Where to now? The gay rights movement

Off Our Backs, Dec 1998 by Stanhope, Victoria

Where to Now? The Gay Rights Movement

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC)'s endorsement of Republican incumbent Alfonse D'Amato over Democrat Chuck Schumer for the New York Senatorial race revealed some ugly rifts within the gay rights movement. It followed on the heels of HRC's announcement of their intention to have a Millennium Gay Rights March with virtually no consultation beyond a small group of Washington insiders. Part of the problem may lie with an arrogant organization run by an ex-corporation executive, but I think it points to the difficulty of basing a political movement narrowly on sexual identity/orientation/preference.

Values of the Movement

Same sex relationships have no value per se. You can have good same sex relationships and bad same sex relationships, but, of course, you should be able to have them. Much of the value of a same sex relationship in our present society is that it undermines the tyranny wielded by gender and sexual conformity. The value to women who can reject having their primary relationships with men and bond completely with women is immense and has proved to be a valuable tool against patriarchy. But much of the political activism of the gay rights movement has gone no further than asserting that queer people should have the same rights as straight people. That is to say, the same rights in the present structure of society with all its inequities and injustice. Asserting equal rights with no further statement as to what society you want equal rights within immediately supports the status quo.

The gay rights movement has even failed to embrace the idea of choice in its own movement. So limited by present deterministic and religious thinking, the main line of defense for a homosexual lifestyle has been based on "we are born like this, we can't help it, so it is unfair to discriminate against us." This may be the line of least resistance for right now but again this movement will do nothing to significantly change attitudes about all our sexual behavior and the validity of all people's sexual choices. It threatens to exclude the many who fail to fit into the either gay or straight model. Instead, we see the rhetoric of binary thinking, the "we are just like you heterosexuals except that we are gay" kind of thing. This is typified by gay activists such as Andrew Sullivan, author of Virtually Normal, who argues passionately for gay marriage saying that all these flighty gay men would settle down, get married and become just like heterosexuals who thrive so well in the married state (?). This is not to say there is one monolithic viewpoint in the gay rights movement. Women, especially, have challenged some of these assimilationist tendencies. Urvashi Vaid wrote in her book, Virtually Equal, about the importance of the gay rights movement working with other liberation movements. But it is difficult to see this agenda being reflected by the gay lobby in Washington.

The D'Amato Endorsment

Well, even if you may disagree with some of the politics behind the gay rights movement, it does seem given the present circumstances such as the appalling murder of Matthew Shepard, that you have no choice but to support their mainstream agenda. But then you are confronted with HRC's endorsement of Alfonse D'Amato. That's when things really come apart. What but a basically conservative, anti-women, capitalist sensibility could endorse a prolife Republican over the relatively liberal Democrat Chuck Schumer? Only one that appears to look nowhere beyond being able to exist comfortably as a gay white man. Be assured that Alfonse D'Amato's agenda has not helped you if you are a woman, a person of color or possessed of a low-income. There were, in fact, some good reasons as to why supporting D'Amato was not a particularly good idea even if you were a gay man. One being that a vote for D'Amato was a vote for keeping homophobe Trent Lott as Majority Leader and bringing about the two-thirds Republican override of a Democratic filibuster in the Senate, the only protection we have seen against some devastating Republican legislation. And in the end gay people in New York were smart enough to figure this out with 77% of them voting for the victorious Chuck Schumer. HRC were left with a diminished membership, no future invitations to come to New York for a long time, a new Senator without their endorsement, and a lot of egg on their face.

Being Bipartisan

However, HRC's endorsement of D'Amato did win lots of favor with the Log Cabin Republicans. Why is the most powerful gay rights organization playing to the Log Cabin Republicans over their other constituents? Because HRC's power comes from its healthy financial base which, no doubt, the Log Cabin Republicans can enhance significantly. Is this why they are so concerned to be bipartisan and support a party that has continued to vilify their very being? Elizabeth Birch, HRC Executive Director, defended HRC's position by saying that "we believe the call to bipartisan support of candidates is right and the need for our support is greatest where the attacks are keenest: in the ranks of the Republicans." And maybe they will make progress. Maybe in the end the Republicans like Alfonse D'Amato will become the majority and the Republican party will make the tent big enough for gay people. That's when the rubber will really hit the road -- when queer women, people of color, people with disabilities, poor people, and people who care about justice for all will need to find another movement.