Is the Gay Community Holding Itself Back in Some Ways?

[MrMidwest]

Posted: 10/7/05 at 11:56am

This is something I've been thinking about. Often when I see people talking about homosexuality, especially in the media, people are often like "Well they'll never show this or that (involving homosexual characters) on this tv show or in that movie" or people will be like "Things are just how they are and we have to realize that"

I feel like almost at times that people are accepting the way things are. I also feel like people have overestimated the amount of homophobia that is out there. I'm not saying that there aren't a lot of people who are homophobic (personal experiences also play a part in people's perspective on homophobia obviously), but I think people tend to overlook the strides that have been made recently. It takes time to reach people and expand minds, especially when only now are honest depictions of gay people starting to show up in mainstream films. I just feel like some people seem to have a hopeless attitude about extinguishing homophobia when it's not really hopeless.

Updated On: 10/7/05 at 11:56 AM

[gymman]

Posted: 10/7/05 at 12:24pm

No, not hopeless...
But in many places, we can still lose our jobs, be denied housing, be prohibited from adopting, of course not marry. We still lack the basic human rights heterosexuals take for granted.

[MrMidwest]

Posted: 10/7/05 at 12:26pm

Sure, but that's why I wish some people had a better attitude about working to change those things.

[Elphaba]

Posted: 10/7/05 at 12:28pm

exactly gymman

what REALLY bugs me, is this shouldn't even be an issue. It never should have been. With all the problems this country faces, this is the issue that the right has clung to, and that makes me sick.

It's like, when all else fails, play the gay card, and no one will pay attention to anything else

[gymman]

Posted: 10/7/05 at 12:36pm

what's funny, really, is that gay rights are such a non-issue...
I have yet to hear, for example, ANY argument about HOW gay marriage undermines heterosexual marriage
I guess if they say it enough, it will be true.

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 10/7/05 at 12:46pm

I have heard some arguements, they are stupid, inane and devoid of all logic, but the people argueing will continue to spout the nonesense no matter how much evidence to the contrary you present.

Extinguishing homophobia in one fell swoop is hopeless, but biting and clawing and sometimes making huge and definitive gains is possible.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 10/7/05 at 1:02pm

The place where people can be brave is in the media. Kanye West spoke out--and it didn't hurt his album sales. Logo launched, and while it may be awhile before it is a hit channel, it's still on.

Will & Grace looks like it may be bolder than ever with this being their last season--and the irony may be that the show regains the mojo many have felt has been lacking. Various movies and shows have been brave enough to include gay characters besides the current (and false) rule of thumb that the majority of country is conservative and anti-gay. Well, certainly the main audience for tv and film is not.

Politicians need to be brave as well. People who are not at fear of losing their job need to be brave. Those who can need to fight. And those who can't--should prob stop making excuses and make their lives what they want them to be. Maybe some of them want to live in the closet. But, I can't imagine allowing myself to be swamped into that position. Get out and come out. Or stay and take risks.

[Magdalene]

Posted: 10/7/05 at 1:08pm

May I intrude with a question? I've been following the story about gay marriage fairly closely, and I don't understand why the gay community doesn't go with the civil union thing (INITIALLY!) Get the foot in the door without making hysterical idiots amend their state constitutions to make marriage between a man & a woman (blah blah blah). I think gay marriage would be a stabilizing influence. I'd rather see the gay community win the war as opposed to lose the battle over a matter of semantics.

Updated On: 10/7/05 at 01:08 PM

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 10/7/05 at 1:19pm

But it's not a matter of semantics. Civil Unions will not be equal. "Separate is not equal." There will still be a class issue, for one thing. Furthermore, this IS a federal issue. Those who can marry in Mass. do NOT have federal marriage rights. And are the civil unions going to have EVERY right that marriage does in each respective state? Additionally, there are plenty of states who have and are going to outlaw civil unions--they don't want ANY rights for gays in matters of forming unions. And, no, papers drawn up by one's lawyer will not cover it. They are extremely expensive and not every hospital or insurance company, etc. will comply by such papers and contracts.

Having said that, I do think the civil unions in Vermont and Conn. are steps. But at no point should the gay community be content with civil unions.

