:( I don't see your posts as inflammatory, did I miss something? I thought there was constructive dialogue going on. If you bow out, how will I learn from the conversation?

A quick thought on assimilation vs. radicalization ... I don't really see it as an either/or. I think both have a role to play and they can complement each other, as long as there are at least some common goals or outcomes.

My personal frame of reference for this is my activity in Queer Nation in the early 1990s. Some people in the gay community complained that we were too radical, too marginal, but in a conversation I had with a lesbian who had just become Seattle's first openly gay city council member, she pointed out that without QN, she would be the fringe, the radical edge. But with us out there, pushing boundaries, she suddenly looked more mainstream to people. The combination helped push the center, if you will, helped reframe the concept of normal.

Actually the group doing this really effectively right now is the right wing. With the Tea Partiers out there moving the radical edge beyond the bounds of sanity, the "center" of the Republican party suddenly seems more mainstream, despite the fact that they are so conservative that many Nixon-era policies would be considered practically leftist by today's Republican standards.

Don't leave. I agree with much if what you say and am enjoying reading the discussion.

I don't see anything inflamatory about any of your posts.

I'm conscious - maybe too conscious - of causing offense where none is meant. I don't want to do that. And this particular issue is one that is deeply and intensely personal for some. I don't want to give the impression that I am not an ally.

Agreed. I'm rather more in favor of a both/and approach. It's the common goals idea that gets tricky.

LTD sorry, I posted and now there's a few posts - I see you are in favour of the right to choose and just addressing your ire with the phrasing. and I do understand that. Please consider the below a blather :)

LTD - I did non-marriage when I was striaght, refused to do it. didn't believe in it. that it was a bunch of hooey and oppressive bullshit. I didn't even want to be called a "girlfriend" because of the societal expectations it brings.

I've since changed my mind, at the age of 42. I got married six months ago, in the netherlands, and my wife and I will move to canada as a couple. We could have even without the marriage, actually. My hettie best mate who doesn't want marraige and has the privilege to refuse it as an option, imported her hump-puppet from england to canada without a hitch - marriage wasn't necessary. I'm very glad about that. I'm also glad that you can import your partner even if you don't live together and have decided to never live together. there's a separate section for that definition of a commited relationship.

That means, legally, you can have three different types of commited relationships wherein your rights are recognised in canada: Married, Domestic Partnership and Conjugal Partner.

There's no need to get married to have them recognised.

I would love it, if you could also get married to more than one person or at least have conjugal or domestic rights recognised for those who are poly. I think that would be fantastic.

I personally am not asking to be "as good as heterosexuals" because I got a civil marriage in the netherlands. How absurd to see my queering of bonding ceremony as a bid for "being as good as"! Of course I am. I don't want a mortgage, I've had double mohawks, been non-monogamous from the age of 14 until the age of 38, lived in communal houses until last year, I'm socialist, traveled most of my life and in no way consider myself mainstream. Yet I wanted to marry the woman I loved.

You know how the word queer has been taken back from our opressors - reclaimed? Well, that's what we did with our marriage. It's two women, no dowery, no one being given away, no vows, all home made food, my dress cost £10 and we had DJ friends from amsterdam, london and manchester DJ the music.

Our relationship is about equality. our marriage is that way because it isn't the 1800's. nor is it the 1950's. we get to define how we want out marriage to be in terms of our dynamics. And because canada recognised the rights of non-married couples, no matter what sex they are, we get to have that choice. Don't want marriage? totally understand it's not for you. I felt that way for many years. Didn't see how it could be reformed by personal acts. Now I do. And I feel very differently. And it has nothing to do with the Joneses or straight people. I do lots of things that straight people do and it has nothing to do with approval. Considering most of my straight friends are very alternative lifestyle people, most things I do are what straight people do.

Queering a ritual and a bonding legality is something my wife and I strongly believe in. we are making marriage a wider space for people to be in. And for those who don't want to be married, they are protected by laws too. However, if you don't belive in bringing the government into your relationship by registering your love on a tax form (lolz) then of course, you won't be able to claim those legal rights as easily.

I don't ever look down on people who choose not to get married. I was one of them for a couple of decades. Most of my friends are of that ilk. In fact, most of my mates rather than saying "congrats! I know it took you a year and a half to get all the paper work and you were both depressed as hell when you thought you wouldn't be able to get married, but you did it, and although I don't want it for me, I know how much it means to the two of you, so tons of love for your hard work towards a goal you've achieved!".... most of them said "oh. oh yeah. fab. so did you see the ____ movie last week?" (ok not that bad but it sure felt like it). Yet when they've had their choice to have a commitment ceremonies or hand fastings (rather than a wedding), I've travelled four hours off to the trees and stripped half naked for them, bought gifts, baked cakes, helped cook for 30 people, etc.

