« Congo's National Assembly President: We Need Talks and International Presence | brbuchwal's Blog | What, to the Native American, is Thanksgiving? »
Gay Rights for the 21st Century
Jonathan Rauch of The Advocate writes about the gay rights agenda in an Obama-Biden world, which is more accepting of minorities and oppressed populations than, well, the Bush-Cheney world.
He cites Hillary Clinton's concession speech as an example of the United State's new accepting stance towards gay rights. Each mention of extending equity to gays and lesbians was met with thunderous applause, and mostly from young people. The gay cause is now a rallying-cry for the Democratic Party's liberal base, not an ashamed aside. And when my generation is in charge, the right wing's homophobic agenda will be a fringe issue, not the norm for the Republican Party.
(Clearly we aren't yet an entirely accepting nation, which is proven by the anti-gay marriage amendments passed this month in California, Arizona and Florida. But we are definitely moving that way.)
So Rauch presents the necessity to alter gay advocacy for our more accepting times. He writes, "the time has come to pivot away from the culturally defensive pariah agenda -- the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, for instance -- and toward the culturally transformative family agenda." Andrew Sullivan calls this "Gay Rights 3.0".
Moving towards a more culturally transformative approach is smart because we are going in that direction just by virtue of progress. So it makes sense for the gay rights movement to evolve to reflect those changes, as Rauch suggests.
True acceptance of homosexuals might take a little while, but it will happen. We just need to wait for people to grow up a little bit, both literally and symbolically.
He cites Hillary Clinton's concession speech as an example of the United State's new accepting stance towards gay rights. Each mention of extending equity to gays and lesbians was met with thunderous applause, and mostly from young people. The gay cause is now a rallying-cry for the Democratic Party's liberal base, not an ashamed aside. And when my generation is in charge, the right wing's homophobic agenda will be a fringe issue, not the norm for the Republican Party.
(Clearly we aren't yet an entirely accepting nation, which is proven by the anti-gay marriage amendments passed this month in California, Arizona and Florida. But we are definitely moving that way.)
So Rauch presents the necessity to alter gay advocacy for our more accepting times. He writes, "the time has come to pivot away from the culturally defensive pariah agenda -- the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, for instance -- and toward the culturally transformative family agenda." Andrew Sullivan calls this "Gay Rights 3.0".
Moving towards a more culturally transformative approach is smart because we are going in that direction just by virtue of progress. So it makes sense for the gay rights movement to evolve to reflect those changes, as Rauch suggests.
True acceptance of homosexuals might take a little while, but it will happen. We just need to wait for people to grow up a little bit, both literally and symbolically.
Advertisement
Having a couple gay family members makes this an issue I take seriously.
The political victories needed are legislative, not judicial. It will take much more work to elect the sorts of state legislators that will have a more inclusive agenda than it does to win a court case. The flip side of that is that well-written law goes a lot farther than a court decision towards real progress.
And the victories ultimately needed are those beyond the political - they are in the individuals who make up the "culture" of our society. And those will probably take even longer, while having more permanence once won.
November 26, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's interesting to see the juxtaposition of the two articles on the Reader Posts page:
this one, and http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/tmcpac/2008/11/just-saw-a-program-on-id-calle-1.php
On the one hand we have a generational movement toward more open-minded thinking about the value of people.
On the other hand, we have a fringe right wing breeding new holy warriors who just might try to conduct their own jihad a few years down the road.
We have oh, so far to go...
November 26, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Although I am not horribly disheartened with the advancement of LGBT rights in America, I still don't see the nation in any sense at a remarkable, cultural turning point. Void of the civil-rights laws and decisions, I don't see the path to inclusion any more unhampered. Until those rights are tested by statute, they are not insurmountable as Rauch insists. Cultural political roles can change by whim and without reason. Unfortunately, Pollyanna has no longevity on Capitol Hill.
Rauch misspeaks when he calls the past and current LGBT strategy a form of pariah defense. The role of the pariah is one of subjugation, it is forced on a population. Standing up for ones civil-rights is negating this definition and demanding being seen as an equal, not a pariah. His use of the term is very disrespectful to all those that braved on fighting for these rights - they never saw themselves as pariahs, Harvey Milk certainly didn't.
It was a proud moment to hear the inclusive language at the Convention, but I am still waiting for that rallying cry. How many stump speeches did we hear about LGBT specific issues? Any during the debates? What kind of out in the front support did we get from the Obama campaign against Prop 8. His administration will surely be a welcomed change of bureaucratic intention, I still have Hope. But we are still at Gay Rights 1.0 until we are private equals with everyone. Gay Rights for the 21st Century is still in the 20th Century by stature - we've yet to have the same naturally endowed rights that some never had to fight for.
Rauch claims that "by and large we aren't [an oppressed minority.]" Maybe by measure of incremental, legal achievements this holds true, but I think he needs to get out in the streets, down from the Advocate Ivory Tower, and hear the stories of oppression. The segregated, economic, political clout that he sees as freedom from oppression would be better framed if it didn't sound so Marie Antoinette.
A loud and proud Semper Fi call of "hooah" to go forward, but it is a long time coming before a LGBT couple can walk hand-in-hand from tip-to-tip of Manhattan without challenge to spirit or safety, never mind coast to coast of the US or around the world.
November 26, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope that's not the standard as I don't think you can do that as a straight couple!
November 26, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I get your point - and isn't that just sad? Not to ignore the intention of the post, I would place the odds of the straight couple higher to complete such a task. As much as the human race is floundering towards our potential humanity, the LGBT population assumes more of the negatives.
It is an interesting idea, what we identify as standards as indications to a successful society. LGBT issues often show the distance between our way of life and the standards set by the Constitution or the American ideals.
November 26, 2008 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink