progressive Human Rights Campaign views the action with some suspicion, as they do with all administration moves. Says HRC Political Director Winnie Stachelberg:

"While this shake-up has caused much speculation and uncertainty, we are cautiously hoping that these moves will reinvigorate the Bush administration's efforts".This is an opportunity for the administration to reverse course, take this life-and-death issue off the backburner and reassert American leadership. We hope they are up to the daunting task at hand."

The HRC release goes on to say that "There has been speculation that Evertz may have been forced out of his position by conservatives upset with Evertz's close association with gay groups and his support of condom usage as an effective means to stop transmission of HIV."

Meanwhile, the anti-gay Family Research Counsel weighs in with a statement of concern:

"FRC opposed the appointment of Scott Evertz last year because he had no public health qualifications and as a gay political activist had espoused policies at odds with the president's position, such as needle exchanges to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS.... It remains to be seen whether the new appointee will pursue policies more closely aligned with the President."

Finally, the Juy 24 issue of LCR's e-newsletter, "Inclusion Wins" (not yet online), took aim at both the HRC and FRC responses, saying:

"This past week the gay left and the far right once again joined forces in spinning a story -- and both sides got it wrong. -- Leaders of the Family Research Council"claimed that [Scott Evertz] was pushed out of his position because he was too liberal, "too gay." -- Within a few hours, HRC put out their press release giving the far right exactly what they needed. HRC and FRC put out identical stories that Scott was "shoved" and it was a victory for the anti-gay right. Both organizations -- FRC and HRC -- have been looking for every chance to attack the Bush administration and make the same case to each of their donor bases -- the far right has influence in the White House. HRC wants to scare people into giving. FRC wants to appear powerful. They were a perfect match.

The LCR newsletter continues:

"The AIDS establishment has been schizophrenic.... They've attacked the Bush Administration for not doing enough on global AIDS, attacking [HHS Secretary Tommy] Thompson and hounding him off the stage at the recent Barcelona AIDS conference. But then Secretary Thompson stated he was working to address these concerns, and the same AIDS activists criticized him for not doing enough at home and focusing too much on the global problem."

Looks like you just can't win with some people, I guess.

Whatever the truth may be, the fact is that the administration has now appointed openly gay men to oversee both its domestic and global AIDS policy. That's the real story here -- and one that both the gay left AND the anti-gay right thought could never, and would never, happen.

0 Comments

79420678

by on

Joined for Life? Here's a good example of the trouble with civil unions as "marriage lite." According to this AP report, Gary Roengarten and Peter Downes entered into a civil union in Vermont, but their relationship has since soured. Now, they find that they can't legally dissolve their union via a court in Connecticut, where they reside, because that state (like the other 49 outside of Vermont) doesn't recognize civil unions in the first place. A Vermont court could dissolve their legal union (the equivalent of granting a divorce), but only if one of the men were a Vermont resident.

Rosengarten's attorney said his client wants a formal dissolution to protect the inheritance of his three adult children. "These are two very private people who want to have this resolved with dignity and discretion," he explained.

Opinion Journal, on the Wall Street Journal website, has some fun with this (scroll all the way down to the item titled Marriage Plus), opining:

"Unlike today's marriages, a civil union is really for life."Though anyone can get a civil union license in Vermont, state law requires at least one party be a legal resident before the family courts will rule on a dissolution. Oh well, maybe this will provide Rosengarten and Downes with the impetus to patch things up."

But it's no joke to those who discover themselves legally bound together with no way out. Consigned to the realm of halfway measures and semi-equality, same-sex couples may find this sort of legal limbo becoming more familiar. Sooner or later, the other 49 and their courts, and eventually the U.S. Supreme Court, will have to come to terms with what has happened in Vermont. Or, much better still, realize that barring gay and lesbian couples from marrying in the standard manner is not a tenable situation.

0 Comments

79352069

by on

A Blog to Check Out. IGF fellow traveler Tom Brennan has started his own daily blog. Here's a link to his postings from last Friday, with a scathingly on-target critique of Richard Goldstein (who thinks all gays must march in leftwing lockstep), followed by a priceless self-description of lesbigay radicals on parade:

Large banners proclaimed, "Defend Civil Rights at Home, No 'Collateral Damage' Abroad, Stop This War!" and "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered People & Allies In SOLIDARITY with Arabs, Muslims, South Asians Against Racial Profiling." Three other banners carried by allied activists defended Mumia abu-Jamal, slammed patriarchy and war. Chants rang out: "Stop the Hate, Stop the Fear, Immigrants Are Welcome Here," and "Arabs and Muslims Under Attack, What Do We Do? Act Up, Fight Back," were among them.