So it did hurt a bit.

And personally I'm not striving for the status quo, thanks, I've been fighting for societal rights for a few decades (first strike I was allowed on was at 10 years old. lol. dad is a die hard socialist) and I've been fighting against multinationals - through direct action and protests - since I was 14. So the assumption that I'm being lazy and selling out because of marriage (accepting the status quo and not trying to to move beyond it) makes my nostrals flare a bit.

But perhaps you are only addressing the website that rankled you. And personally I find the catchphrase a bit lacking. but perhaps they are mostly addressing the mainstream straight people with that phrase? that's the jist I get. Addressing the mainstream straight people with "better than what you'd ever do with it" I don't think would win much support for the cause of people wanting the choice to be able to marry. Just a hunch.

It was a commitment ceremony. Oregon does not (yet) have marriage equality but I am hopeful. Consider, that when I was ~90 days old, the Supreme Court of the United States published their decision in Loving v Virginia ending, once and (hopefully) for all, anti-miscegenation laws after those being in force for well over a century in most states. We will have marriage equality one day and when we do, we're going to have another ceremony.

Cheers
Aj

Urvashi Vaid is one of my heroines. If you have not read her book Virtual Equality I highly highly recommend it. She has a website if you want to read more of her thoughts.

Here is a quote from a speech given Aug 16, 2010 titled Beyond The Wedding Ring: LGBT Issues in the Age of Obama

Fifteen years ago I wrote a book that described the path we had chosen of working for civil and political rights as a path that was leading us to Virtual Equality — a state of partial and uneven equality that is very far from the full human rights that we seek. I still agree with that diagnosis. Until LGBT people confront and challenge the moral opposition to gayness, until gay activists demand and command the respect of straight families, colleagues and friends, until LGBT people come out and claim their rightful place everywhere, until we stop believing those who defame, denigrate and deny our humanity and goodness – LGBT people and the LGBT social justice movement will fall short of being the transformative force it represents.

that is a very, very important thing to point out.

I, too, was involved with QN in the 90s and, quite honestly, the me from 1993 would probably be absolutely aghast at the me from 2011. I too think that we need a radical edge. The point I was trying to make in my post is that if we should not look down our noses at those who choose to take the radical path because we should not look down our noses at people and that they do some good (and they do) we should not look down our noses at people who assimilate for much the same reasons. I believe that not only did my parents make my sister and I's life significantly easier even though that meant not being as 'authentically black' as the Black Power movement would have had them be, they made a *difference* because when we moved into the house I grew up in, no one would have sought my parents out for advice thinking that they were intelligent or wise or had anything of value to offer the neighborhood . When I left home, people were seeking my parents out because they had stopped being 'merely black' and had become pillars of the community. A resolution that probably surprised all of the long-term residents of the neighborhood.

I think I actually do some good even though I'm assimilated and even though I work for a multinational corporation and even though I live in the suburbs and drive an Audi. There I am, every day at work, this dreadlocked butch woman who is unapologetic in her love for her partner. There are some *seriously* conservative people at my workplace and I have had to learn to get along with them as they have had to learn to get along with me. I have rattled their cages by pretty much shooting all of their expectations of me as a black, butch lesbian into deep space. Whatever images they might have held of black women or butch women or lesbians generally, I defy almost all of them and that makes them think. I've already had one person--a rather conservative Christian--come to me to say that they think their daughter is a lesbian and if they are right, they would like me to talk to her because they want her to have something positive to shoot for. I think that's progress.

Cheers
Aj

This. Exactly. Neither end of the spectrum is wrong or "less than". Yes, groups like Queer Nation help make others seem more mainstream. At the same time, groups like the HRC are constantly being criticized for being too mainstream, too assimilationist, but those are the groups who can actually get in to have a conversation with a senator. Yes, we're pretty mainstream as queer couples go. And that's one of the reasons why we were able to make friends with the devout Christian couple across the street. People like us are the reason that they and a lot of people like them, all over the country, are realizing that gay people aren't a bunch of weirdos, that we're really just people, and we don't actually want anything that's unreasonable. We need both sides of that equation, the radical and the mainstream suburban, to make any real progress.

