I'm not missing the point of that article. I think its incredibly valid and worthy of discussion.

But, damn.

Ladies do Love Cool James.

Yum.

Yessssssssss. I've been trying to preach this in my freshman Rhet./Comp. classes. Sometimes they seem to realize, whether they like it or not, that the same pattern repeats itself through history: we classify oppression as "cultural" (as in the cases with women's right to vote, emancipation and integration) which excuses it until we deem it a right. It's important that people see the parallels.

I thought Ann's piece was wonderfully concise given the power it packed. Her points were trenchant and needed.

But I wish it had addressed the issue of members of previous American civil rights movements--most notably, some Black Americans--who vehemently oppose gay rights activists' perceived "appropriation" of civil rights terms and equivalencies.

I know this is a hot-button issue because of the blame unfairly heaped by some progressives on those Black Americans and Hispanics who voted for Obama but against gay marriage in CA in particular (anyone know the FL demographics?)

However, as a minority woman who has benefited from the gains of the native Black-American civil rights movement, I do NOT share the view of some members of my ethnic group who have stated that "Gay rights CANNOT be compared to Black [or other minority] civil rights."

Most arguments I have heard along these lines posit that skin color/phenotype cannot be disguised as sexuality can. I find this to be an anti-HUMAN rights argument, because it is based on the assumption that humans can be expected to subsume the deepest facets of their being in order to "get by" in an imperfect world.

Uh, no. "Passing" is soul-destroying for many and should not be expected of light-skinned non-Europeans, nor of gay or transpeople alike.

I'm not sure I agree entirely with Ann's piece. To the extent this is framed as a "rights" issue, the right will always be in danger of being lost. Legislative and judicial majorities can easily strip rights based on the cultural views of the individual judges or legislators.

I still believe that true change requires a cultural shift. This does not mean that courts shouldn't lead the way, but a sustained defense and support of those rights requires that a significant proportion of the culture at large support the enforcement and defense of such rights. Courts and legislative bodies change over time. If the culture at large is against defending the rights of the gay and transgendered, courts and other governmental bodies will not be much help in the long run.

Civil rights is a great example. A change of perception was necessary to support the lead taken by government to enforce and defend the rights of minorities. Absent such a gradual shift in the perception of the culture, such gains would have been short lived.

Whether I like or dislike this piece depends on who I think its audience is.

If it's talking to mainstream Democrats and liberal pundits who are tempted to write off LGBT rights as a cause whose time has not yet come and who would rather sit back and wait for the opposition to die off than devote energy and real political muscle to it, then fine. Kudos. LGBT issues as civil rights issues is how we should absolutely be framing things when we're talking about setting political priorities. This is about justice, equality, and freedom, not some skirmish we can just put off. We didn't end the culture war this election, we just muddied the battle lines and made more room for bigots in the Democratic tent by allowing our candidate to avoid actually professing full acceptance of the legitimacy of LGBT people's needs and the value of our lives.

But if it's trying to talk to the people who have been and still are working to secure our rights... no. It reads as a rebuke of current strategies and tactics but proposes a solution that isn't a strategy at all--LGBT rights = civil rights is the goal, not the method for getting there. Someone who opposes same-sex marriage, when presented with an argument that just says LGBT rights are civil rights too will say no, they're not. They say it's different. Empathy is the bridge between the two positions--empathy is what allows people to see the parallels between the LGBT rights struggle and other struggles. To imply that maybe all we needed to do in California was say it was a civil rights struggle is overly simplistic. We use arguments that appeal to empathy because they're what have worked when we talk to people one-on-one and try to convince them not to hate us. Maybe the empathy angle isn't enough, but does Ann really think the solution is a simple rebranding/reframing of the issue?

The "history is on our side" comments that I've heard have meant two very different things, corresponding to these two audiences. One is as a way of letting ourselves off the hook, as the article says. But the other is as a way of comforting and convincing ourselves that the fight ahead isn't useless and that we'll come out victorious in the end. Don't deny us that solace; it's what keeps us going long enough to "claim our rights."

In the end, I do think civil rights struggles are cultural struggles, and the battle for civil rights is at its core the process of reshaping culture. That's not the same thing as talking about culture war. I don't think it should be that way, and that doesn't mean we have to wait for everyone to get on board--the most fundamental problem with Prop 8 was that it subjected the rights of a minority to the whims of the majority, and perhaps we should start reframing things that way, because fundamental rights should not be revocable by a flimsy simple majority. It doesn't mean we need to wait for a cultural sea change to ensure LGBT rights under the law, but don't act like trying to cultivate empathy is a waste of time. Above all, don't confuse the dismissive rhetoric of culture war with anything people who actually work for LGBT rights are saying.

I wholeheartedly agree. I find it unfortunate that some POC think this line of thinking is an absolute threat (see many recent threads at Shakesville).

I think discussing issues like LBGTQ rights can be done with nuance and is not, in and of itself, a threat to other civil rights movements.

Let me add that I do not mean to imply that some comparisons and interactions between the black civil rights movement and the LBGTQ movement are always OK. The recent cover of The Advocate is a perfect (awful) example of how nuance can be completely trampled on, unfortunately.

I agree with what Ann's saying--which is basically that this can't be dismissed as a cultural difference between those who are for gay rights or against. It's a misguided cue to think that this boils down to religious differences, etc.

This is a human right as much as a civil right...the right to love someone and be protected under the law. There's so much dialogue that needs to happen and so much left to do -- I feel like the gay community is taking baby steps in the direction it needs to go. We also can't do it fragmented (as the gay community is and can be) and we can't do it without the support of our straight allies.

Love is love -
Cheers,
Bambi Weavil
OutImpact.com - Making a positive impact in the gay community. Make yours.