Comments Brennan, "I'm looking forward to reports of the "No Racist War" and "Solidarity with the Muslim World" dummies taking their message to the gay pride parades in Mecca, Tehran, Cairo, Baghdad etc etc etc etc." Me too.

Praise Where It's Due. Howard Dean, Vermont's governor and a Democratic presidential hopeful, was questioned by NBC's Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" last Sunday. To his credit, Dean gave an unflinching defense of his support for civil unions, and said signing the bill was one of the most important events of his political life. Moreover, he said that he, like many other straight Americans, had spent a lifetime listening to misinformation about homosexuality, and that every state needs to go through the kind of discussion that Vermont went through in order for that misinformation to be shown up for what it is. Russert asked him rhetorically how many of the others running for president would have signed the civil unions bill, which pretty much makes the point.

While Dean should be commended for his support for civil unions and gay equality, at no small political cost, he took other stands that were less praiseworthy. He denounced tax cuts as "voodoo economics," saying "Supply-side economics doesn't work, and what's happening on Wall Street day is a perfect example of that." (Actually, without the tax cuts and the consumer spending they"ve fueled, economic growth would likely be negative and the stock crash much, much worse.) Dean also defended his support for the pork-barrel spending of the recent farm subsidies giveaway-to-agribusiness bill (sadly passed with support from both Democrats and Republicans).

So see, I"m willing to praise liberals when they are in their civil libertarian mode, but remain staunchly critical of their ever-bigger government, tax-and-spend mania. Support for our equality must expand beyond the most liberal wing of the liberal party if we are to achieve success outside of the country's "progressive" bastions.

0 Comments

“…But We Don’t Talk about It”

by on

First published July 23, 2002, in the Chicago Free Press.

RECENTLY I WAS TALKING with a young man about his relationship with his family and asked if his family knew he was gay.

"They know," he said, "but we don't talk about it."

I don't remember my exactly response, but it was something like "Yeah, I understand" or something else equally bland. But sometimes the things you yourself say can nag at you as much as things other people say. And on reflection, I think I was wrong in tacitly agreeing that "not talking" about it is all right.

I think we should talk about "it." Not "it" meaning our sexual activities, not meaning some "lifestyle," but "it" meaning our lives.

After all, you would talk about your life if you were heterosexual. Heterosexual family members talk about their lives all the time. They talk about who they are dating and what that person is like. They talk about who they are living with (roommate, lover, spouse), where they went on vacation and with whom, their out-of-town visitors, the parties and other social events they went to and with whom and so forth.

None of these things are taken to be talking about "it" - if "it" means their sex lives. In fact, it is because they talk about these various aspects of their lives that we can learn that heterosexuality is not just about sex, not even some uniform "lifestyle;" it is about leading a rich, full, active life which comes in a wide range of varieties.

The same is true for gays and lesbians. If you do not talk about your life, the range of activities you engage in, the important people in your life and what they mean to you, your family is left to their imaginings. And because of the so-called "vanity of minor differences," they may well exaggerate the significance of a different sexual orientation.

Differences there are, to be sure, and there is no reason to downplay them: the influence of childlessness, the psychological dynamics of same-sex bonding, greater time for social and cultural interests, and the grating fact of ongoing prejudice in some regions. But the human essentials of living one's life, meeting social, psychological and economic needs, and trying to find meaning in one's existence are about the same.

Most parents and other family members want their children (or siblings) to be happy, to have a fulfilled, rewarding life. We ourselves know how being gay is one way of being happy and leading a rewarding, emotionally fulfilled life. But they may not.

Your job is to help them realize it.

This does not mean you need to force feed information. It does mean that you can be alert for what modern educationists - with their gift for expressing the most commonplace concepts in constantly changing jargon - call "teachable moments," those times when information will seem particularly helpful or enlightening and naturally expressed.

Beyond that, the trick is to assure them in some way that you are open to questions or discussion. Many parents and relatives may never ask anything about your life because they think that would be intrusive or violate your privacy. After all, if you don't talk about it, they may feel you are letting them know that you don't want to talk about it. For all they know, you are uncomfortable about being gay.

And they may not know where to begin or what to ask. So you may have to provide occasional verbal cues or "prompts," teasers that fail to give very complete information and more or less invite questions which then lures the other person into an exchange.

