Gay Politics in the
United States
By LANCE SELFA
MATTHEW SHEPARD wasnıt the first gay man murdered because of
his sexuality. And hard as it may seem to believe, other gaybashing
murders have been more brutal and depraved than 21-year-old Wyoming college
studentıs death by torture and immolation. But what set Shepardıs October 1998
murder apart from other gay bashings was the immediate and spontaneous
outpouring of outrage and solidarity across the country. At the University of
Wyoming, where Shepard studied, the football team voted to wear helmet decals
symbolizing nonviolence to protest Shepardıs murder. The gay student group of
which Shepard was a member reported that it couldnıt keep up with the demand
for ³STRAIGHT BUT NOT NARROW² buttons during Gay Awareness Week. Shepardıs
death even prompted a top columnist for the Casper, Wyoming Star Tribune to come out as gay in a
column.
Shepardıs
murder affected the vast majority of Americans. An estimated 68 percent of
Americans agreed that an attack like the one that took Shepardıs life could
happen in their town, according to a Time/CNN poll taken following Shepardıs
death. The same poll showed majorities opposing discrimination against gay
teachers and supporting the right of open gays and lesbians to serve in the
military. In addition, 64 percent said that homosexual relationships were
acceptable for others or for themselves—a big increase from only 41
percent who said the same in 1978. Central labor councils in New York and Iowa
passed resolutions condemning the attack on Shepard and opposing discrimination
against gays and lesbians.[1]
Vigils
and demonstrations protesting gay bashing took place in cities across the
country. In Washington, D.C., more than 5,000 people turned out to protest on
the steps of the U.S. Capitol. In New York, 7,000 people—about 10 times
the number organizers expected to show up—attended a political funeral
for Shepard. When the funeral took to the streets to march, New York police
attacked the crowd, arresting 112 demonstrators. It was no accident that the
New York political funeral for Mathew Shepard turned into a fight with police.
The funeral followed two recent New York demonstrations that also which also
took on the police—a June demonstration of construction workers
protesting the cityıs use of non-union labor and the October ³Million Youth
March.² Thus, protests and demonstrations following Shepardıs murder did not
only signal a revival of struggle around gay rights, but also reflected a new
political mood—the beginnings of a wider political movement in opposition
to the status quo.
All
of this delivered a stern rebuke to the Christian Right and its congressional
water carriers, like Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott. Lott outraged many—both
gay and straight—when he compared homosexuality to alcoholism and
kleptomania in a June 1998 television interview. The widespread solidarity with
gays following Shepardıs death reflected a disgust at the right wing moralizing
that dominated mainstream politics for most of 1998. The election results left
GOP conservatives in a shambles, costing their former standard-bearer, House
Speaker Newt Gingrich, his job.
Yet
at the same time that the right wing was imploding and more Americans were
indicating their support for gay rights, the existing organizations which
dominate gay politics were sounding a retreat. The Human Rights Campaign, the
leading national gay rights lobby and traditional supporter of Democrats,
endorsed for reelection Sen. Alphonse DıAmato (R-N.Y.), one of the sleaziest
and most conservative members of Congress. As it turned out, HRC bet on the
wrong horse. DıAmato lost to Democratic Rep. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) in the
November 1998 midterm election. HRCıs ³bipartisan² experiment marked a step
backward for gay rights, but it wasnıt alone in its kowtowing to the Right. It
followed on the heels of the Gay and Lesbian Anti-Discrimination Committeeıs
(GLAAD) acceptance of $100,000 grant from the Coors Foundation, a longtime
supporter of right wing and antigay causes. ³Thereıs been a breakdown in gay
leadership,² New York gay activist Bill Dobbs told the Village Voice. ³Never
have such significant enemies been recast in pro-gay terms.²[2]
Meanwhile,
the gay activist organizations which defined the ³militant² wing of the gay
rights movement in the 1980s and early 1990s—the AIDS Coalition to
Unleash Power (ACTUP), Queer Nation and Lesbian Avengers—were nowhere to
be found in the upsurge of struggle following Shepardıs death. Many of these
³queer² activists—hailed as the vanguard of a new activist movement in
the early 1990s—are today demoralized and defeated.
