
I’m
hearing both gay and straight people say that the long
string of losses we’ve faced at the polls
around marriage equality are really our own fault; our
community pushed too hard and too fast, they argue. The
prominent theme being generated is that we have failed to
“educate” the public about who we really
are and to get beyond the stereotypes of leather
people, butch dykes, circuit boys and drag queens—and
that it is now our obligation to reintroduce ourselves
to the American people. I also repeatedly hear that
it’s up to us to reframe the terms of the
debate away from “moral values” to simpler
concepts such as fairness, which polls indicate
resonate most with the public.
I disagree. This is nothing more than the
blame-the-victim mentality afflicting our nation
generally and the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgender movement specifically.
Rather than reframing the debate away from moral
values, we must embrace them. Or more precisely, the
utter immorality of the escalating attacks against
LGBT people. And, equally, the utter immorality in the
failure of so many people of good will to stand with
us. It is time for us to seize the moral high ground
and state unambiguously that antigay discrimination in
any form is immoral.
Webster’s defines discrimination as
“unfair treatment of a person or group on the
basis of prejudice.” By any measure, LGBT people are
targets of discrimination in employment, housing, and
public accommodations. FBI statistics show that more
people are being murdered because of their sexual
orientation than for any other bias reason. Our young people
are still routinely bullied in schools. The examples
of injustices in the area of partner and family
recognition are too many to list.
No thinking or feeling person can deny these
realities, which, as always, fall hardest on LGBT
people of color and those who are poor.
But alarmingly, rather than seeing a groundswell
of support for measures to combat these injustices,
the opposite is occurring. In Congress and in
statehouses nationwide it’s rhetorical and
legislative open season on LGBT people. For example,
over the last nine months, anti–gay marriage
state constitutional amendments were put on the ballot in 14
states, 10 of which also prohibit the recognition of
any form of relationship between people of the same
gender. It’s likely another 12 states will have
similar measures on the ballot within three years.
Nothing like this has happened since the
Constitution was ratified in 1791—essentially a
national referendum inviting the public to vote to
deprive a small minority of Americans of rights the majority
takes for granted and sees as fundamental.
And who’s been there to fight these
amendments? Basically us, the very minority under
attack. Mainstream media and churches are largely silent
to our opponents’ lies. Most progressive
organizations and political campaigns, meanwhile,
steer clear. There have been sterling exceptions, but
they have been few and far between.
Many people who see themselves as supporters of
equal rights for all tolerate this because they
believe prejudice on the basis of sexual orientation
is profoundly different than that based on race or
religion—that it comes from an understandable
disapproval of our behavior—not on some
“immutable characteristic.” Homosexual
behavior, they feel, is “unnatural”
(doesn’t the Bible say so?). Pundits say there
is an “ick” factor—that the thought of
gay sex revolts nongay people, and that this seemingly
innate reaction is proof there is something wrong with homosexuality.
This rationale is hardly unique to gay people.
Scholars point to comparable “ick”
sentiments about Irish immigrants in the 1880s, and
describe how in preceding generations sexual ideology was
used to strengthen control over slaves and to justify
the taking of Native American lands, and that for
centuries Jews were associated with disease and urban degeneration.
Fact is, there is no justification for antigay
prejudice; the “justifications” for it
are as unfounded as those used to support the
second-class treatment of other minorities in past generations.
So, what needs to be done?
First, everyone must realize that when straight
people say gay people should not have the freedom to
marry, they are saying we are not as good or deserving
as they are. It’s that simple, no matter how one
attempts to sugarcoat it.
This is unacceptable—and it is immoral.
Second, while we should talk to straight people
honestly about our lives, we must flatly reject the
notion that we are somehow to blame for all of this
because we have not effectively communicated our
“stories” to others. Fundamentally, it
is not our job to prove to others that we can be good
neighbors, good parents, and that gee-whiz, we’re
actually people too.
Third, equality will remain elusive if we keep
relying on intellectualized arguments or by dryly
cataloguing, for example, each of the 1,138 federal
rights and responsibilities we are forced to forgo due
to marriage inequality.
The other side goes for the gut; it’s now
our turn.
In this vein, we must put others on the spot to
stand up and fight for us. As the cascade of lies
pours forth from the Antigay Industry, morality
demands that nongay people speak out with the same vehemence
as they would if it was another minority under attack.
Ministers and rabbis must be challenged with the
question, “Where is your voice?” Elected
officials who meet with and attend events of the Antigay
Industry must be met with the challenge, “How
can you do that? How is that public service?”
The orchestrated campaign to deny us jobs,
family recognition, children, and housing is immoral.
Silently bearing witness to this discrimination is immoral.
America is in the midst of another ugly chapter
in its struggle with the forces of bigotry. People of
good will can either rise up to speak for lesbian,
gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans, or look back upon
themselves 20 years from now with deserved shame.
These comments are reproduced as written by visitors to this Web site. They have not been edited for content, grammar, or spelling. The viewpoints appearing here are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or views of advocate.com, The Advocate, or its affiliates.
Be the first to comment on this story.
If you would like to submit a comment for posting, please fill out the form above.
All comments submitted via this form are subject to posting or publication. (To send a private letter to an Advocate editor or writer, please use the e-mail button at the top of the page, or use snail mail.) If you would like your comment considered for publication in The Advocate magazine, please include your full name, your city of residence, and a phone number where you can be reached during business hours so that we can confirm your identity. Your e-mail address and telephone number are strictly confidential and will not be shared or used for any purpose other than to contact you about your comment.
Comments that do not concern specific articles in The Advocate or on Advocate.com will not be posted or published. See the Contact page for sending comments for reasons other than responding to Advocate editorial and news stories.
Please note that comments sent by fax or snail mail are unlikely to be posted, although they will be considered for publication along with all letters received via e-mail or via this Web page. Comments that chiefly concern Advocate.com content will be considered for posting only on the Web site. The Advocate reserves the right to edit submitted comments for grammar, spelling, obscenities, or libel; we will, however, do our best to preserve the original comment's style and intent. Comments considered for publication in The Advocate magazine may also be edited for length.