"We went to see a great film last week." Obvious question hanging in the air: What film did you see? Or: "I was at the bar talking with a pilot who had scathing comments about airport security." Obvious information transmitted: there are gay pilots. Obvious questions: what did he say? What is wrong with airport security? Or: "The parade this year had more politicians than ever. I managed to shake hands with a couple." Information transmitted: growing political legitimacy. Possible questions: What parade? What politicians? These may be lame examples, but you get the idea.

If there is a way you can help your family realize that they benefit from your being gay, so much the better. If there is information useful to them that you can pass on - for instance those expert airport security concerns. Or if you met an interesting or important person through being gay: "I was chatting with Judge (fill in the blank) the other day...." Or if you saw something funny in the local gay paper that might entertain them too.

Above all, do not become discouraged. This is a long term project and success is likely to come slowly rather than in a sudden burst of understanding and acceptance. But keep at it unobtrusively but continuously and eventually you will see progress.

0 Comments

79240899

by on

More on What Ails the Catholic Church. A very fine piece in Sunday's Washington Post looks at Roman Catholic seminaries in the U.S. Not unexpectedly, a large number of those studying to be priests are gay and they tend to socialize together, which sometimes leads to sexual tensions that are readily apparent. But the topic is not allowed to be openly discussed. The result is a "weird" atmosphere that is driving both straight and gay seminarians to abandon their dreams of becoming priests. Says one straight former priest-to-be about "the atmosphere of suffocating sexual repression" at his seminary:

"You need to create a space where people can be who they are. Being gay is not the problem, but when it's all underground it's no good."

Indeed, clearly it's not.

On German "Marriage". Readers have written to chide me for the recent item in which I wrote, "Meanwhile, Germany (of all places) joins France, Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden in granting same-sex couples the benefits of matrimony." Wrote one reader:

"Despite the impression you might get from watching the History Channel, the second world war ended a long time ago and fortunately LOTS of things have changed since then. Modern Germany is far from being a perfect place, but general attitudes towards homosexuality in Germany are far ahead of the U.S. and have been for a long time."

Another reader pointed out that Germany's law does not grant the full rights of marriage:

"The German Eingetragene Partnerschaft (registered partnership)--the so-called 'Homo-Ehe' (gay marriage)--in fact does not grant same-sex couples all of the benefits that verheiratete (married) opposite sex couples get. Most notably, they do not get the same benefits as regards taxation--income and inheritance"."

The reason, I"m informed, is that portions of the partnership bill equalizing taxation were rejected by the Bundesrat (the upper house), which is controlled by the CDU/CSU (Christian Democrat Union/Christian Social Union). Moreover, the partnerships, unlike marriage, are not recognized outside of Germany. Hope that helps clarify matters.

0 Comments

79198067

by on

Pandering to the Right. Here's another sign of how backward we remain on the subject of legal marriage for gays and lesbians. Just as Canada embarks on a path that's expected to lead to legal same-sex matrimony, Congress members who represent the GOP's anti-gay wing, led this time by Louisiana's David Vitter, are again trying to block funding for Washington, D.C.'s domestic partners law (Congress has the final say so over the district's appropriations). This attempt to mobilize the religious right before November's elections isn't expected to prevail, and openly gay Congressman Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz), who previously succeeded in getting the appropriations committee to remove language against the D.C. partners law, is again working to ensure that this latest bit of anti-gay pandering comes to naught.

The sooner this mischief bites the dust, the better for the GOP all round. For what does it profit a party to appeal to the religious right and lose the moderate suburbanites who would like to vote Republican, but fear joining a party that
countenances bigotry?

Paglia Takes Aim. Author Camille Paglia is a free-thinking socially libertarian lesbian and longtime critic of the lesbigay left's rigid orthodoxy (which she terms "gay Stalinism"). In a new FrontPage Magazine piece titled The Gay Inquisition, she responds to attacks against her and other non-leftists by the Village Voice's Richard Goldstein.

Paglia, who sometimes falls into the same kind of overly personalized sneering that her leftwing nemeses specialize in, nevertheless hits the nail on the head when she writes:

"There have been seismic shifts in feminism and gay politics over the past decade. My wing of pro-sex feminism has triumphed, and gay life in general has become more integrated with mainstream America. The fire has gone out of activism, since we are in a period of negotiation rather than confrontationalism in social-policy issues. Communication lines between gay and straight have opened dramatically, except in the most retrograde patches of religious fundamentalism. Hence the small cells still stoking their fury in feminism and gay activism are mostly fanatics--those who are still nursing childhood wounds and who cling to "the movement" as a consoling foster family. They are harmless, except when impressionable young people fall under their spell: their parochial jargon and unresolved resentments stunt the mind."