Gays and lesbians: ³virtually normal?²
Matthew Shepardıs lynching must have come as a shock to the
growing chorus of gay intellectuals who argue that gay oppression is a thing of
the past. The most well-known advocate of this position, Andrew Sullivan, the
gay former editor of The New Republic,
argued that gay people are ³prosperous, independent and on the verge of real
integration²[3]
in society.
Thereıs
a grain of truth in Sullivanıs claims. Gay entertainers like Elton John, Ellen
DeGeneres, and Melissa Etheridge suffered no decline in popularity after they
came out of the closet. Leaders of gay organizations receive invitations to the
White House. Raising money to fight AIDS, considered ³controversial² only a
decade ago, is now so mainstream that major corporations like Pacific Bell and
Levi-Strauss are heading up corporate contributors for a ³National AIDS
Memorial Grove² in San Franciscoıs Golden Gate Park. Annual ³Pride² events held
in major cities in June—once political protest marches that commemorated
the 1969 Stonewall Riot—have become marketing bonanzas for gay businesses
and major national corporations.
But
the likes of Sullivan use evidence of increasing acceptance of gays to serve
what might be called a ³post-gay² agenda. Like the ex-feminists who insist that
women have to stop seeing themselves as victims, ³post-gay² writers consider
fighting for gay rights passé.[4] A
co-thinker of Sullivan, Jonathan Rauch, puts it this way:
The standard political model sees
homosexuals as an oppressed minority who must fight for their liberation
through political action. But that modelıs usefulness is drawing to a close. It
is ceasing to serve the interests of ordinary gay people, who ought to be
disengaging from it, even drop it.[5]
Instead, Sullivan and his ilk argue that gay activists
should tailor their politics so that they are acceptable to mainstream
conservatives. For Sullivan, gays shouldnıt demand legalizing gay marriage and
lifting the ban on gays in the military because these policies are fundamental
civil rights, but because they appeal to conservative support for the family
and the military. In his Virtually Normal
(the title says it all), Sullivan draws an analogy between this strategy for
gays and conservative cooptation of once radical movements: ³Lincoln saw the
necessity for conservatism to embrace equal citizenship for blacks and whites
if the republic was to be saved . . . And Margaret Thatcher, by her very
existence, showed the conservative potential of a society that had largely
absorbed equal opportunity for women.²[6] Sullivan
doesnıt make this statement for rhetorical affect only. He has often advertised
his support and admiration for Thatcher, the right-wing former British prime
minister, and for former President Ronald Reagan.
Gay reformists: ³Spammed² by Clinton
If Andrew Sullivan feels that gays are on the verge of
³making it,² the majority of gays and lesbians know better. In 39 states, it is
legal to fire a gay worker from his or her job. Twenty states maintain ³sodomy²
laws, which prosecute people (both gay and straight) who have oral or anal sex.
Since 1993, when the Clinton administration adopted the ³donıt ask, donıt tell²
policy towards gays in the military, discharges of gay service members have
increased by 70 percent since the Bush administrationıs last year. Physical
attacks on people because of their sexual orientation constitute 11.4 percent
of all hate crimes in the U.S., according to the FBI. Many cities around the
country report double-digit increases in gay bashing in the last few years.
There
is plenty to fight for. The problem is that the mainstream gay lobbying
organizations are moving towards politics little different from Sullivanıs.
Perhaps this is understandable for the HRC, which has never claimed to be
anything but a Washington political action committee (PAC) representing a
predominantly middle-class and wealthy constituency since its founding in 1980.
Today, HRC is one of the top fifty PACs in Washington, and its annual black-tie
dinner has become a standard stop on the Washington political circuit.[7] The
HRCıs 1998 endorsement of DıAmato was only the logical outcome of its
Washington insider strategy. Convinced that Republicans would form the
congressional majority for the foreseeable future, the HRC tried to reach out
to ³allies² among them. Never mind that DıAmato received a 75 percent rating
from the Christian Coalition. Since DıAmato voted for the Employment
Non-Discrimination Act and criticized Lottıs gay bashing, that was good enough
for the HRC.