So what happens to the weirdos who are not mainstream? What exactly is mainstream? I'm trying to grasp. What makes a weirdo?

Feminism isn't mainstream and neither was Harvey Milk. He also influenced Dianne Weinstein a Senator of California. I am not a fan of mainstream politicians that live in the closet. I think our community should aim higher.

Assimilation is not equality. Those of us who live in the burbs, white picket fence, either furry or non-furry kids are accepted (for the most part) ONLY because we look and act like our neighbors. As long as we look and act like our neighbors it's all good in the 'hood. They will even tolerate a suit and tie wearing butch to our faces, but inside that home they still think we are different and will do the 'why don't you get a real man' and 'she would be so pretty if she would just wear a dress and make-up' stuff. I doubt they would be so tolerant if they saw me come out in full leather, packing a big stiffy, with whips and chains attached to my chaps..........it would scare the bejesus out of them and they would clutch their children to their legs. They only tolerate us when we look and act like them on the surface.

And don't ever be fooled into thinking tolerance is a good thing. It's not. The good thing is acceptance. I'm not interested in being tolerated. I am interested in being recognized and accepted because I am a human being.

Tolerance is a false equality. Acceptance is full equality.

Not sure. Not sure. Not sure. In that order. :)

Honestly, I'm not sure how to answer the first question because I'm not certain that I know what a weirdo is. I'm a nerd--as my signature and name show, I let my geek flag fly high and proud--is that mainstream? I would say no. My reading habits, my television preferences are not necessarily what I would call 'mainstream'. Even my choices of recreation--I am a player in one D&D game and I'm the DM in another, for instance--aren't mainstream. So am I a weirdo or am I mainstream?

Do people in the mainstream get all excited because there's some new book on, for instance, the ongoing battle between string theorists and proponents of loop-quantum gravity? Do people in the mainstream own *multiple* copies--in different formats--of just about every word Terry Pratchett has ever written? Do people in the mainstream have a shower curtain that is the periodic table of elements and a poster showing the entire electromagnetic spectrum in the same room as a poster of Audre Lorde and another showing the entire history of the Universe as a single year?

Are the favorite tee-shirts of someone in the mainstream ones that read:

98% Chimp
Come to the Dark Side, we have cookies.
Stand Back, I'm going to try Science!
May the Mass Times Acceleration be with you


I think mainstream and weirdo are rather nebulous terms. To the woman I was in 1991, I would probably appear horribly mainstream (I would still most likely have wanted the toys and would've thought the EMF poster insanely great and would have done just about anything for the tee shirts while feeling guilty for doing so). To most of the suits (read that as our marketing, sales and legal staff) at my employer I look so far beyond the mainstream that I am at the outer edge of what many of them consider to be human behavior!

Do *I* think I'm in the mainstream? No, for all of the reasons above. Would someone who is more radical than me think I'm mainstream? Probably not and might even put me somewhere in the neighborhood of, say, Dick Cheney on the scale of acceptability.

Cheers
Aj

Personally, I don't think anyone is a weirdo. What I'm talking about is the perception of the average straight suburbanite. For them, meeting people like us means that the community as a whole doesn't seem so weird anymore.

Learning.
 

Thank you Aj I'm finding my brain grabs certain words so I need to read stuff more than once.

Toughy:

So what does acceptance look like? How do we know when we're equal? Since it's not a function of where we live, it can't be because we have a house in this or that neighborhood that isn't being egged, burnt to the ground or having a cross burnt on the lawn. Okay, so abode and location are no indication that we've made progress, got it. It almost certainly not where we are employed and/or where we are on the food chain. Even if the new CEO of Apple is gay (and the rumor mill is that he is) that's not enough so we can't use whether or not one can be employed as an out gay X so let's strike that. It's not whether or not people will talk to us civilly because they might be talking behind our backs. Check. Maybe we can tell by how we are treated in school? Probably not for much the same reasons as our living, employment and social situations aren't indicative.

So, since we have ruled out where one lives, what kinds of relations one has with one's neighbors, if one is treated equally in the workplace, what's left. How do we know that we are being treated equal?

