Those Who Marriage Equality Left Behind
June 26, 2016 7:44 AM Subscribe
"I cannot reconcile the divide between two of the biggest civil-rights movements I've covered—marriage equality and Black Lives Matter. How can two such quintessentially American fights occur so near each other yet feel so disconnected? How were the revelers on the steps of the Supreme Court so far from the implosion of a major American city happening just up the street?"
At the same time, some white LGBT leaders, forgetting their own movement's roots, have condemned the more radical actions of Black Lives Matter (which is a movement co-founded and routinely led by queer women). While first reporting on the unrest in Ferguson, Missouri, following Michael Brown's death at the hands of Officer Darren Wilson, I was struck by the pointed silence of most prominent LGBT groups. But the hypocritical responses—whispered quietly or yelled loudly—were worse. As queer writer Matt Comer pointed out in 2014, there was no shortage of gay people who "condemn the rioting in the aftermath of extreme miscarriages of justice for black people, all the while ignoring the fact they gather once a year to openly celebrate and commemorate a riot"—the three-night-long Stonewall riots—the "violent outburst that served as the so-called birth of their movement."
The quoted section of Thrasher's article contains a couple of links which I imagine are meant to provide support for his claims. The first is linked to the phrase "have condemned the more radical actions," so I would expect to read a post critical of BLM generally, and the unrest in Ferguson specifically. Instead, it goes to a piece by Steve Charing that explicitly supports the protests in Ferguson and links them to LGBT issues.
According to Charing, We see the failure of justice continue to plague African-Americans combined with the strained relations blacks as well as LGBT folks historically have endured with local police departments. There is a natural alliance here.
The second link is to "pointed out in 2014" and goes to a bilerico post by Matt Comer that makes the argument that there was no shortage of gay people who "condemn the rioting in the aftermath of extreme miscarriages of justice for black people, all the while ignoring the fact they gather once a year to openly celebrate and commemorate a riot"—the three-night-long Stonewall riots.
I think that's an accurate description of the linked piece, but what it doesn't reveal is that Comer doesn't include a single example of gay people condemning Ferguson, just a couple of paraphrases of what he claims "hypocritcal gays" might be saying.
I have no doubt that some hypocritical gays like that exist, but a piece that wants to posit there is "no shortage" of them (or rely on an earlier piece that makes the claim) should be able to come up some evidence to support a significant number in the community hostile to the aims of BLM or the Ferguson protests. I don't think either Thrasher or Comer has done that.
There's another argument in the piece, that LGBT organizations haven't been pro-active in post-marriage-equality civil rights struggles, and I think the case for that is a lot stronger. It may also be true there's pervasive hostility in the community to the continuing struggles for broad equality, but I don't think those arguments should be advanced without more evidence to support them than is being provided here.
posted by layceepee at 8:23 AM on June 26, 2016 [18 favorites]
The quoted section of Thrasher's article contains a couple of links which I imagine are meant to provide support for his claims. The first is linked to the phrase "have condemned the more radical actions," so I would expect to read a post critical of BLM generally, and the unrest in Ferguson specifically. Instead, it goes to a piece by Steve Charing that explicitly supports the protests in Ferguson and links them to LGBT issues.
According to Charing, We see the failure of justice continue to plague African-Americans combined with the strained relations blacks as well as LGBT folks historically have endured with local police departments. There is a natural alliance here.
The second link is to "pointed out in 2014" and goes to a bilerico post by Matt Comer that makes the argument that there was no shortage of gay people who "condemn the rioting in the aftermath of extreme miscarriages of justice for black people, all the while ignoring the fact they gather once a year to openly celebrate and commemorate a riot"—the three-night-long Stonewall riots.
I think that's an accurate description of the linked piece, but what it doesn't reveal is that Comer doesn't include a single example of gay people condemning Ferguson, just a couple of paraphrases of what he claims "hypocritcal gays" might be saying.
I have no doubt that some hypocritical gays like that exist, but a piece that wants to posit there is "no shortage" of them (or rely on an earlier piece that makes the claim) should be able to come up some evidence to support a significant number in the community hostile to the aims of BLM or the Ferguson protests. I don't think either Thrasher or Comer has done that.
There's another argument in the piece, that LGBT organizations haven't been pro-active in post-marriage-equality civil rights struggles, and I think the case for that is a lot stronger. It may also be true there's pervasive hostility in the community to the continuing struggles for broad equality, but I don't think those arguments should be advanced without more evidence to support them than is being provided here.
posted by layceepee at 8:23 AM on June 26, 2016 [18 favorites]
Is there a term already for placing a link in an article without an explicit description of what's being linked to? I've been seeing this for some time now. It's often done as if to say "if you look here, you'll see in right, so just take me at my word and let me move on." But it's ridiculous to expect people reading on phones or with limited time to check every link.
Anyway, if no term exists, might I suggest one?
Link-bombing
posted by cman at 8:38 AM on June 26, 2016 [2 favorites]
Anyway, if no term exists, might I suggest one?