But
if HRC was willing to settle for so little with DıAmato, itıs only because it
has become used to accepting—and defending—empty promises from the
Clinton administration. The HRC and the other major gay lobbying organization,
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF), regularly describe the Clinton
administration as the most ³gay friendly² ever. ³History will always connect
Clinton with the gay and lesbian movement,² NGLTFıs former executive director Torrie Osborne told The
Advocate. ³He has stood up for us when others would not. No matter what
happens, we canıt forget what he has done for us.²[8] But exactly
what the administration has done to ³stand up² for gay rights is anybodyıs
guess. Clinton may not answer to the Christian Right, and he may have appointed
a few openly gay advisers, but on most of the main issues on which the HRC and
NGLTF have lobbied, the Clinton administration was on the other side. Clintonıs
³donıt ask, donıt tell² surrender to the Pentagon bigots came after
administration officials floated the idea of segregating gays and straights.
Clinton spokesperson Mike McCurry denounced the GOP-inspired Defense of
Marriage Act (DOMA), which bars states from legalizing same-sex marriages, as
³gay-bashing² legislation. But Clinton signed it anyway. Then he had the gall
to tout his support for DOMA in ads run on Christian radio stations during his
1996 reelection campaign. Half the politicians HRC endorsed voted for DOMA.[9] Yet,
only one year later, HRC made Clinton its honored guest at its annual dinner.
When a handful of activists attending the dinner tried to protest Clintonıs
antigay record, the well-heeled crowd shouted them down.
These
compromises are inherent in a strategy that views its objective as reforming
the status quo. Urvashi Vaid,
currently the director of the NGLTFıs Policy Institute, makes many on-target
criticisms of the gay political organizations of which she is and was a part.
But she is still committed to winning piecemeal reforms within the existing
system:
As a progressive . . . I believe
that the way we make . . .social change is that we have to imagine a socially
responsible capitalism. Okay, Iıll put it out there. I donıt believe we are
going to overthrow capitalism. People will disagree with me.
But I
really believe that we can make capitalism more responsive, accountable, environmentally sound. We can make it fairer,
non-discriminatory. We can take the benefits of this economic system and spread
them out, so they can benefit more people rather than the five owners of
everything. We can work to make the places where people work humane
environments that meet the needs of working people.... We can do that by
spreading the prosperity to raise up the standard of
living of all the people without overthrowing capitalism. We can do that by
working to make it socially responsible. This is a pragmatic formulation.[10]
Unfortunately,
this ³pragmatism² concedes that winning gay and lesbian liberation is
impossible. The best that can be hoped for, it seems, is to avoid losing too
much while winning whatever reforms the system deems it can afford. At best,
the system will grant gays a ³niche² in society. But a system that depends for
its existence on hierarchy and oppression will never allow gay people complete
freedom or equality.
In
1992, as leader of the NGLTF, Vaid called Clintonıs
election a ³vindication for gay people who have been working in traditional
politics for over 25 years.² In reality, Clintonıs administration should prove
the opposite. On any number of issues, Clinton has betrayed his gay and lesbian
supporters. But the so-called ³leadership² of the gay community apologizes for
him. A letter to the editor of The
Advocate hit the nail on the head: ³It is amazing what a few dollar bills
and a few hollow words can get you in Washington. In the long run, I prefer the
truth, even if those words tell me I donıt have a place at the table. Then I
can take action and decide what to do. All Clinton has done is to feed us some
Spam, and HRC wants to dress it up and call it roasted pork with plum sauce. No
thanks—Iıd rather dine alone.²[11] Yet
each apology for Clinton merely shows politicians—Republican and
Democratic—that they can win the support of HRC and NGLTF without having
to earn it. Clinton actions that might have provoked angry demonstrations if
George Bush had taken them were merely excused as the price to pay for a ³seat
at the table.² Clintonıs administration has done more to demobilize a movement
for gay and lesbian rights than anything a Republican president could have
done.