I also have to say that there are generations of immigrants who might strenuously disagree with you that assimilation isn't equality. If assimilation is being able to live in the house one chooses without fear that the neighbors will make it clear that you stay in that house at your own risk, then assimilation is leads to equality. If assimilation is being to apply for a job and your only concerns about whether you will get the job is if you have the right skill set and your personality is a good match for the team, then that is a form of equality. If assimilation is being able to be in school and to have your work judged by criteria relevant to the field of study as opposed to, say, whether one is gay or black or what-have-you, then that, too, is a form of equality. We have a president who is only a shade or two darker than I am named Barack Obama because he and his wife (who is two or three shades darker than me) assimilated. Unless that black person is in entertainment every black figure you have heard of is assimilated to a greater or lesser degree. If they aren't, then you haven't heard of them.

Melissa Harris-Lacewell?Assimilated black woman. Eugene Robinson? Assimilated black man. Michael Eric Dyson? Assimilated black man. Mae Jamison? Assimilated black woman. Thurgood Marshall? Assimilated black man.

What does acceptance look like, Toughy?

Cheers
Aj

I have a different take on that ami, bdsm straight couples have gatherings alllll the time their neighbors think that's adventurous, kinky, fun!!! Us... We're the weirdo perversts

Non binary peoples
 

Not in my experience, that would require me changing who and what I am. I scream Queer, kink, dyke in my cozy row of paperboxes. My neighbors hate us.

You know, my boss is a (rather nice looking) tall butch in a suit. That she is a Detective Superintendent for Force Intelligence is no small feat of a) acceptance by most and b) tolerated by many. She's a soft spoken lovely woman who can turn into commanding don't-FUCK-with-me in less than 3 seconds. I see the amount of respect she gets. But I also see the occasional look of "dyke" she gets when someone doesn't like being put in their place by her.

1) If she didn't get the tolerance she'd have no room to get acceptance 2) It's nice for ME to have eye candy for a fuckin change, thank you. First time in my bloody life I've ever had the pleasure in an office. 42 years of sweet fuck all while my dyke mates dribble over straight girls, thank you very much... 3) she gives me fruit 4) I never ever thought I'd respect the po-lice. but here I am working for them and actually really respecting the head of force intelligence. and yep, I probably wouldn't respect her so much if she a) weren't a woman or b) a dyke. But her presence at that level in the Thames Valley Police shows me the the doors for those who desire to be out in the force, are open a hell of a lot wider.

i'm gonna go out on a limb and venture to guess that you are perfectly ok with said hatred. ;)

I often agree with what you just wrote, Toughy. Sometimes I even say exactly this thing out loud. But then I think of my friends T and L. They run a track school where I instruct in exchange for free track time. T and L live in rural/suburban New Hampshire, are very devout Christians who homeschool their child, and they believe that the earth is a certain number of thousands of years old. (I'm not sure which ridiculous number that crowd settled upon.) I haven't replaced my own track bike yet, so T just supplied me with some of the most awesome machinery ever built so that I could have fun at the last two track days. He even let me ride his fire breathing Ducati 919 race bike. L wasn't there. She was busy volounteering in Uganda with an organisation that helps women that have been captured and used in all the usual ways in the war. She doesn't EVER proselytize. Neither does her husband. She does the work because she thinks it's the right thing to do. Let me repeat that. They NEVER proselytize.

When one half of the lesbian couple that always takes their track days came out to her as a transwoman, L merely squealed in astonishment and admiration, asking her how she got those amazing breasts! My late gf Caren used to drive me up to track day and hang out watching the fun. If you looked up bulldyke in the dictionary you would have found a picture of Caren, complete with flat top and plenty of tats. Caren was Ms NJ Leather, and we looked a LOT like leatherdykes to anyone who was paying attention. Plus, no Christian could miss the large Pentagram I always wear. They didn't care. No one cared. Everyone was too busy having fun riding bikes on the track. Really. T and L have always been as welcoming as if we were their fellow church members.

After Caren died everyone, including and especially T and L, were just as supportive as they would have been had we been anyone else. Later that year L asked me if she could do something that nearly made me burst into tears, and whenever I tell this story I'm in danger of misting up all over again. L asked me if she could pray for me to find a new girlfriend.

We're so sure, and with good reason, that those who fit T and L's profile would doubtless be deeply hostile to us. They homeschool their child, for Pete's sake! Those people couldn't possibly want me to find a new girlfriend, much less pray for such a thing to happen! Even though what Toughy wrote has been true in the past, and is usually still true, I think we need to make room for the idea that just as Aj's family changed her neighbours' outlook, we can do the same. And we can do it looking exactly as we look, and being ourselves even when that's not mainstream.