[lildogs]

Posted: 10/7/05 at 1:20pm

The first step is coming out, like jrb said. Until EVERYONE does that, we'll never see our full potential, socially and politically...

[WindyCityActor]

Posted: 10/7/05 at 1:23pm

Unfortunately, federal and state laws are usually written defining the relationship as a "marriage" not as a "civil union." It would be much easier for Gays to get "married" than having to re-write every law that recognizes marriages but makes no mention of a civil unions.

Unless civil unions guarantee the same rights as marriages, it infers that civil unions are inferior to marriages.

[SorryGrateful]

Posted: 10/7/05 at 1:25pm

What I don't get is that, according to the divorce rate in this and even other countries, it seems heterosexuals barely even respect marriage. But then someone brings up a gay's right to marry and suddenly it's this cherished institution that all gays will sully. Heterosexuals can be so hypocritical sometimes and it gets to be enormously frustrating. (Sorry, I know that was a little OT, but I had to say it for my own well-being.)

[Magdalene]

Posted: 10/7/05 at 1:45pm

I understand your frustration---I have friends who have been together for almost 50 years, and the fact that they have to jump through legal hoops to get benefits that marriage automatically confers on straight married couples makes me ill! I always thought that a civil union was a marriage, and vice versa. It seems that the majority of the population doesm't mind civil unions, it's just the word marriage that seems to make people freak. What can I do?

[JerseyGirl2]

Posted: 10/7/05 at 1:52pm

I have two straight friends that got married, with no romantic involvement, just so one could get insurance coverage. Meanwhile, a man that I have known for years couldn't make any decisions when his partner was in a horrible wreck. It's all very sad.

As for the title, I don't know if we all hold ourselves back. The drag queens do. Well, mostly they tape...

[Unknown User]

Posted: 10/7/05 at 2:48pm

Having recently moved from a progressive big city to a more rural environment, I've been shocked by the situation here in more ways than one. While there are lots of gay people in this small town they seem to have adopted a "don't frighten the horses" attitude and are trying to blend in. Internalized homophobia is still our worst enemy. I am reminded of the old coming out argument that if evey gay person turned blue tomorrow, there would be no more descimination because we are everywhere- every person would have to realize that they have close friends or relatives that are gay and that there is no "Other" to fear and demonize.

I worked for a company that was in many ways very progressive, but they didn't offer partner benefits- that is, until a long time employee remarked to the company President what a dificult time he was going through because he couldn't put his long term partner on his insurance. The head of the company agreed immediately and picked up the phone to call HR to change the policy. He said it had never occurred to him that they needed to offer partner benefits because no one had ever asked. Sometimes all we need to do is speak up.

[Plum]

Posted: 10/7/05 at 3:07pm

There's nothing wrong with taking queer civil rights in steps- that's how the black civil rights movement did it. The NAACP Legal Defense Fund had a definite attack plan- for example, in school admissions they started with public professional schools, especially law schools, because judges are guaranteed to identify with law students. Then they moved incrementally to other colleges, until finally they made their big attack with Brown v. Board of Education. All along, they carefully picked and chose the most suitable lawsuits and situations so they could turn the odds their way.

***

As for "hurting the institution of marriage," it's like this- do you think marriage is only for copulation, or do you think it's the joining of two people who love each other? Some people would go with the first choice, but most people would take the latter. So far, so good. So why all the resistance to gay marriage?

When these same people differentiate between a joining of same-sex couple and a heterosexual couple, what I see is as much sexism as homophobia. They're going back to the old ideology of "different genders, different spheres"- a couple needs a man and a woman so the man can go out and earn their daily bread while the woman stays home and takes care of the house. You can't have a man playing house-husband or a woman kicking butts in the boardroom, and that's what's inevitably going to happen in the splitting of labor between many gay couples. I'm not saying plain old "the Bible says it's wrong" isn't a factor, but I really think entrenched beliefs about gender roles have something to do with it, too. Just ask Senator Santorum.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 10/7/05 at 3:21pm

A lot of good points well worth discussing have come up in these threads.

