In October of last year, Paul Schied published a well-intentioned critique of the gay rights movement with the hope of providing useful strategic advise to the proponents of gay equality. As the title of the piece clearly indicates, he is concerned with the tenor of the campaign for gay equality and suggests the movement needs to rely less on tactics of hate, and move instead in the direction of civility. Within the post, Paul questions the effectiveness of pride parades, describing them as “…lascivious affair[s], characterized by scantily dressed revelers of all genders and proclivities, boisterous music, and boas. Lots and lots of boas.” The piece as a whole describes the Gay Rights Movement as exhibiting a fundamental flaw to the extent that it is “overly preoccupied with the ideas of pride and awareness.”
Although I do not question Paul’s intention, it is the case that printed words develop a meaning oftentimes detached from an author’s original motivation. And so, building off Paul’s insistence of putting things “bluntly,” I will give my opinion of his post in the most unequivocal terms: The piece paints the gay rights movement to be an unsophisticated conglomeration of angry drag queens who seem bereft of the slightest notion of how to operate a politically effective campaign. This picture is furthered both through the substance of his argument and through his tone.
Consider, for example, his assertion that LGBT people are on the verge of “squander[ing] the sympathetic sentiment of the moment by being belligerent and combative.” Consider further still his description of certain gay demonstrations as “manic” and “scary.” Perhaps even more infuriating is his chastisement of the gay community in the final line of the article: “…don’t fight hate with hate. It won’t work, and it’s counterproductive. If you’re fighting for love, use love.” I do not know what movement Paul is referring to. In my eyes, proponents of gay equality have been very quick to turn the other cheek.
Considerations of tone aside, the substantive analysis in Paul’s post is completely off as well. As a gay man who sat on the Board of Directors for Charlotte’s largest queer youth outreach organization, a former community organizer for Equality NC and a student who’s research focuses on same-sex marriage, I wish to put forth my own view of the Gay Rights Movement while focusing on the role that pride celebrations play in that campaign.
The Gay Rights Movement is not motivated by hate or, for that matter, by any of its close relatives – “combativeness” or “belligerence,” nor has it created a tone exuding those passions. Instead, it is a movement intent upon liberating queer men and women from the conventional morals that severely restrict the everyday pursuit of happiness of an incredibly diverse group of people – people ranging from gay Republicans to persons engaged in master/slave relationships. After the Stonewall Riots, that mission has been carried out in the most civil of ways and with an unyielding commitment to nonviolence in the face of stinging homophobia.
The Human Rights Campaign, Lambda Legal, and Equality Federation – the three largest organizations working for the civil rights of lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgender people – have all carried out their respective missions through nonviolent protest. Indeed, they each have incorporated lessons in nonviolence as crucial components of their field organizing. What is more, all three organizations have sophisticated public relations boards to ensure the tone of their campaigning remains positive.
How is it then that Paul manages to jump from the FCKH8 campaign to his overarching claim that the Gay Rights Movement as a whole exhibits the “vulgar, rude, borderline offensive, and purposefully combative” characteristics he associates with FCKH8? In two words: pride demonstrations. Demonstrations he regards as useless “parading…in tights and bright pink boas [that] isn’t helping anything or anyone.”
“The gay community” continues Paul, “needs to mount a serious political movement to further gay rights. This fight, this movement, is about showing that you’re the same.”
Firstly, I resent the belief that the gay community has yet to mount “a serious political movement to further gay rights.” I believe our endeavors have been very serious and that our victories have been real. What is more, I reject the intimation that the leaders of our movement are somehow amateurs who do not possess the mental faculties to engage in serious campaigning.
Secondly, the movement as a whole should not be said to exude a hateful tone simply because of the actions of a small periphery campaign. The Gay Rights Movement is not centrally planned. At a time when online campaigns can be created in seconds with a simple click, it is unfair to criticize the tone of an entire movement solely based off a small group of online bloggers.
Lastly, Paul should realize that gay people are already very well acquainted with the maxim that it is possible to attract more bees with honey than it is with vinegar (indeed, so is the rest of humanity). We also know that playing up similarities to the heterosexual majority makes for good politics. Those understandings are simple enough and not beyond our abilities to grasp. In fact, the very notion of “identity politics” is a concept that sociologists have derived in large part from the gay rights movement. For example, in her essay “Celebration and Suppression: The Strategic Uses of Identity by the Lesbian and Gay Movement” sociologist Mary Bernstein observes the following:
“Critics of identity politics decry the celebration of difference within identity movements, yet many activists underscore their similarities to, rather than differences from, the majority…“identity deployment” [however,] is as a form of strategic collective action… identity movements’ [continuously] shift their emphasis between celebrating and suppressing differences from the majority.”
It is this insight that is missing from Paul’s analysis and what subsequently allows him to make the fallacious argument that pride celebrations “[aren’t] helping anyone or anything.” Pride events are necessary demonstrations, which strategically wield identity as means for empowerment and mobilization. Such events are held annually and represent a time for everyone within the gay community to come together as one. They promote a sense of solidarity, all the while allowing each of us to recognize just how diverse our community is. Although there are certainly many people fashioning boas, there are also representatives from all segments of the gay community: religious leaders, gay couples and their children, queer/straight alliances, LGBT friendly businesses, HIV support groups, gay Republicans, gay Democrats, and, most recently, gay service men and women in military uniform. These events are thus not only microcosms of the diversity in the LGBT community, but also a snap shot of our past, present, and future. That there are “seedy” elements to parts of the event reflects the origins of the gay rights movement itself: a movement started by people in dingy bars and clubs who bonded together in created kinship ties after they found the doors to their synagogues, mosques, churches, and even homes, bolted shut.
And so, the issue of identity suppression is not one of either or. The Gay Rights Movement has to continuously balance the degree to which it stresses similarity to and difference from the heterosexual majority. A misbalance threatens to either disintegrate the collective action of our constituency or isolate members outside of it. If the present balance is off, I believe it is off in overemphasizing similarities to heterosexual persons. I cannot stress enough how much the movement for gay rights must guard against those who would have us assimilated to, rather than liberated from the heterosexual majority. Attempts to push the LGBT community into a heteronormative box are not without grave consequence; we are not exactly congruent with that mold and I fear some will be left out if we persist with that strategy.
For example, the overemphasis on similarity has directly led to the growing vilification of transgender people. Their plight is increasingly seen as distinct from that of gay persons and, as such, undeserving of prompt remediation. Even in politics, legislators are quick to drop protections on the basis of gender identity while still supporting protections on the basis of sexual orientation. Consider also that just a couple of months ago even Harvard succumbed to this trend when it allowed ROTC back on campus, in direct violation of the school’s anti-discrimination policy which contains gender identity as a protected class.
The Bottom Line
It is patently false that the gay rights movement has established a hateful tone. To suggest otherwise is to misconstrue the simple reality of a movement deeply rooted in principles of nonviolence in the tradition of the 1960s campaign for racial equality. Moreover, the characterization of pride events as nothing more than lascivious affairs with lots of boas is false as well. Rather, such events are a great way to strengthen the internal bonds of the LGBT community while providing a festive atmosphere to revel in the great diversity and uniqueness of queer culture.
Lastly, it has been clear to gay rights activists for quite some time that playing up our similarities to heterosexual persons represents a more expedient course of action. I respectfully submit to Paul that it is unnecessary for him to relay to us a strategy, of which we were the progenitors in the first instance. Expedience is never without cost. That is true for gay rights as well. We have been cautious in embracing a politics of commonality because we have not lost the dream that we can all move forward together.