A year ago I wasn't.. I'm a GREAT neighbor, I love to share, feed and be friendly so when we starting sharing this house I will be honest I was excited!!! I though OMG I live in a neighborhood. That warm fuzzy feeling didn't last long. The lady behind us, hates queers, she hates our trees honestly she wants us gone.

The guy in front of us, reported my vicious dog that barked all night and day to the city. My boxer (who is not with me anymore he's up North) is a big baby, a gentle run away from people only loves his pack kinda dog, friendly, gentle and loving. He did like to bark at the air or squirrels or other dogs walking by the fence.

The guy diagonal from us, drinks with his buddies and lord forbid I wear something cutesey all of a sudden I feel I am naked and they do their whole weird guy stuff that super imposing ass hats do.

The family next to him, he's called Grant dyke freak, freak of nature, wanna be man, and he called me a bitch under his breath cause I got sick and tired of him beating on his poor kids, the last straw was watching him pick his 4 year old daugher by the arm and squeezing as he called her a fucking bitch whore then he kicked her in the butt with his booted foot.

I went off and let him know what a dirt bag he was and how I would be calling CPS (not the first time) on his sorry abusive ass. I will be his worst nightmare when it comes to them kids. The guys next door have watched his behaviours and say nothing about his treatment of them
poor kids.

Their hate now doesn't bother me, I don't want people like that to acknowledge me cause I certainly want NOTHING to do with them paper house or not. I do have some nice guys up the road who are nice to Grant and I. Gawd knows what will happen the day I walk out the door in full leathers.... I had a preview a month ago at a leather intensive downtown, boy oh boy what a hoot.

:)

and, pardon me for saying, it looks like they might change some minds about how "people like T and L's Demographic" can be accepted and not just tolerated by their neighbours. It's a two way street, acceptance ;)

that's a lovely true story, cheryl, thank you for sharing that <3

What's the cost?
 

So, I'm curious about something. Let's stipulate that the goal is acceptance. Let's also stipulate that acceptance is something we are going to have to convince people of (in other words, we're not going to be able to use either the law or the Jedi mind trick to gain acceptance). The minute we're talking about convincing people we're talking about bargaining and the minute we're talking about bargaining, we have to talk cost.

So, we want acceptance. In other words, we want our societies to welcome us fully into the circle of human being. Since we want it, they obviously do not currently feel that way about us. Since they don't, they have to be moved from where they are to where we'd like them to be. Since we are bargaining, what are we willing to give up? We're asking the rest of society to give up where they currently are and move to a different mental place. Is this a win for just us? In other words, are we expecting to get what we want without having to give anything in return? If we are, what possible reason does the majority have for moving? They don't necessarily *want* what we want. They may be genuinely satisfied with, say, a world in which people get married. They may not find our argument that they cannot possibly *be* happy with the current state of affairs compelling. So they are going to want *something* in return. What is it we are willing to give up? What price are we willing to pay?

There are always costs and we are not in a position to force our will upon the majority. We have to convince the majority to rearrange social affairs and the majority is going to want to know what they get out of the deal. The things we may *think* they should want may turn out to be something that they do not want so we can't tell them that they, too, will benefit from being able to live as we wish to. So we're going to have to show *some* willingness to give up *something* because all social change is a process of bargaining and negotiation. I don't think we're going to get to the Promised Land--whatever that might look like--without the majority wanting *something* in return. What is that cost?

It's all fine and good to treat social change like the GOP currently treats economic policy which is:

1. Deregulate business
2. Cut taxes to no more than is necessary to keep the military around.
3. Drown government in a bathtub
4. Magic of the market happens here.
5. Prosperity!

It is quite another thing to try to articulate the price of the change we wish to see.

The *reason* that the national mall has a monument in honor of Dr. King isn't because he demanded that America act right. It is because, as A (not the) spokesperson for the Civil Rights Movement he did two things brilliantly. To the majority he issued a challenge which went like this: "You say that because this is America, this is the land of the free. Our very founding documents say that all men are created equal. What freedom is it if a person with money to pay cannot eat at a certain restaurant, shop in a certain store, for no better reason than the color of his skin. You claim that this is a nation of Christians. But what kind of Christianity is it, that says that some little children are unworthy to go to school with other little children because of the color of their skin? So, America, I must ask you--we Black Americans must ask you--do you mean it? If so, is what is happening in Selma and Atlanta and in hundreds of other places large and so, look to *you* like freedom? Does it look to *you* like Christianity to throw bricks at schoolchildren? To Black Americans, he said "we must show them the way through non-violence. They already think us violent, we must not make them right. We must march with dignity and stand tall and brave in the face of violence but we must not be violent back to them. That is the price we must be willing to pay. Many of us will be hurt. Some of us will die. But in the end, we must be willing to pay for equality and freedom with our bones and our blood."