Link-bombing
posted by cman at 8:38 AM on June 26, 2016 [2 favorites]
Queer people of color have been pointing out the whiteness (and particularly the overwhelming cis-white-male-ness) in queer political movements for a while. Hopefully now that a white dude is talking about it in Esquire, people will start paying more attention.
posted by rmd1023 at 8:40 AM on June 26, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by rmd1023 at 8:40 AM on June 26, 2016 [3 favorites]
I'm pretty sure Steven Thrasher is black?
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:46 AM on June 26, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:46 AM on June 26, 2016 [5 favorites]
Why would they have anything to do with one another? And frankly, would either movement have benefited?
Marriage equality is no respect radical, and is in its core rhetoric anti-radical -- saying someone with the future-time orientation and social and economic capital that (it seems) getting married requires in the 21st century ought not be excluded from that institution merely on account of sexual orientation. Some people might want gay marriage to be something else, but what it actually is a pathway to a nice house in a nice neighborhood just like that enjoyed by their friends and family.
BLM is radical at both means and ends, and doesn't hesitate to outright oppose some things that probably seem very common sense to most gay people, such as increased police presence at Pride events in the shadow of the Orlando attack. It is also a movement that is struggling to align itself with basic Anglo-American legal principles, insofar as its advocacy has conspicuously begun in association with riots and ended with (as in Ferguson and Baltimore) with dropped charges and outright acquittals.
posted by MattD at 9:03 AM on June 26, 2016 [9 favorites]
Marriage equality is no respect radical, and is in its core rhetoric anti-radical -- saying someone with the future-time orientation and social and economic capital that (it seems) getting married requires in the 21st century ought not be excluded from that institution merely on account of sexual orientation. Some people might want gay marriage to be something else, but what it actually is a pathway to a nice house in a nice neighborhood just like that enjoyed by their friends and family.
BLM is radical at both means and ends, and doesn't hesitate to outright oppose some things that probably seem very common sense to most gay people, such as increased police presence at Pride events in the shadow of the Orlando attack. It is also a movement that is struggling to align itself with basic Anglo-American legal principles, insofar as its advocacy has conspicuously begun in association with riots and ended with (as in Ferguson and Baltimore) with dropped charges and outright acquittals.
posted by MattD at 9:03 AM on June 26, 2016 [9 favorites]
Why would they have anything to do with one another?
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
posted by sallybrown at 9:14 AM on June 26, 2016 [26 favorites]
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
posted by sallybrown at 9:14 AM on June 26, 2016 [26 favorites]
Anyway, if no term exists, might I suggest one?
Link-bombing
Link bombing is already its own thing. It might be a little too clever, but I'm tempted to go with false <a>ttribution.
posted by zamboni at 9:17 AM on June 26, 2016 [5 favorites]
Link-bombing
Link bombing is already its own thing. It might be a little too clever, but I'm tempted to go with false <a>ttribution.
posted by zamboni at 9:17 AM on June 26, 2016 [5 favorites]
Link-bombing
Link-rolling? A generalized form of rick-rolling?
posted by clawsoon at 9:24 AM on June 26, 2016 [3 favorites]
Link-rolling? A generalized form of rick-rolling?
posted by clawsoon at 9:24 AM on June 26, 2016 [3 favorites]
Marriage equality is no respect radical, and is in its core rhetoric anti-radical
While you're right, it's important to keep in mind that "gay liberation" meant a lot more than just marriage equality, which is something that BLM is trying to capture. Back when (not to imply things like this still don't happen today) queers in their own spaces were being targeted, harassed, and assaulted by the police, not to mention the general population, the LGBTQ community had a lot in common with persons of color, and the solutions they advocated for and the way in which they fought for these solutions wasn't too much dissimilar than with BLM.
This is the connection the author is implicitly drawing upon by linking the marriage equality fight with BLM.
posted by Dalby at 9:27 AM on June 26, 2016 [5 favorites]
While you're right, it's important to keep in mind that "gay liberation" meant a lot more than just marriage equality, which is something that BLM is trying to capture. Back when (not to imply things like this still don't happen today) queers in their own spaces were being targeted, harassed, and assaulted by the police, not to mention the general population, the LGBTQ community had a lot in common with persons of color, and the solutions they advocated for and the way in which they fought for these solutions wasn't too much dissimilar than with BLM.
This is the connection the author is implicitly drawing upon by linking the marriage equality fight with BLM.
posted by Dalby at 9:27 AM on June 26, 2016 [5 favorites]
I totally take his point, and this is not to dispute it, but I get a little irked at the argument that marriage equality is only a boon to rich white men, because boy is that not the case in my social circle. I know a lot of people, most of them women and some of them people of color, making $40,000- $60,000 a year who have benefited immensely from marriage equality. Where I live, that's a middle-class salary, and it's enough to buy a house on but not enough to be able to easily afford the army of accountants and lawyers that people used to need to simulate some of the benefits of marriage. I absolutely agree that a single-minded focus on marriage is wrong and that it leaves behind a lot of people and a lot of issues. But I don't think that marriage equality was only for white men who are members of the 1%.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 9:41 AM on June 26, 2016 [15 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 9:41 AM on June 26, 2016 [15 favorites]
Why would they have anything to do with one another?