Identity politics in crisis
One might think that the rightward drift among the leading
gay rights organizations would provide an opening for gay militants to build an
activist movement. But the late 1990s find most of the organizations which once
defined gay ³militancy² to be spent forces. Whatıs more, even if organizations
like Queer Nation and Lesbian Avengers still existed, their politics present a
barrier to the building of a broad-based movement for gay and lesbian
liberation. To understand why, itıs necessary to review the history of the
modern gay liberation movement, which began with an explosion of activism
following the 1969 Stonewall Riot.[12]
This
period spawned the short-lived Gay Liberation Front (GLF), an activist group
that saw itself as part of the New Left political movements of the day. Yet,
despite its commitment to activism, the GLF was split between contending
perspectives on the ends and means of the gay liberation movement. One group of
activists, concluding that they were more interested in reforming the system
than in smashing it, split in 1971 to form the Gay Activists Alliance (GAA),
the precursor of todayıs NGLTF. The remaining GLF radicals divided themselves
between ³organized leninist [sic] party supporters,
and the diffused forces of the alternative society,² one activist wrote. ³This
division between what might be termed actionistsı and life-stylersı is clearly evident in the history and theory of
the GLF, and its Manifesto.²
³Lifestyle
politics² held that the gay movement should aim to construct a separate gay
culture to challenge an ³uptight² and conformist heterosexual society. As the
British GLF wrote in 1971: ³We must be rotten queersı to the straight world
and for them we must use camp, drag, etc. in the most offensiveı manner
possible. And we must be freaksı to the gay ghetto world.² [13]
Unfortunately, these sorts of politics seemed radical because the main currents
on the left—from Maoist supporters of the Peoplesı Republic of China to
³Third Worldist² supporters of Castroıs Cuba—held
backward positions on gay liberation. Maoists denounced homosexuality as a
³petty bourgeois deviation,² and Castroists
embarrassedly tried to explain away Castroıs imprisonment of gays. In embracing
Stalinism, much of the 1960s revolutionary left abandoned the principled fight
against all oppression, which Marxists from Marx to Lenin to Trotsky embraced.
But
as the activist movement declined in the 1970s, the lifestyle politics of
³personal autonomy² and separatism increased. Rather than fighting the sexism
of many gay men in the movement, lesbians set up their own ³autonomous²
organizations. Among gay men, lifestyle divisions between ³machos² and drag
queens emerged. Divisions between Black, white, Latino and Asian gays; between
³male-identified² lesbians and lesbian separatists (who rejected all contact with
men); between homosexuals and bisexuals, multiplied. Divisions in the movement
over personal lifestyle choices became transformed into hardened points of
political principle.
The
1970s lifestyle ³radicalism² revived in the activist campaigns responding to
the 1980s AIDS crisis. ACTUP, founded in New York in 1987, experienced rapid
growth in cities around the country. Initially focused on advocacy for people
with AIDS, it widened its appeal to include demands for national health care,
for lower prices for AIDS drugs and for free needle distribution. Queer Nation,
born from struggles against gay bashing in New York in 1989, also grew rapidly.
Queer Nation activists asserted the need for ³visibility² for gays and the
development of a separate ³queer² identity. Both organizations combated
discrimination against gays and people with AIDS. But within a few years, they
had collapsed. The Queer Nation chapter in San Francisco folded up in 1992
because its members couldnıt agree on proposed internal guidelines prohibiting
racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, and homophobic comments in meetings.
The
explanation for the rapid rise and fall of the gay ³militant² groups lay in the
bankrupt assumptions of ³identity politics² which guided their approach. The
mere idea of describing their politics with the antigay epithet ³queer² should
raise doubts among people who seriously want to end gay opression.
Some activists argued that ³reappropriating² the term
took away its power to degrade and humiliate gay men and lesbians. ³We have
disempowered [our enemies] by using this term.²[14] Yet it
would be hard to believe that women who wanted to fight oppression would
embrace the term ³bitch,² anymore than Blacks would embrace the slur ³nigger.²
No matter what legions of ³queer theorists² in the academy write, the majority
of ordinary people—both gay and straight—will see ³queer² as a term
of abuse. ³Queer² signifies something strange or ³beyond the pale.² Activists
who insist on calling themselves ³queer² are accepting—and reveling
in—societyıs ghettoization of gays and lesbians.