What are we willing to pay with for acceptance and how will we know when we have finally crossed into the Promised Land?

Cheers
Aj

That looks and feels like acceptance to me.


I'll be back later to pontificate on this subject :giggle:

I know I'm willing to pay in terms of perhaps putting some my own judgements aside. I know I'm willing to talk to people in a more measured way instead of being a constant firebrand. Allowing them to be individuals first and not what oppressive group members I may shove them into first without speaking to them because I'm afraid of them. Maybe their are afraid of me because they think I'm going to hurt them in some way. Perhaps being more measured might remove some percieved threat - just like if they were measured with me, I would find that far less threatening.

Perhaps, that's also the way within my community as well.

However, I'm not going to give up physically correcting people for physically touching me inappropriately.

sorry it's long winded....at least i didn't make it pink :)
 

Wow. As all of your posts are to me for sure and i know many others Dreadgeek, that is so moving.

There are so many people on this site that are far more eloquent with their wording than i. But, i wanted to try to express my humble thoughts on this.

Is it possible to "borrow" Dr. King's beautiful words and try for the same outcome, so to speak? Is it possible that "we" can utilize his intelligence and heart for yet another step for equality of humanity?

Dr. King says "We must march with dignity and stand tall and brave in the face of violence but we must not be violent back to them. That is the price we must be willing to pay. Many of us will be hurt. Some of us will die. But in the end, we must be willing to pay for equality and freedom with our bones and our blood."

Has it come to this? If we do indeed have to "pay a cost" is this it? Do we march? Do we get more involved? Do we as gay/queer people become more invested and make sure we are known?

I think this is important to think about. If the straight world sees no gain in giving us rights, then we can't expect them to just wake up one day and decide to do it. Knowledge is power and knowledge is how we become more civilized as people, more aware of things that don't necessarily mean anything to us until it is shown before us. Until it is introduced to us in a way that makes us all think, rethink and form perhaps different conclusions.

There are many, many people out there that do this already, i know that. There are pride days, there are gay/queer representatives out there that are fighting for our rights. There are organizations such as BV and BN and many more that are making at least some parts of who we are noticed. But, is it enough?

The point i'm trying to make is this....if we ALL need to take part and follow the words of Dr. King to make change possible by being heard and seen, should we then ALL just....do something?

I admit i do nothing to be seen. I do nothing where my neighbors know i'm a gay woman. Would i maybe change my neighbors mind if their nice neighbor started flying a rainbow flag in my yard? Would they and others slowly start changing their minds on election days, the talk at work watercoolers, the doctrines at church? Would being seen and standing proud to them change their minds? Would it show them that we are ...well, their neighbors?

If every gay/queer person did something to make it appearent that we are here and we aren't going away, wouldn't things start to change? I don't know, but that seems to be Dr. King's message or at least part of it.

It's known to many i live in the South. Within one mile of my house is at least 6 churches that i can think of right off the top of my head. I hide. I admit it. I don't show my neighbors or anyone who i am. I tell selected few about my lifestyle. Not because i'm ashamed but because i'm scared. Or...am i ashamed? God, i hope not. On the news here we have KKK events listed, we had a shooting at a gay friendly church not that long ago, the list goes on and on. The people here, some of them, especially the good ole boys can be scary. Very scary. Just the other day i went to a patient's house and they had three rebel flags on their front porch and a pickup with hound dogs and probably around six men standing around spittin and chewing. I thought then..."wow i'm glad i don't have a rainbow sticker on my car, cause i don't know what they would have said or done". I'm now rethinking that. Maybe i shouldn't feel like that. Maybe, just maybe, i could have made one of them think... "she's gay?" or "She is pro-gay?" Would it have made a difference? I have no clue.

If all of us did something to be seen and take what comes and deal with it for the "greater good" things may start to change. I'm not talking to the ones that do that already and i thank you that do...more than you know, i thank you. I'm talking about people like me who are scared of what may happen. Maybe it's time i get me that flag for my yard, that sticker for my car. Maybe it's time for me to make sure any event in this community that includes the gay or queer i need to make sure to attend. Maybe it's time for me to go to my first "Pride".