If only we could put all the leftwing "queer theorists" and all the rightwing family values moralists in a room together and let them luxuriate in their mutual fanaticism while the rest of us get on with our lives.

0 Comments

79133009

by on

Can Marriage Ever Be De-politicized? Legislators in Massachusetts this week used a procedural maneuver to kill a proposed statewide ballot initiative to ban gay marriage. The anti-gay Massachusetts Citizens for Marriage had gathered twice the required number of signatures to put the question on the 2004 election ballot, but legislative support was also required. While opponents of the measure needed the votes of more than 75 percent of legislators to defeat it outright, which they lacked, they only needed a simple majority to approve a motion to adjourn without taking it up, which they had. The measure is now effectively dead.

According to the Boston Globe report:

After the vote, the amendment's supporters' frustration boiled over in State House corridors. One woman interrupted a television interview with a legislator to shout ''The people have lost their voice!'' repeatedly, and ''We all know he's gay!'' as she pointed to an activist. She was escorted from the building.

Meanwhile, in the U.S. Congress, anti-gay supporters of a federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage are continuing their efforts, which thankfully don't appear to be gaining much traction.

The gay marriage issue is likely to continue as a socio-cultural flashpoint. If any additional states decide to follow Vermont and legalize de facto marriage for same-sex couples, then efforts to ban such unions by amending the U.S. and/or state constitutions will likely pick up steam.

Given this situation, Wendy McElroy has a particularly timely column titled It's Time to Privatize Marriage, on the Fox News website. She even quotes IGF contributor David Boaz, a proponent of getting government out of the marriage-sanctioning business. Unfortunately, in the world we live in the government is deeply embedded in defining what marriage means and who may wed. And the country doesn't appear to be in any kind of a mood to get rid of the myriad legal and financial benefits the state bestows on married couples.

But the tide outside the U.S. is definitely flowing in the direction of granting gays and lesbians the right to marry, whether the term is used or not. A major court decision in Canada is likely to bring about government recognition of same-sex unions north of our border, and there's even some mainstream recognition that this might just strengthen, rather than weaken, the institution, as demonstrated by this supportive piece by Andrew Coyne in the National Post.

Meanwhile, Germany (of all places) joins France, Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden in granting same-sex couples the benefits of matrimony.

Yes, things could eventually change here as well, but it will take a sustained effort. Nowhere else in the world do the opponents of gay marriage seem as fanatic to their cause as they do on our shores.

0 Comments

78958271

by on

The Other Bush Haters. Here's a rabidly anti-gay webpage that contains numerous items intended to document the charge that George W. Bush and the GOP are actively pushing the "gay agenda." It made me feel truly good about how things are going.

You Can't Fool All of the People All of the Time. More evidence that the anti-gay right has reason to be concerned about their loss of influence. Check out this editorial, "Gay Chicken Littles Wrong on Bush," by Chris Crain, editor of the Washington Blade and New York Blade News -- two of the nation's most important gay newspapers. Crain is a Democrat who conlcudes "George W. Bush is no Bill Clinton, but his record so far has been surprisingly neutral and even positive on the gay issues to come before his administration."

Crain makes a persuasive argument, but don't expect most lesbigay political groups to pay attention. Their fundraising is firmly based on scare tactics -- just like the religious right's. In fact, reading fundraising letters from the religious right and the gay left would convince you that American society truly IS on the verge of destruction -- it's just the face of the enemy being blamed that's different.

Another Gay Left Lament. Many of you caught C-SPAN/2's broadcast of the great gay debate between Andrew Sullivan and left-firebrand Richard Goldstein. I agree with the e-mailer who said his favorite moment was when Goldstein demeaned Sullivan as another Roy Cohn (the self-loathing aid to arch-homophobe Joseph McCarthey). Sullivan's immediate and passionate rejoinder, pointing out that he is an openly gay man who argues on behalf of gay marriage in front of religious conservatives, should have put Goldstein to shame (but of course, nothing could do that).

For those who want another example of the gay left's myopia -- although without the personal bile that Goldstein and his cohorts specialize in -- here's an interesting piece from The Independent (U.K.) by Britain's gay left leader, Peter Tatchell, titled "Gay Pride is Now Respectable, and the Worse for It." Tatchell writes:

"We had a beautiful dream, but it's fading fast. In the 30 years since the first Gay Pride march, there has been a massive retreat from the ideals and vision of the early gay liberation pioneers. Most gay people no longer question the values, laws and institutions of mainstream society. They are content to settle for equal rights within the status quo."

Yes, settling for equal rights is just such a bloody shame.

0 Comments