Another
core assumption of identity politics asserts that only those who suffer a
particular oppression—who share an ³identity²—have the right to
struggle against it. Queer Nationıs founding manifesto, ³I Hate Straights,²
told heterosexuals—even ones sympathetic to gay rights—to ³shut up
and listen.² In other words, this seemingly radical stance actually marked the
rejection of solidarity from the heterosexual majority in society. If only
those who suffer a particular oppression can struggle against it, what about
those who suffer multiple oppressions—who have multiple ³identities?²
Should a Black lesbian identify with her oppression as a Black person, her
oppression as a woman, or her oppression as a lesbian? As Black lesbian
feminist Barbara Smith drew out the implications: ³[I]f
queers of color followed [Queer Nationıs] political lead we would soon be
issuing a statement entitled, I Hate Whitey,ı including white queers of
European origin.²[15]
This sort of politics leads to greater fragmentation and disunity, rather than
to greater unity and mobilizing potential.
Identity
politicsı emphasis on ³visibility² led groups like Queer Nation and Lesbian
Avengers to focus on media stunts like ³Kiss-Ins.² At demonstrations, ³queer²
contingents often chanted vulgar slogans (³Suck my dick! Lick my clit! Weıre
here, weıre queer, get used to it!²), which served more to repel onlookers than
to win them to support gay liberation. These adolescent ³in your face² tactics,
which aimed more to attract attention than to attack oppression, are not
radical at all. They are the tactics of a convinced minority that is happy to
remain a convinced minority. A movement whose politics do not afford it
opportunities to grow can quickly fall back on itself. Internal discord and
further isolation from the ³outside world² can result—as the example of
the San Francisco Queer Nation chapter demonstrated.
Finally,
the extreme moralism in identity politics circles acts as a barrier to
widespread support. More than insisting that all gay people should be out of
the closet (i.e. open about their sexuality), ³queer² activists insist that
those gays who remain in the closet ³benefit² from gay oppression by ³passing²
in straight society. Gay writer Michelangelo Signorile,
the first major journalist to make a crusade of ³outing² closeted gay
celebrities, explained:
There is no ³right² to the closet.
Remember that all those in the closet, blinded by their own trauma, hurt
themselves and all other queers. The invisibility they perpetuate harms us more
than any of their good deeds might benefit us.[16]
The ³closet² is an aspect of gay oppression in a homophobic
society. But Signorile turns reality on its head.
Instead of fighting to change a society that forces so many gay people into the
closet, he wants to change society by forcing people out of the closet.
All
gay people should feel the confidence to be out, proud and fighting. But
³coming out² of the closet should be the decision of each gay person. It should
be an expression of self-confidence and the willingness to fight. No one should
be forced out of the closet against his or her will—no matter how rich or
famous they are. For the majority of gay people, who are working-class, it is
difficult to impossible to live their lives out of the closet. They could be
fired from their jobs, lose custody of their children, or lose their health
insurance. They might be trapped in straight marriages on which they depend for
financial security. These are concerns that ³out² gay millionaires like
entertainment mogul David Geffen donıt have to worry
about. A politics that fails to recognize this reality—and what is more,
blames the victims for collaborating with their oppression—only shows
that it has nothing to say to the vast majority of gay people.
Even
if organizations like Queer Nation donıt exist today, their rotten politics
live on. At New Yorkıs 1998 Halloween parade in the Greenwich Village gay
ghetto, a contingent of gay activists insisted on marching behind a banner
inscribed ³Queer Rights Now.² Members of the contingent carried signs reading,
³Are you a basher or a bigot?² addressed to parade onlookers. Apparently these
activists hadnıt noticed that millions around the country expressed outrage at
Matthew Shepardıs murder only weeks before. Instead, they celebrated their
isolation in the ghetto and defined everyone on the outside as ³the enemy.²
Why class is key
None of the main tendencies in gay politics today—from
³post-gay² conservatism to ³queer² pseudo-radicalism—address themselves
to the concerns or aspirations of the majority of gay and lesbian people. This
is so for one simple reason. All of them reflect the interests of the gay
middle class, rather than the interests of the working-class majority.