Mr. Midwest, I feel like there's a danger in discussing "the gay community" as if it's this one solid monolith. It's not. What we have in this country are lots and lots of gay communities. And many gay people who don't feel a part of any "community" at all. I think referring to "the gay community" is a pretty big pitfall, one that Larry Kramer falls into every time he references how "we" are the best and the brightest and have plenty of money. Um, what mean "we" white man?

Or as Lea DeLaria has so brilliantly put it, "I'm so sick of hearing 'we're doctors and lawyers' AND busboys and waitresses."

Magdalene, I've followed the Massachusetts marriage thing pretty closely. It's quite astounding how many conservative types have said, "Well, we would have been ALL FOR civil unions if only they'd asked." AS IF! Even future Republican Presidential Mannequin Mitt Romney, the Mormon governor of Massachusetts originally said that, but of course he has since back pedalled (or flip flopped, if you will) to say that no, he isn't in favor of civil unions an come to think of it, he's changed his mind about reproductive freedom, too!

But the fact is, the Massachusetts couples who sued for the right to marry did EVERYTHING by the book. They worked through the arduous political process and the marriage thing was heard by the Supreme Judicial Court when the case came up. It wasn't any concerted idea to SNEAK marriage rights in, they did what we're constantly told as Americans that we're supposed to do, "if you don't like the laws, work to change them."

Then there's people who act as if marriage is de facto a religious institution, which, of course it is not.

The funniest thing, to my way of thinking, is that if you REALLY want to undermine the institution of marriage, allow civil unions in all 50 states. AND WATCH how many heterosexual couples opt to skip the whole marriage thing!

[MrMidwest]

Posted: 10/7/05 at 3:29pm

I get what you mean Namo, but at the same time you have to know that I didn't mean that every single person in the gay community was holding us back. I consider everyone who is gay to be a part of the "gay community" whether it really is a solid community or whether I'm proud of all of those people. I suppose I could have phrased it as "Are there gay people who are helping to hold up progress for gay people in general" but I didn't :-P

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 10/7/05 at 3:30pm

and watch how many heterosexual couples opt to skip the whole marriage thing!

you say that as if it's a bad thing, namo. any steps towards removing the idea of marriage from civil law is a good thing. marriage should be a function of one's religious affiliation, not something sanctioned by the government. civil unions for everybody!!

[Magdalene]

Posted: 10/7/05 at 3:33pm

I'm reminded of Jimmy Swaggart----he was freaking out about Jim Baker, and then Swaggart got caught with a prostitute. I find many of the religious right to be a bunch of hypocrites, and their reaction to gay marriage is no different! My personal belief is that it strengthens relationships! I want to know what I can do to help--- I ask questions to learn.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 10/7/05 at 3:34pm

That's what I'm saying. But until it's illegal for your Britneys and your Jasons to pop over to Vegas for a goofy ceremony to kick off their 56 hour "marriage," then I'm afraid the world is just going to have to get used to gay marriage.

In fact, what IS it that civilly united couples call their relationships, anyway? Lower case marriage like lower case xerox like lower case kleenex.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 10/7/05 at 3:36pm

a merger as in, "this is my mergee."

Updated On: 10/7/05 at 03:36 PM

[Magdalene]

Posted: 10/7/05 at 3:37pm

Okay, on another note, what is the difference between a civil union and a marriage? Since I'm so confused...

[Plum]

Posted: 10/7/05 at 3:48pm

I agree, papalovesmambo. At least the situation here isn't as bad as in Israel, where there's no such thing as civil marriage at all. Even when you'd think the situation would be simple- two previously unmarried Jews marrying each other- rabbis can put you through all kinds of expensive crap to get your wedding certificate. Israelis have been known to travel to other countries to get civil unions.

Wouldn't it be nice and simple if we totally separated civil union and marriage? I wonder if you could make a separation of church and state case out of it- probably not, because of the long tradition of government-issued marriage certificates. Still, that way you tell places of worship they can marry or refuse to marry whomever they want, while the government will serve any couple, and only the certificates of the latter will be good for taxes, insurance, etc. But politics never follows Occam's Razor.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 10/7/05 at 3:52pm

well, plum, you and i will have to go to utah anyway since i'm already married, but it's not that much of a price is it?