Maybe it is time for a change.

Thanks as always Dreadgeek and thank you Martin Luther King, Jr.

When ever I read discussions like this, I'm reminded of a game that my uncle and some of his close friends created in the days of BBSes (late 80s/early 90s) called Pyroto Mountain. The goal of the game was to get to the top of the mountain and establish a "gov't" of sorts. It was never officially stated as a social-economic study but worked out to that. One of the most telling things that my uncle imparted on me was that it's hard to change people's minds without major changes (e.g., the Middle East in general but specifically the history between Palestinians and Israel, et al).

To me, in many ways, this is often what it feels like for the Queer community and the rest of North America (I specify this since there is more than the US on this continent and the Queer community faces challenges in both Canada and Mexico). That said, I don't know if there is a specific thing that is uniform for each group as to what we will sacrifice. For example, this week I had a Mormon in my class. Now, I could have gone off on their stance in regards to Prop 8 but it would neither be professional nor would it have created a good stance. I did freely talk (when not teaching and it was more a relaxed non-topic discussion) about going to Pride marches and such. And even asked him about his beliefs and Mormon principles and the like. It was an interesting discussion. Now I don't know how he personally felt about gay marriage and such but based on my discussion I believe he was probably more open than what his "leaders" would be.

For me, acknowledging that the "other" side (or non-Queer side) is just as human as the rest of us. And that the "leaders" that speak for them aren't necessarily true of what the individuals believe. Respect for their religion/beliefs and right to exist is not something I would considering "paying" for but as concept of good moral values -- the idea of treating others as I would expect to be treated and regardless of what they say or do. Does that mean I bend over? No. But neither does it mean that I will react as they do.

So this still makes me wonder as to what we pay to get acceptance. In Canada, it was patience and support of the general population. And even though it's written into law that same-sex marriage is legal federally, it doesn't preclude others from accepting us. When we make Queer lives (not lifestyle but lives) as a normal part of society, it is, IMO, more likely to be accepted. But that takes time and effort to do the little "fights" in the more common social aspects of life. It means being brave enough to put pictures of your family at your work, talking about your work like others talk about their husbands/wives, etc. Is it easy? No.

Now, as I type this, part of me thinks that there are differences in acceptance in society of various parts of the Queer community. It's not just gays and lesbians, who are the most prominent part of the community. But also those that challenge the gender norms of what is accepted in society. As much as the Queer community might have similar goals, there are stark differences as to need and likely acceptance at this point, IMO. And I think that would change what we're willing to "pay" for acceptance. (I don't know if I'm being clear on this and I may try later to re-iterate better what I think about this). This makes me think that what different parts of the Queer community consider as acceptable to give up would be different between different parts. I don't know if we have just one thing that is uniform for all of the Queer community.

I really have to agree with Ami on this. Sometimes it is just best to not place yourself in danger. It has nothing to do with shame - It has to do with surviving.

We are no good to one another hurt or worse, dead. We need to be alive and safe, so we can continue to grow as a society and hope one day, people will in fact evolve.

I am a Jew and I am fair with light eyes. My sister is the opposite - she is semetic in appearance. If I had been alive during Nazi Germany -- I would not have walked outside with a sign announcing I was Jewish. I would have passed as a non-jew quite easily and used this to survive. It is how I was also able to pass in the Muslim community in the middle east (for purposes I needed to do at the time - I lived in the Muslim community - did not want to live in the Jewish community) and how I was able to pass and witness KKK meetings.

I am completely out where I live. I have always been out - But, I also grew up in Los Angeles and lived in West Hollywood. I now live in New York, and while I live in small towns and have had some issues.. They were never life threatening issues.

There is no shame Belle - In surviving and being safe.

Julie

Julie and Ami, You are strong women and i admire you both so much.

Trust me i'm no martyr. I am usually afraid of my shadow...until i'm not. I won't go out and buy a sticker tonight, but it gives me thoughts. Dreadgeek's post at the very least has me thinking. I could do things though, without putting myself in direct harm and in a crowd. I could go to events. We do infrequently have them here. There are way more petitions to sign than i've ever done. I always have voted but making other people aware of reasons to vote for someone who supports gay marriage is something i could at least talk to people about.

It's just the idea to "do something". Ya know? I can't expect to sit where i do in the world and fold my hands due to fear and expect other people to march in the front lines of the world for "our" rights.