³Post-gay²
theorists are only the most open about this. They downplay gay oppression
because they speak for a tiny minority of gay businesspeople whose wealth
insulates them from feeling the sharpest edge of the rightıs attack. Despite
the Republican Partyıs pandering to the Christian Right bigots, fully one third
of self-identified gays and lesbians voted Republican in the 1998 midterm
election, according to exit polls. Even if these people donıt like GOP gay
bashing, they support conservative politics on a whole range of issues—from
welfare to Social Security—that fits with their class interests.
³Post-gay² politics speaks to this constituency.
Likewise,
gay reformist organizations answer to their network of wealthy donors and the
Washington elite more than ordinary gays and lesbians. Urvashi
Vaid agrees. ³[Gay organizations] are far less
passionate about raising the minimum wage, welfare reform, AFDC programs, free
school lunches, immigration, poverty, and other issues that affect gay and
lesbian families and individuals—but do not affect the middle-class
people who are most involved in the movement,²[17] she
wrote in Virtual Equality.
Despite
the seeming radicalism of ³in your face² identity politics, it also appeals to
a narrow section of the gay middle class. As discussed earlier, ³queer²
activistsı stress on ³visibility² is tailored only to those gays and lesbians
who have the financial security to be out of the closet. Most working-class
gays and lesbians arenıt out of the closet. Most working-class gays donıt live
in the fashionable gay neighborhoods of major cities. Nor are they attracted to
the lifestyle politics of ³queer² radicals.
Gay
celebrities or ³out² gays who live in Chicagoıs ³Boys Town² or San Franciscoıs
Castro district may be the most ³visible² gay people. But they are not
representative of the gay and lesbian majority. Marketing consultants eager to
capture gay middle-class dollars promote an image of a gay community than its
straight counterpart. One such survey estimated median income for gay
households at more than $55,000 annually, compared to the U.S. average of
$36,500. Right-wingers latched onto these figures to claim that gay
anti-discrimination demands amounted to a clamor for ³special rights² among an
already privileged group. More serious studies of the gay and lesbian
population have placed gay incomes at parity with or below the national
average.[18]
Whatever the true income figures for gay people are, itıs clear that the vast
majority of gay people are solidly working-class.
Every specially oppressed group is divided by class.[19] An
upper crust of each specially oppressed group includes people who are
completely integrated into the economic and political system. They have
interests in fighting to uphold that system. Therefore, the interests of
someone like Colin Powell, the African-American former head of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, certainly differ from the ordinary Black enlisted person. Itıs
likewise with the gay middle class and upper class. J. Edgar Hoover, the
longtime director of the FBI—and one of the most vicious defenders of the
system and persecutors of gays in history—was gay himself. Hoover is only
the most extreme example of a gay man who was a class enemy to all working
people, both gay and straight. Even in cases less extreme than Hooverıs, the
general point about the class divide in the ³gay community² holds, as Peter
Morgan explains:
Class interests divide the
oppressed—and working class gays have more to gain from fighting
alongside other working class people than they do from uniting with ruling
class sections of the gay community who have a different agenda. Most of the
time the divisions inside the working class seem all too powerful—between
gays and straights, blacks and whites, men and women. Yet whenever workers
struggle, this division breaks down.[20]
Where
identity politics asserts ³difference² between groups, class politics unites
workers across lines of race, gender and sexual orientation. Class politics
also makes clear who the real allies of gay people are. Straight people who
stand up for their gay co-workers show greater support for gay liberation than
pink economy business owners who pay poverty wages to their gay employees.
What kind of movement?
The excellent ³Out at Work,² a 1996 film by Tami Gold and
Kelly Anderson, depicts how a gay United Auto Workers shop steward Ron Woods at
Chrysler Corp. battled the company and homophobia among his coworkers. By
waging the class struggle while campaigning for gay rights, Ron Woods won the inclusion
in Chryslerıs national contract of language opposing discrimination on the
grounds of sexual orientation. One of the filmıs most moving moments depicts
Woods receiving a unanimous endorsement of the anti-discrimination clause and a
standing ovation from hundreds of members at the Chrysler Corp. bargaining
convention. Any blow against discrimination is a gain for all workers—gay
or straight.