Because queer people of color exist. Perhaps the movement for marriage equality very specifically has nothing to do with Black Live Matter but the gay rights movement does and it is very common for people to equate the gay rights movement with marriage equality. It's sort of like how feminism may only explicitly be concerned with equality between the sexes but true equality for all women will not exist until racial and class concerns are incorporated into the movement.
posted by armadillo1224 at 9:45 AM on June 26, 2016 [15 favorites]
Because queer people of color exist. Perhaps the movement for marriage equality very specifically has nothing to do with Black Live Matter but the gay rights movement does and it is very common for people to equate the gay rights movement with marriage equality. It's sort of like how feminism may only explicitly be concerned with equality between the sexes but true equality for all women will not exist until racial and class concerns are incorporated into the movement.
posted by armadillo1224 at 9:45 AM on June 26, 2016 [15 favorites]
Black Lives Matter was created by queer and trans people.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:50 AM on June 26, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:50 AM on June 26, 2016 [5 favorites]
It is also a movement that is struggling to align itself with basic Anglo-American legal principles
This is a really odd thing to say. "The police shouldn't murder people in the process of arresting them" is a basic Anglo-American legal principle (literally: "This case requires us to decide what constitutional standard governs a free citizen's claim that law enforcement officials used excessive force in the course of making an arrest, investigatory stop, or other 'seizure' of his person. We hold that such claims are properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's 'objective reasonableness' standard", Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 388 (1989)). Perhaps you mean "the Anglo-American legal system is struggling to live up to its basic principles."
posted by praemunire at 9:56 AM on June 26, 2016 [17 favorites]
This is a really odd thing to say. "The police shouldn't murder people in the process of arresting them" is a basic Anglo-American legal principle (literally: "This case requires us to decide what constitutional standard governs a free citizen's claim that law enforcement officials used excessive force in the course of making an arrest, investigatory stop, or other 'seizure' of his person. We hold that such claims are properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's 'objective reasonableness' standard", Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 388 (1989)). Perhaps you mean "the Anglo-American legal system is struggling to live up to its basic principles."
posted by praemunire at 9:56 AM on June 26, 2016 [17 favorites]
Do people still use the term hypertext? Call it bad hypertext.
Marriage is not a bourgeoisie thing and it's really weird how that idea came up in this recent thread. As well, Latino and Black communities both have slightly different cultural contexts surrounding marriage than white liberal American culture. I don't have the authority to say what those contexts are, exactly, since I am white; but among the people I know, Hispanic families appear to be heavily influenced by their Catholic church, even if the younger generation doesn't personally find it important.
From TFA:
As day faded into night, the nation wondered if more fires and mayhem would come. The police and protesters were facing off for a showdown in an intersection outside CVS, and members of the media were there to bear witness.
Then something unexpected happened, something amazing: Black youth took control and started dancing.
These young people stared down the threat of police brutality and said, Not here, not now. We are putting our bodies out here, and you are not going to stop us. They defiantly asserted themselves. We, by voguing, claim this space as our own.
For the hour during which those kids turned an intersection into a ballroom, no one was hurt. No tear gas stung our eyes. No property was damaged. The only bodies at risk were those of the queens dancing in the street, each spin and stomp chipping away at a racist and all-too-common fallacy of the American media that queer people must remain closeted in black neighborhoods and not dream of coming out until they move into some white Will & Grace fantasy.
At around 10:00 p.m., a police helicopter swung low and threatened to arrest everyone outside. Eventually the police tear-gassed us, protestors and press alike. As the crowd dispersed, trying its best to avoid the wafting clouds, and Black Lives Matter activists urged rioters to remain peaceful, the scene felt not forty miles but four thousand miles away from the happy-faced activists on the Supreme Court steps.
posted by Rainbo Vagrant at 10:18 AM on June 26, 2016 [3 favorites]
Marriage is not a bourgeoisie thing and it's really weird how that idea came up in this recent thread. As well, Latino and Black communities both have slightly different cultural contexts surrounding marriage than white liberal American culture. I don't have the authority to say what those contexts are, exactly, since I am white; but among the people I know, Hispanic families appear to be heavily influenced by their Catholic church, even if the younger generation doesn't personally find it important.
From TFA:
As day faded into night, the nation wondered if more fires and mayhem would come. The police and protesters were facing off for a showdown in an intersection outside CVS, and members of the media were there to bear witness.
Then something unexpected happened, something amazing: Black youth took control and started dancing.
These young people stared down the threat of police brutality and said, Not here, not now. We are putting our bodies out here, and you are not going to stop us. They defiantly asserted themselves. We, by voguing, claim this space as our own.
For the hour during which those kids turned an intersection into a ballroom, no one was hurt. No tear gas stung our eyes. No property was damaged. The only bodies at risk were those of the queens dancing in the street, each spin and stomp chipping away at a racist and all-too-common fallacy of the American media that queer people must remain closeted in black neighborhoods and not dream of coming out until they move into some white Will & Grace fantasy.