Thinking and talking about it is a first step. :)

I think had he lived, Harvey Milk might have grown into that figure. I think he was on the road there. Do I think it will come to that? Perhaps? It may not, though. Consider: Recent polling has shown that a majority of voters, nationally, believe that marriage equality should happen. Ten years ago, that number was much, much smaller. Twenty years ago that number was so low as to make it look impossible. Yet, here we are. We've had two court and one legislative victory. We are starting to get allies where we didn't have them before. Conservative thinkers are starting to get the point and are increasingly writing in *favor* of marriage equality. Why? Because--and here the point must be conceded--marriage equality *is* a fundamentally conservative thing. It does not seek to do away with marriage. The driving force behind it is not to be done with pair-bonding but to simply broaden the legal definition to accommodate what we already know--same-sex couples form enduring pair-bonds and same-sex couples sometimes already have or wish to have children.
That is really rather conservative in that it seeks to reform the system, not radically alter it.

In fact, I think a great deal of the gay rights movement is *not* radical just as most of the civil rights movement was not radical. Certainly the three or four top items on the agenda, currently, are not radical. Those are:

1. Marriage equality
2. Military service
3. Equal employment opportunity and protection from unjust termination
4. Issues of child custody and adoption

Not a very radical list, I admit. However, there is nothing there that I fundamentally disagree with. I know I've left off issues of health care particular vis a vis transpeople but that is because I subsume that into the larger need to reform how healthcare is delivered in this nation. I'm not saying it isn't important, it obviously is. I'm saying that if we solved the healthcare issue by, I don't know, doing what every other industrialized nation does, the issue of healthcare for transgender people would largely take care of itself provided that the healthcare was administered in a fair way (e.g. not excluding gender services *because* they are gender services).

I think that these are all achievable goals. In fact, I know they are because they've been achieved in various other nations to some greater or lesser degree. Others almost certainly disagree and I'm happy to discuss other visions.

Those are concrete and achievable goals and it can be done by law. We cannot and should not aspire to mandate how people feel about queers. ALL we can do is make it illegal to treat queer people as something other than human beings and citizens, fully deserving of the protection of the law. The Civil Rights Movement did not flip a switch and America became a land of racial harmony. It isn't a land of racial harmony *now*. But it did make it illegal to refuse to hire someone because they were black. It did make it illegal to refuse to sell a home to a couple that could afford it because they were black. It did not require proprietors of hotels to love the black family that pulled up to rent a room, it did require them to rent us the room. First the barriers were removed and then the social change happened.

I believe that something similar will happen with queer people over the course of our lifetime. Ironically, I am about the same age as my parents were when the Civil Rights and Voting Rights act were passed. I am a year younger than they were when the SCOTUS handed down the Loving decision. The year after that--the year Bobby Kennedy and Martin were gunned down--my parents voted for the very first time. That was 1968. My mother died Memorial Day of 2007. She missed the election of the first black President by 15 months. The year my mother was born, black people were still routinely being lynched in the South. One lifetime. 1922 - 2007 and she *almost* saw a black POTUS. Almost.

I was born two years before Stonewall. While I would like to live to see 2100, I most likely will shuffle off this mortal coil sometime in the 2050s or 2060s. If I’m lucky I may even see the 2070s or 2080s. In that time, I expect that we will see one or perhaps both of the following: The inauguration of a President who, in her victory speech, says "I want to thank my mothers, Jane and Alice..." and/or the inauguration of a President who, while she takes the oath of office, is accompanied by her wife. I think I may live that long.

Why the Presidency? What's so special about that role? It's because of who the President is. In England, the Prime Minister is the head of government but the Queen is the head of state. In the United States, the President is the head of both the government and head of state. It is this latter role that makes the Presidency significant. The President is the person who, for the time they are in office, embodies the Nation. They are the face of the United States to the world. That is why Barack Obama's election was significant not just for the United States but was a signature event in world cultural history. Why? Because for the first time since there WAS a distinct civilization that could be called the West, a white majority nation elected a non-white person as its embodiment. Having a woman President will be a big deal for us but it will not have significant ramifications outside the United States because other states have already had women as head of either government or state or both. Having a gay President will be a big deal for us because it will mean that America--which is largely not queer--will have decided that a gay man or lesbian will do a good job as the embodiment of the nation.

That's a long road, I know but who would have thought, as Dr. King lay dying on a Memphis balcony, that forty years later another black man would become President? Certainly not my parents.

Cheers
Aj