In
1997, the AFL-CIO admitted Pride at Work, an organization of gay and lesbian
workers, an affiliated organization to the labor
federation. Union contracts have won domestic partnership rights, a gain for
both gay and straight couples. Despite the common (but wrong) stereotype of
trade unions as bastions of sexist and homophobic white males, ³conservative² trade
unions have done more to advance gay and lesbian rights than ³enlightened²
employers.
Recent
polling data show that Woodsı support from his co-workers was not an isolated
incident. A Human Rights Campaign November 1998 election exit poll showed
strong majorities of voters favoring measures to ban workplace discrimination
against gays and supporting equal rights of gay couples to health care,
employment and retirement benefits. Significantly, 54 percent of voters
perceived gay anti-discrimination demands as ³equal rights,² compared to 32
percent who described them as ³special rights.² This marked a shift from only
1995, when only 41 percent identified non-discrimination demands as ³equal
rights,² and 38 percent defined them as ³special rights.²[21]
As
these data and the reaction to Matthew Shepardıs death showed, support for gay
and lesbian civil rights is much deeper in the U.S. population than it was even
a few years ago. The politics of the Religious Right are clearly out of step
with the majority of Americans. Few gay activists would have predicted that
football players at the University of Wyoming would have publicly shown their
solidarity with a gay man? The possibility for building on this pro-gay
sentiment is immense. Support for gay rights may come more easily. But it does
not come automatically. In the 1998 election, referenda barring gay marriage
passed overwhelmingly in Hawaii and Alaska. Gay liberation must be fought for—on
the political and the ideological fronts.
Second,
a movement has to fight for the demands that truly mark advances for gay and
lesbian rights. Ending discrimination against gays in employment, health
benefits, immigration law, the military, and marriage laws are basic civil
rights for gay people. On the other hand, demands for ³hate crimes²
legislation, a major focus for gay lobbying organizations, doesnıt cut in the
same way. For one thing, hate crimes laws are usually so vague that they cover
both ³anti-homosexual² and ³anti-heterosexual² violence. Whatıs more, they
increase the power of the police, despite the fact that police are among the
most vicious gay bashers around.[22] More
fundamentally, hate crimes laws do nothing to change the climate of hatred
against gays that gives rise to gay bashing attacks. But support for hate crimes
legislation gives politicians like Clinton a pro-gay cover while they oppose
other measures which make a difference in gay peoplesı lives.
Nevertheless,
genuine gains for gay people will fall short if they avoid tackling the roots
of oppression. Sullivan claims that if same-sex marriage were legalized ³ninety
percent of the political work needed to achieve gay and lesbian equality would
have been achieved²[23] because
gays and lesbians would gain access to health benefits, insurance, and
pensions. But whether married people gain those rights depends on what class
they belong to. It makes a difference whether you or your spouse is a corporate
executive or a low-paid worker with no health benefits. Yet again, what appears
to be a purely ³civil rights² issue for gay people runs up against class
inequality in society. A purely ³civil rights² agenda wonıt alter the
conditions of the majority of gays and lesbians unless itıs connected to a
broader fight that takes on the class nature of the system.
A new gay and lesbian movement?
Past upsurges in the gay liberation movement have reflected
their times. The gay liberation movement in the 1960s and 1970s took place just
as the New Left political movements peaked. The movement, seeing itself
initially as a part of the broad left which demonstrated for civil rights and
against the war in Vietnam, retreated. As the left declined, the gay liberation
movement became depoliticized. Opposition to gay rights from the dominant
currents on the 1970s socialist left—Stalinism and Maoism—also
drove a wedge between gay liberation activists and political radicals. Thus,
when gay activism reemerged in response to the 1980s AIDS crisis,
anti-political identity politics dominated it. The conservative climate of the
1980s heightened activistsı sense of isolation from large numbers of people,
feeding ³in your face² politics.
The
activism following Matthew Shepardıs murder comes when public support for gay
rights stands at all-time highs and when increased numbers of people—from
workers at UPS to death penalty abolitionists—are willing to fight.