At around 10:00 p.m., a police helicopter swung low and threatened to arrest everyone outside. Eventually the police tear-gassed us, protestors and press alike. As the crowd dispersed, trying its best to avoid the wafting clouds, and Black Lives Matter activists urged rioters to remain peaceful, the scene felt not forty miles but four thousand miles away from the happy-faced activists on the Supreme Court steps.
posted by Rainbo Vagrant at 10:18 AM on June 26, 2016 [3 favorites]
struggling to align itself with basic Anglo-American legal principles
BLM's closest antecedent that I can see is
The final trigger for the revolt was the intervention of a royal official, John Bampton, in Essex on 30 May 1381. His attempts to collect unpaid poll taxes in Brentwood ended in a violent confrontation
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 10:26 AM on June 26, 2016
BLM's closest antecedent that I can see is
The final trigger for the revolt was the intervention of a royal official, John Bampton, in Essex on 30 May 1381. His attempts to collect unpaid poll taxes in Brentwood ended in a violent confrontation
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 10:26 AM on June 26, 2016
Some people might want gay marriage to be something else, but what it actually is a pathway to a nice house in a nice neighborhood just like that enjoyed by their friends and family.
My objection to this is that same-sex marriage bans in most states didn't have anything to do with completely non-existent same-sex legal marriages. Why ban something that didn't exist? It was a broad legal lever that conservatives used against municipal non-discrimination ordinances, judicial respect for same-sex partners, private partnerships, and educational inclusion. For 20 years, it was the foundation on which anti-LGBTQ discrimination was justified.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 10:55 AM on June 26, 2016
My objection to this is that same-sex marriage bans in most states didn't have anything to do with completely non-existent same-sex legal marriages. Why ban something that didn't exist? It was a broad legal lever that conservatives used against municipal non-discrimination ordinances, judicial respect for same-sex partners, private partnerships, and educational inclusion. For 20 years, it was the foundation on which anti-LGBTQ discrimination was justified.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 10:55 AM on June 26, 2016
Black Lives Matter withdraws from San Francisco Pride:
In light of the recent announcement that PRIDE participants would be subject to increased policing, metal detectors and discretionary admittance, several Grand Marshals and awardees of the “racial & economic justice” themed event are withdrawing from participation in the Pride Parade or Civic Center activities because of the unsafe conditions created for our communities by law enforcement. In the aftermath of the Orlando shooting that took the lives of dozens of queer people of color, many people in our community are afraid. For us, celebrating Pride this year meant choosing between the threat of homophobic and transphobic vigilante violence and the threat of police violence. We had a tough decision to make, and ultimately we chose to keep our people safe by not participating in any event that would leave our communities vulnerable to either.posted by lazuli at 11:57 AM on June 26, 2016 [10 favorites]
Organizational Grand Marshal Black Lives Matter withdrew their participation, citing the SFPD’s recent track record of racist scandal and killings of people of color, and noting that while first responders can be an incredible resource in crisis, they are too often the cause of harm in queer communities of color.
“The Black Lives Matter network is grateful to the people of San Francisco for choosing us, we choose you too,” said Malkia Cyril, a member of Black Lives Matter. “As queer people of color, we are disproportionately targeted by both vigilante and police violence. We know first hand that increasing the police presence at Pride does not increase safety for all people. Militarizing these events increases the potential for harm to our communities and we hope in the future SF Pride will consider community-centered approaches to security at pride events.”
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
This comes from the sort of "Unifying Theory of Progressive Thought" school. I simply don't think many people really believe it.
I think there is something fundamentally conservative about marriage equality progress that works in its favor. And part of it is because it often is associated with white faces, especially by outsiders most needing to be convinced.
posted by 2N2222 at 12:16 PM on June 26, 2016 [1 favorite]
This comes from the sort of "Unifying Theory of Progressive Thought" school. I simply don't think many people really believe it.
I think there is something fundamentally conservative about marriage equality progress that works in its favor. And part of it is because it often is associated with white faces, especially by outsiders most needing to be convinced.
posted by 2N2222 at 12:16 PM on June 26, 2016 [1 favorite]
Marriage is not a bourgeoisie thing
Except the point here is that access to marriage was a much higher priority for white, cis queer people than it was for other queer people. Trading marriage in the short term for better access to housing, education, jobs and healthcare and protection from violence and discrimination was a deal plenty of people were willing to make. And then, whenever someone dares point that out, we're told that marriage is not just a bourgeois or a white thing. And, it's not. Some of us just have other things other things to worry about that feel a tad more pressing.
posted by hoyland at 2:41 PM on June 26, 2016 [5 favorites]
Except the point here is that access to marriage was a much higher priority for white, cis queer people than it was for other queer people. Trading marriage in the short term for better access to housing, education, jobs and healthcare and protection from violence and discrimination was a deal plenty of people were willing to make. And then, whenever someone dares point that out, we're told that marriage is not just a bourgeois or a white thing. And, it's not. Some of us just have other things other things to worry about that feel a tad more pressing.
posted by hoyland at 2:41 PM on June 26, 2016 [5 favorites]
In defense of the institution of marriage, one of the advantages of same-sex marriage is that while a mere subset of the suite of rights and benefits of marriage (ie domestic partner contracts/paperwork) costs at least several hundred dollars to duplicate with the help of lawyers, the full set of rights and privileges is available for a bargain price with bonus nation-wide recognition in the form of actual civil marriage.
posted by rmd1023 at 2:46 PM on June 26, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by rmd1023 at 2:46 PM on June 26, 2016 [1 favorite]
Jim Obergefell interviewed on Radio New Zealand today.
posted by XMLicious at 2:49 PM on June 26, 2016
posted by XMLicious at 2:49 PM on June 26, 2016
Trading marriage in the short term for better access to housing, education, jobs and healthcare a
People weren't going to get that whether or not we got marriage equality. Marriage equality is a non-rivalrous good.
posted by jpe at 2:49 PM on June 26, 2016 [5 favorites]
People weren't going to get that whether or not we got marriage equality. Marriage equality is a non-rivalrous good.
posted by jpe at 2:49 PM on June 26, 2016 [5 favorites]
the future-time orientation and social and economic capital that (it seems) getting married requires in the 21st century
... plus all the following comments on what marriage equality might have been traded for; I know there's been discussion of marriage in the US (and UK?) becoming a 'capstone' event, something you do only after economic achievement instead of something that makes economic achievement more likely. I'm not informed enough to know if this is a solid realistic claim or what groups it applies to, or even to Google it efficiently, but it's a attractively plausible description of the richest and poorest people in my social group. (The remaining middle-middle, like, police and schoolteachers, still get married first.)
Although, from my place of ignorance, doesn't our safety net -- such as it is -- still discourage marriage for the people in it? I've heard this for both young unemployeds and old people in poor health.
posted by clew at 3:30 PM on June 26, 2016
... plus all the following comments on what marriage equality might have been traded for; I know there's been discussion of marriage in the US (and UK?) becoming a 'capstone' event, something you do only after economic achievement instead of something that makes economic achievement more likely. I'm not informed enough to know if this is a solid realistic claim or what groups it applies to, or even to Google it efficiently, but it's a attractively plausible description of the richest and poorest people in my social group. (The remaining middle-middle, like, police and schoolteachers, still get married first.)
Although, from my place of ignorance, doesn't our safety net -- such as it is -- still discourage marriage for the people in it? I've heard this for both young unemployeds and old people in poor health.
posted by clew at 3:30 PM on June 26, 2016
People weren't going to get that whether or not we got marriage equality. Marriage equality is a non-rivalrous good.
On the other hand... we had everyone dumping huge amounts of resources into marriage, including organizations that (unlike the HRC) actually pay attention to things of interest to a broad range of queer people. And, you know, straight "allies" are convinced all our problems are solved. So, no, not a " non-rivalrous good" that came without costs.
posted by hoyland at 3:39 PM on June 26, 2016 [7 favorites]
On the other hand... we had everyone dumping huge amounts of resources into marriage, including organizations that (unlike the HRC) actually pay attention to things of interest to a broad range of queer people. And, you know, straight "allies" are convinced all our problems are solved. So, no, not a " non-rivalrous good" that came without costs.
posted by hoyland at 3:39 PM on June 26, 2016 [7 favorites]
And then, whenever someone dares point that out, we're told that marriage is not just a bourgeois or a white thing. And, it's not. Some of us just have other things other things to worry about that feel a tad more pressing.
Anddd it's not just "some", it's more and more people generally. We all remember those studies in recent years, reported by The New York Times, about economic conditions becoming increasingly hostile to marriage. The "bourgeois" class is shrinking as income inequality has risen, and this is self-selection effect is exactly what amplifies the sense of disconnect when you hear such ideologies that don't reflect real statistics.
posted by polymodus at 10:07 PM on June 26, 2016
Anddd it's not just "some", it's more and more people generally. We all remember those studies in recent years, reported by The New York Times, about economic conditions becoming increasingly hostile to marriage. The "bourgeois" class is shrinking as income inequality has risen, and this is self-selection effect is exactly what amplifies the sense of disconnect when you hear such ideologies that don't reflect real statistics.
posted by polymodus at 10:07 PM on June 26, 2016
I cannot reconcile the divide between two of the biggest civil-rights movements I've covered—marriage equality and Black Lives Matter. How can two such quintessentially American fights occur so near each other yet feel so disconnected?
Because gay people are actually a bunch of different individuals holding a wide variety of political philosophies rather than one giant political mass holding the same set of political views?
posted by edbles at 8:52 AM on June 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
Because gay people are actually a bunch of different individuals holding a wide variety of political philosophies rather than one giant political mass holding the same set of political views?
posted by edbles at 8:52 AM on June 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
People weren't going to get that whether or not we got marriage equality. Marriage equality is a non-rivalrous good.
On the other hand... we had everyone dumping huge amounts of resources into marriage, including organizations that (unlike the HRC) actually pay attention to things of interest to a broad range of queer people. And, you know, straight "allies" are convinced all our problems are solved. So, no, not a " non-rivalrous good" that came without costs.
posted by hoyland at 6:39 PM on June 26 [8 favorites +] [!]
You and I hang out with different straight people.
posted by edbles at 9:11 AM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm having a little difficulty parsing this - I do understand that a lot of resources went to winning the marriage equality fight (and that a lot of straight people may erroneously think that everything is now hunky-dory*), but the advantage it had was that it was a defined legal endpoint. There is absolutely a deep need for better access to housing, education, jobs, healthcare, etc., especially for queer POC in the U.S., but that's also an amorphous basket of challenges. Tactically, how do we move forward?
*Although if there's anything those noxious "bathroom bills" have accomplished, it's bringing further attention to mainstream culture that we still have a hell of a way to go.
posted by psoas at 10:32 AM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
*Although if there's anything those noxious "bathroom bills" have accomplished, it's bringing further attention to mainstream culture that we still have a hell of a way to go.
posted by psoas at 10:32 AM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
There's a (un)surprising number of straight people who do think that the marriage equality ruling was the endcap.
And we will have to talk to them about all of the other issues on the gay agenda the same way we had to talk to them about marriage equality. Marriage equality is still a net gain for gay people.
posted by edbles at 10:33 AM on June 27, 2016
And we will have to talk to them about all of the other issues on the gay agenda the same way we had to talk to them about marriage equality. Marriage equality is still a net gain for gay people.
posted by edbles at 10:33 AM on June 27, 2016
Not saying it's not a net gain. It's just that hoyland and others are completely right in saying the focus on marriage equality meant that there wasn't as much air for other important topics, and that it's not over.
I'm not sure what you're trying to pick apart here?
posted by qcubed at 2:13 PM on June 27 [+] [!]
Came back to pull-quote hoylands's sentence as painting with too broad a brush, which rankled because it's my problem with the main article and realized that I misread hoylands sentence:
And, you know, straight "allies" are convinced all our problems are solved. So, no, not a " non-rivalrous good" that came without costs.
I swapped the convinced and the all in the sentence as I was reading it and read it as
And, you know, straight "allies" are all convinced our problems are solved. So, no, not a " non-rivalrous good" that came without costs.
I agree that we're going to lose people who are fair-weather allies, with no political philosophy grounding their position.
posted by edbles at 2:12 PM on June 27, 2016
I'm not sure what you're trying to pick apart here?
posted by qcubed at 2:13 PM on June 27 [+] [!]
Came back to pull-quote hoylands's sentence as painting with too broad a brush, which rankled because it's my problem with the main article and realized that I misread hoylands sentence:
And, you know, straight "allies" are convinced all our problems are solved. So, no, not a " non-rivalrous good" that came without costs.
I swapped the convinced and the all in the sentence as I was reading it and read it as
And, you know, straight "allies" are all convinced our problems are solved. So, no, not a " non-rivalrous good" that came without costs.
I agree that we're going to lose people who are fair-weather allies, with no political philosophy grounding their position.
posted by edbles at 2:12 PM on June 27, 2016
And we will have to talk to them about all of the other issues on the gay agenda the same way we had to talk to them about marriage equality.
We've talked to them about ENDA for 22 years now. They thought we had all the rights we needed then. They think that even more so now.
posted by blucevalo at 7:05 AM on June 28, 2016
We've talked to them about ENDA for 22 years now. They thought we had all the rights we needed then. They think that even more so now.
posted by blucevalo at 7:05 AM on June 28, 2016
I am Black and straight (and cis). I have spent considerably more time, effort, and dollars supporting marriage equality than I have for Black Lives Matter.
Marriage equality, by the time it bubbled to my radar, was "easy." There was a clearly defined legal right that was being denied to same-sex couples. There were no downsides (or even grey areas) to take into account that weren't based on pure bigotry. Even looking at other civil rights struggles that LGBT people face, it seems like the problems are easier to define: opposition to bathroom bills, fixing how gender is handled WRT ID requirements, including sexual orientation in non-discrimination laws, etc. These are all specific things that I can call my congressman or city councillor about to discuss right this second, and while there are some logistical nits that people might disagree on, non-bigots all agree on the general direction. These are also all things that, incidently, (straight, cis) PoC got in the wake of the civil rights movement of the 1960s.
I don't think that the same thing can be said for the general idea that (lowercase) black lives matter. Yes, PoC are greatly more at risk of violence (from any source) than whites. Yes, PoC are subjected to police scrutiny in racist ways that trickle down through PoC communities and cause untold harm. Etc, etc. But none of these harms has an easy fix, or at least I haven't heard very many easy fixes that I feel that I can support wholeheartedly.
Take BLM SF pulling out of SF Pride because of additional police protection. It's hard for me to reconcile how unbelievably wrong-headed that decision is. Even though I understand the general need for less racism in policing, I also understand that local police forces are the best way of keeping people safe from criminals. I want there to be more police present to protect vulnerable populations, and a BLM organization implying that more protection at a Pride event in 2016 is a bad thing just seems like grandstanding at best.
I have the same concerns about supporting the (upper case) Black Lives Matter organizations in MN. Their goals seem amorphous and reactionary, as opposed to focusing on changes that would actually get things done. For example, in one of the local police-shoot-unarmed-black-man cases (Jamar Clark), BLM Minneapolis (and the NAACP) demanded that a grand jury not make the decision about whether to charge this officers. This made a certain sense to me b/c of racism of grand juries and how easy it was for prosecutors to wash their hands of the deal by letting 'the people' decide. OK. Then after a months long investigation, prosecutors declined to charge the officers and presented an extremely detailed report examining the evidence and explaining the decision. At which point BLM basically resorted to conspiracy theories about video manipulation and evidence tampering.
