Gays Can Marry, But Don't Be Too Faggy About It
Because when you're sitting on your couch seething with rage, it's time to blog.
'Images from gay weddings, said Lorri L.Jean, chief executive of the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center, could be used by opponents in a campaign designed to convince California voters that gays and lesbians should not have the right to marry. Those getting married, she cautioned, should never lose sight of what they might be supplying the other side."
While I fully understand and acknowledge that all forms of activism have their place, this particular mindset makes me extremely angry. It reminds me of the pre-Stonewall activist groups that required their members to appear as conservative and heterosexual as possible. I have clear images from gay history books and cinematic recreations of the women in skirts and the men in ties. I am not undoing the power of what those people did, it was extremely brave to go anywhere in the 1960s and be an advocate for gay rights. But, it took a riot led by drag queens and butch lesbians to make for any real substantive change.
I have mixed feelings about the whole gay marriage issue anyway. Of course i believe that all people should have equal rights and it is utterly absurd to me that others would want to interfere with relationships that were not their own - gay, straight, or otherwise. However, attaching the word "marriage" to the equal rights belongs in the hand of the couple (and any others) involved in the relationship. If the government gives me the same rights as my uber-heternormative downstairs neighbors, then i don't care what it's called. That's me and I understand that the particular idea of "marriage" means more to others. I stand by my inner semiotician and view marriage as an arbitrary sign and would be just as happy with an Olipou style Yuddle in lieu of a wife. Moreover, I stand by Michelle whatever the fuck anyone wants to call her.
BUT, anything that ask gays and lesbians to suppress their true identities so as not to provide ammo to the anti-cause activists is, in my humble opinion, a massive regression. Whether or not I choose to admit it on a regular basis, I am sure that I enjoy certain privileges that come forth from my ability to "pass" as straight. It's not something I've sought out or that I attach tremendous value judgment too. It took me a while to find my place on the gender spectrum and I'm pretty comfortable with where I am. But, I am fully cognizant that my ability to live my life as an out lesbian with my long standing lady friend in a building that is half homo/half hetero sexual is the legacy of the "freaks" that came before.
Factions between people that agree with each other are an odd issue. But honestly, I hate the philosophy being eschewed by that article. This is especially painful to read a couple of days after Boston Pride. In our fair city's particular parade, the churches outnumber the drag queens and even though the leather flag is as large as the rainbow one, the latter has more people to help carry it and their uniforms of white t-shirts and Obama signs give the "opposition" a lot less to work with than chaps and a dog collar.
Is a victory really a win if you have to protect it at the cost of identity? Am I overreacting?
'Images from gay weddings, said Lorri L.Jean, chief executive of the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center, could be used by opponents in a campaign designed to convince California voters that gays and lesbians should not have the right to marry. Those getting married, she cautioned, should never lose sight of what they might be supplying the other side."
While I fully understand and acknowledge that all forms of activism have their place, this particular mindset makes me extremely angry. It reminds me of the pre-Stonewall activist groups that required their members to appear as conservative and heterosexual as possible. I have clear images from gay history books and cinematic recreations of the women in skirts and the men in ties. I am not undoing the power of what those people did, it was extremely brave to go anywhere in the 1960s and be an advocate for gay rights. But, it took a riot led by drag queens and butch lesbians to make for any real substantive change.
I have mixed feelings about the whole gay marriage issue anyway. Of course i believe that all people should have equal rights and it is utterly absurd to me that others would want to interfere with relationships that were not their own - gay, straight, or otherwise. However, attaching the word "marriage" to the equal rights belongs in the hand of the couple (and any others) involved in the relationship. If the government gives me the same rights as my uber-heternormative downstairs neighbors, then i don't care what it's called. That's me and I understand that the particular idea of "marriage" means more to others. I stand by my inner semiotician and view marriage as an arbitrary sign and would be just as happy with an Olipou style Yuddle in lieu of a wife. Moreover, I stand by Michelle whatever the fuck anyone wants to call her.
BUT, anything that ask gays and lesbians to suppress their true identities so as not to provide ammo to the anti-cause activists is, in my humble opinion, a massive regression. Whether or not I choose to admit it on a regular basis, I am sure that I enjoy certain privileges that come forth from my ability to "pass" as straight. It's not something I've sought out or that I attach tremendous value judgment too. It took me a while to find my place on the gender spectrum and I'm pretty comfortable with where I am. But, I am fully cognizant that my ability to live my life as an out lesbian with my long standing lady friend in a building that is half homo/half hetero sexual is the legacy of the "freaks" that came before.
Factions between people that agree with each other are an odd issue. But honestly, I hate the philosophy being eschewed by that article. This is especially painful to read a couple of days after Boston Pride. In our fair city's particular parade, the churches outnumber the drag queens and even though the leather flag is as large as the rainbow one, the latter has more people to help carry it and their uniforms of white t-shirts and Obama signs give the "opposition" a lot less to work with than chaps and a dog collar.
Is a victory really a win if you have to protect it at the cost of identity? Am I overreacting?