People who want to win gay and lesbian liberation canıt be content to preach to
the choir in the gay ghetto. They must break out of the ghetto and take the
fight directly to the Trent Lotts and the Gary Bauers. We need a movement for gay liberation, not a
movement restricted to gays and lesbians. It should involve anyone who wants to
fight for gay and lesbian liberation—no matter what their
sexual orientation is. Building that kind of movement is more possible today
than it ever has been.
The
fight for gay and lesbian liberation cannot be separated from the fight for a
new society. Gay liberation is not simply an ³issue² for gay people. Itıs an
issue for all workers. All workers have an interest in joining together in
solidarity—in overcoming the divisions based on gender, race and sexual
orientation.
[1] Opinion data are reported in Richard Lacayo, ³A New Gay Struggle,² Time, October 26, 1998, pp.
33-38.
[2] Quoted in Alisa Solomon, ³Good for the Gays?² Village Voice online
edition, October 21-27, 1998.
[3] Sullivan, ³The Politics of Homosexuality: A New Case
for a New Beginning,² The New Republic,
May 10, 1993, p. 36.
[4] See Sharon Smithıs ³What Ever Happened to Feminism? in ISR 5 (Fall 1998) for a critique of ³post-feminism.²
[5] Rauch quoted in Peter Morgan, ³Class Divisions in
the Gay Community,² International Socialism Journal 78 (Spring, 1998), p. 77.
[6] Andrew Sullivan, Virtually Normal (New York: Alfred A.
Knopf, 1995), pp. 131-132.
[7] David Rayside, On the Fringe (Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell
University Press, 1998), p. 287.
[8] Osborne quoted in Chris Bull, ³Feeling his pain,² The Advocate, October 13, 1998, p. 28.
[9] Rayside, p. 297.
[10] Vaid internview
interview the David Barsamian, Alternative Radio,
reprinted in South End Collective, eds., Talking About A Revolution. Boston:
South End Press, 1998, pp. 108-109.
[11] Letter from Fred Asher, Washington, D.C., The Advocate, November 24, 1998, pp.
5-6.
[12] Three days of riots responding to a police raid on
the Stonewall Inn, a gay bar in New Yorkıs Greenwich Village, in June 1969,
sparked an upsurge of gay organizing and activism. For this reason, the 1969
Stonewall Riots are considered the beginning of the modern gay and lesbian
liberation movement.
[13] For more discussion on the origins of the gay
liberation movement and the GLF, see Sharon Smith, ³Mistaken Identity—Or
Can Identity Politics Liberate The Oppressed? in International Socialism Journal 62
(Spring 1994), pp. 12-16 and Barry Adam, The
Rise of a Gay and Lesbian Movement,
revised edition (New York: Twain, 1995). The quote is from Smith, p. 13.
[14] Smith, p. 18.
[15] Quoted in Smith, p. 19.
[16] Michelangelo Signorile, Queer in America (New York: Random
House, 1993), p. 364.
[17] Urvashi Vaid, Virtual
Equality (New York: Anchor Books, 1995), p. 271.
[18] Peter Morgan, ³Class divisions in the gay
community,² International Socialism
Journal 78 (Spring 1998), pp. 83-85.
[19] By ³specially oppressed,² I mean people who are
discriminated against because of some characteristic other than their class
(such as their race, gender or sexual orientation). In Marxist theory, the
working class is considered the oppressed class because it suffers
discrimination that members of the ruling class donıt face. For instance,
workers are more likely to work in unsafe work environments, to attend worse
schools, or to live near toxic waste dumps than are the wealthy.
[20] Morgan, p. 90.
[21] Human Rights Campaign, ³Youıve Got
the Power. Vote.² November 17, 1998. On HRC web site at
http://www.hrc.org/campgn98/98pollp2.html.
[22] Reviewing the latest hate crimes statistics, the
National Center for Anti-Violence Projects noted that
³One of the largest and most troubling increases [in hate crimes] was in the
offenses where the offender was a police officer or other law enforcement
official. NCAVP documented a 76% increase in 1997 in the number of offenders
who were identified as law enforcement officers.² See NCAVP 1997 Annual Report
online at http://www.avp.org/ncavp/1997/offenders.html.
[23] Sullivan, Virtually Normal, p. 185.