So yeah, the movements aren't really all that similar right now, but pushing for rights in one area doesn't mean that people don't care about fixing things in others.
posted by sparklemotion at 9:45 AM on June 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
Marriage equality, by the time it bubbled to my radar, was "easy." There was a clearly defined legal right that was being denied to same-sex couples. There were no downsides (or even grey areas) to take into account that weren't based on pure bigotry. Even looking at other civil rights struggles that LGBT people face, it seems like the problems are easier to define: opposition to bathroom bills, fixing how gender is handled WRT ID requirements, including sexual orientation in non-discrimination laws, etc. These are all specific things that I can call my congressman or city councillor about to discuss right this second, and while there are some logistical nits that people might disagree on, non-bigots all agree on the general direction. These are also all things that, incidently, (straight, cis) PoC got in the wake of the civil rights movement of the 1960s.
I don't think that the same thing can be said for the general idea that (lowercase) black lives matter. Yes, PoC are greatly more at risk of violence (from any source) than whites. Yes, PoC are subjected to police scrutiny in racist ways that trickle down through PoC communities and cause untold harm. Etc, etc. But none of these harms has an easy fix, or at least I haven't heard very many easy fixes that I feel that I can support wholeheartedly.
Take BLM SF pulling out of SF Pride because of additional police protection. It's hard for me to reconcile how unbelievably wrong-headed that decision is. Even though I understand the general need for less racism in policing, I also understand that local police forces are the best way of keeping people safe from criminals. I want there to be more police present to protect vulnerable populations, and a BLM organization implying that more protection at a Pride event in 2016 is a bad thing just seems like grandstanding at best.
I have the same concerns about supporting the (upper case) Black Lives Matter organizations in MN. Their goals seem amorphous and reactionary, as opposed to focusing on changes that would actually get things done. For example, in one of the local police-shoot-unarmed-black-man cases (Jamar Clark), BLM Minneapolis (and the NAACP) demanded that a grand jury not make the decision about whether to charge this officers. This made a certain sense to me b/c of racism of grand juries and how easy it was for prosecutors to wash their hands of the deal by letting 'the people' decide. OK. Then after a months long investigation, prosecutors declined to charge the officers and presented an extremely detailed report examining the evidence and explaining the decision. At which point BLM basically resorted to conspiracy theories about video manipulation and evidence tampering.
So yeah, the movements aren't really all that similar right now, but pushing for rights in one area doesn't mean that people don't care about fixing things in others.
posted by sparklemotion at 9:45 AM on June 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
> I want there to be more police present to protect vulnerable populations, and a BLM organization implying that more protection at a Pride event in 2016 is a bad thing just seems like grandstanding at best.
It was local BLM activists, and local trans activists here at SF Pride. The most vulnerable populations here (not unusually) are MOST vulnerable to violence from police. This did not come from Randos From Outside; the withdrawal was from people who live here.
posted by rtha at 11:00 AM on June 28, 2016 [2 favorites]
It was local BLM activists, and local trans activists here at SF Pride. The most vulnerable populations here (not unusually) are MOST vulnerable to violence from police. This did not come from Randos From Outside; the withdrawal was from people who live here.
posted by rtha at 11:00 AM on June 28, 2016 [2 favorites]
It was local BLM activists, and local trans activists here at SF Pride. The most vulnerable populations here (not unusually) are MOST vulnerable to violence from police. This did not come from Randos From Outside; the withdrawal was from people who live here.
Yes, but the move also says that they would rather everyone else be less safe in order for them to feel more safe. Which is a perfectly reasonable stance when you are always the person who is the least safe, but not actually, you know, a solution to either problem (civilian violence against LGBT people, or police violence against PoC and trans people).
Which speaks to my point -- the wider fight for the lives of people of color is just harder than the marriage equality fight. That doesn't mean that the right answer is to throw one's hands up in despair about how nothing will work, but it does mean that it takes a more thoughtful approach to get meaningful results.
posted by sparklemotion at 11:16 AM on June 28, 2016
Yes, but the move also says that they would rather everyone else be less safe in order for them to feel more safe. Which is a perfectly reasonable stance when you are always the person who is the least safe, but not actually, you know, a solution to either problem (civilian violence against LGBT people, or police violence against PoC and trans people).
Which speaks to my point -- the wider fight for the lives of people of color is just harder than the marriage equality fight. That doesn't mean that the right answer is to throw one's hands up in despair about how nothing will work, but it does mean that it takes a more thoughtful approach to get meaningful results.
posted by sparklemotion at 11:16 AM on June 28, 2016
> but the move also says that they would rather everyone else be less safe in order for them to feel more safe
This is incorrect. The grand marshals who withdrew did not demand that anyone else do so, and did not demand that there be less of a police presence. They just announced that they were withdrawing and why.
posted by rtha at 11:53 AM on June 28, 2016 [3 favorites]
This is incorrect. The grand marshals who withdrew did not demand that anyone else do so, and did not demand that there be less of a police presence. They just announced that they were withdrawing and why.
posted by rtha at 11:53 AM on June 28, 2016 [3 favorites]
I also took the withdrawal not as saying they wanted everyone else to be less safe, but really making the point that safer for some would be less safe for others. "The toad beneath the harrow knows". Or, to be formal, Rawls' difference principle: inequalities in the organization of society are only justified while they make the worst-off better off.
posted by clew at 12:01 PM on June 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by clew at 12:01 PM on June 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
The fact that this derail continues just further goes to prove my point. Which is that even when everyone has the same end goal in mind (e.g. have a Pride event in which all marginalized people can feel included and safe), reasonable people can disagree about how to get there. And the choices that some reasonable people make act against the interests of other reasonable people even though that was never the intention of the first group.
Which is why marriage equality and blm are trying to do fundamentally different things, with unsurprisingly different results.
posted by sparklemotion at 12:29 PM on June 28, 2016
Which is why marriage equality and blm are trying to do fundamentally different things, with unsurprisingly different results.
posted by sparklemotion at 12:29 PM on June 28, 2016
Marriage equality, by the time it bubbled to my radar, was "easy." There was a clearly defined legal right that was being denied to same-sex couples.
The whole 'police murdering unarmed brown people' seems pretty 'easy' by that standard. There is a clearly defined legal right - to not be summarily executed in the street - that is being denied to PoC.
The fact is, neither one is 'easy'. Simple =/= easy in politics. Or it would haven't taken decades to achieve marriage equality.
And the choices that some reasonable people make act against the interests of other reasonable people even though that was never the intention of the first group.
BLM has not acted against anyone's interests by choosing not to participate, as rtha notes.
The fact that this derail continues just further goes to prove my point.
It's worth pointing out that you started this line of conversation.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 7:52 PM on June 28, 2016 [4 favorites]
The whole 'police murdering unarmed brown people' seems pretty 'easy' by that standard. There is a clearly defined legal right - to not be summarily executed in the street - that is being denied to PoC.
The fact is, neither one is 'easy'. Simple =/= easy in politics. Or it would haven't taken decades to achieve marriage equality.
And the choices that some reasonable people make act against the interests of other reasonable people even though that was never the intention of the first group.
BLM has not acted against anyone's interests by choosing not to participate, as rtha notes.
The fact that this derail continues just further goes to prove my point.
It's worth pointing out that you started this line of conversation.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 7:52 PM on June 28, 2016 [4 favorites]
The whole 'police murdering unarmed brown people' seems pretty 'easy' by that standard.
Just because it can be stated succinctly doesn't mean it can be as easily accomplished, though. As we're seeing here, a positive right (the right to get legally married, which in the end just requires the state to issue someone a license) and a negative right (the right not to be subjected to police violence, which requires ongoing vigilance of police and judicial activity and other interventions at the local and national level) require different types of implementation, even though both are legally recognized. BLM is absolutely in the right, but they (and we) have a huge task ahead.
posted by psoas at 10:12 AM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
Just because it can be stated succinctly doesn't mean it can be as easily accomplished, though. As we're seeing here, a positive right (the right to get legally married, which in the end just requires the state to issue someone a license) and a negative right (the right not to be subjected to police violence, which requires ongoing vigilance of police and judicial activity and other interventions at the local and national level) require different types of implementation, even though both are legally recognized. BLM is absolutely in the right, but they (and we) have a huge task ahead.
posted by psoas at 10:12 AM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
A few weeks ago, the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs released their Report on LGBTQ and HIV-Affected Hate Crimes in 2015 (PDF). The report found that POC, trans people, and gender-nonconforming people are disproportionately affected by violent hate crimes. Less than half of survivors reported to the police. Of those who did, 80% found the police indifferent or hostile. Negative encounters with police included verbal abuse, use of slurs, physical violence, and sexual assault.
So I think BLM and other groups have a point that until we deal with the racial and heterosexist biases within police forces, a greater police presence doesn't actually make us safer. Or it might during the few days of the year that Pride is a big tourist event for the city, but not when we're facing violence in streets, homes, and workplaces.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 3:45 PM on June 29, 2016 [2 favorites]
So I think BLM and other groups have a point that until we deal with the racial and heterosexist biases within police forces, a greater police presence doesn't actually make us safer. Or it might during the few days of the year that Pride is a big tourist event for the city, but not when we're facing violence in streets, homes, and workplaces.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 3:45 PM on June 29, 2016 [2 favorites]
How the United States' First LGBT National Memorial Gets It Wrong
On June 24, President Obama announced that a 49-year-old gay bar, the Stonewall Inn in New York City, would become "the first national monument to tell the story of the struggle for LGBT rights." The news came at an awkward time for LGBTQ communities, which for years have been wracked by painful political differences.posted by lazuli at 1:48 PM on July 4, 2016
Some gay rights activists celebrated the presidential acknowledgements, as well as the rainbow-emblazoned police SUVs that joined Pride parades this year in cities across the country. Others viewed these elements as contradictory and even harmful, given the ongoing targeting of LGBTQ people -- especially those who are low-income or the "wrong" color -- by the police. (In the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs' latest annual report, from 2015, surveying victims of anti-LGBT hate violence who called the police, 80 percent said police were indifferent or hostile.) Meanwhile, queer and trans people of color are taking to the streets, protesting issues like deportations, the whitewashing of Orlando's Pulse Nightclub massacre, and ongoing murders of trans women of color. This fragmentation within queer activism is increasingly apparent, even to those not under the LGBTQ umbrella.
« Older Tweedy live in Melbourne | WITH VOLUMETRIC GOD RAYS!! Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Happy Charles Stephens gets a shout out, though.
posted by gingerbeer at 8:14 AM on June 26, 2016 [13 favorites]