The mistakes that we as straights are making

[Two Americas]

Posts asking people to let go of the Warren issue have not gone over well here, and people are still expressing surprise about that. This then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy – the more people are told to get over it, the less willing people are to let go of it, which leads to more calls for getting over it and more resistance and then a barrage of blame directed as those who will not get over it. But this is not merely about the Warren debates, as this debate is analogous to every discussion we have here on every issue.

There are some fundamental flaws in the arguments people are using on this subject, in my opinion. I am going to be somewhat confrontational here, but my bark is worse than my bite and I hope that straights will give my arguments thoughtful consideration and that this will lead to a productive discussion and better understanding.

Many are seeking some compromise position, and then feeling under assault when those “reasonable” compromises are rejected. I think that it is very rare that anyone actually gets called a “bigot” here, but many feel that others are implying that they are bigots, and then resent that and become angry or frustrated. I know that for myself, I was resistant to any implication that I was a bigot – that made me very uncomfortable because or challenged my self image – but that was not because anyone was attacking me, it was because of my own unwillingness to be honest with myself about this issue.

We need to be careful here. Are we giving our self image as a certain kind of person who supports a certain cause more importance than the cause itself? How can the victims of the injustice be seen as interfering with our position on the injustice? What does that tell us about our position, our thinking? We are sliding into confusion, we are being asked to see the perpetrators as victims, and the victims as perpetrators. The right wing propagandists are masters at this - “how dare you call me a racist?” can be used with success to shut down any and all discussions about racism. It is impossible to talk about racism if you cannot mention it without being accused of accusing someone of “being a racist” - as though calling people on racism were the perpetration rather than racism itself. This is highly suppressive to freedom of speech, and promotes the premises and assumptions upon which the justifications and defenses for racism all rest. Yet we have a lot of these “accusing of accusing” arguments - and the idea that labeling is the greater offense than, or at least equally important to, the injustice and inequality that is the main issue – being used right here on the Warren issue.

When a person says that I am making a bigoted argument, I could say “I don't think I am, and here is why, and then you tell me” or I could say “you know, I think you are right and I appreciate you pointing that out to me.” But if I say “how dare you call me a bigot” and then accuse the person of labeling me, of persecuting me, of attacking me, of abusing me... that strongly suggests that I know that the person is right, but that I am refusing to acknowledge that and that I am making them a target for emotions that come from an internal conflict or contradiction.

The "how about this compromise, folks?" arguments are always inherently reactionary in practical political effect, for reasons I will go into and which are not specific to this issue. I think it is important to ask ourselves - especially as straights - why do we feel so compelled, why are we so motivated to come up with these arguments? I ask this as a person who was doing that before the Warren controversy. I know that I wanted to skip over that question, and was resistant to considering it. "Question MY motives will you? Why, I am 'good' on this issue - really I am - and how dare you say otherwise?"

The compromise arguments are based on some sort of "king for a day" assumption, as though the challenge we are facing were to come up with the perfect theoretical solution, as though any one of us had the power to decree something into law. That sabotages political activism. The debate here is about what we should be advocating, not what we would enact into law were we "king for a day" and in a position to do so. People with academic backgrounds are especially susceptible to thinking this way, and approach the issue as though it were an amusing exercise in exploring hypothetical and theoretical "solutions." In politics in the real world, there are no grades or degrees awarded for coming up with the perfect academic solution. That is a place for us to hide, to make the issue impersonal and less threatening. We place reality – reality is called “field work” in academic circles - over there, in a neat little box , we think or hope, by merely saying "here is my position on the issue, now let's look for a solution" as though we were neutral observers rather than participants in the political struggle.

The discussion in regard to the Warren issue – and many other issues - is about what we should be advocating, not what we should be coming up with as a clever, impersonal, detached, lifeless academic "solution." We advocate for what is right, for what is true, we should never see what is right and what is true as merely variables to manipulate in order to develop some hypothetical micro-managed grand plan. The very fact that those arguments are clever, impersonal, detached, lifeless and academic is cause for rejecting them. The "I am on your side" protestations don't change that. We stand up and we speak out – there is no substitute for that. Let the politicians do the horse trading and compromising. That is not our job.

The "here is my brilliant solution" line of reasoning is condescending and paternalistic. It establishes a hierarchy covertly at the outset of the discussion that places the speaker, as the technician and analyst, as the wise and presumably cool and dispassionate observer, in a superior position to those who are directly impacted and who are suffering. It makes this "their" problem, that “we” are going to solve for them, since they obviously do not know what they are doing.

Next, the gradualism arguments, so popular on this and on other issues, are flawed. The idea is that if we go slowly - take baby steps, give some politician a chance, be patient - it will be more productive than some imaginary dangerous alternative - going fast, I guess. But gradualism causes more resistance, not less, and gives a convenient place for outright enemies to lurk and engage in rear guard reactionary opposition. It may be true that things take time, but we should never be advocating going slowly. Discouraging urgency, seeing urgency as counter-productive, is arguing against progress, and it also trivializes the point of view of those directly harmed.

Personalizing issues of social justice are always reactionary as well - “sure that is what YOU want, but it is not all about you!” The fact that the person arguing for social justice happens to themselves be a direct victim of the injustice being discussed does not invalidate their argument. These “your cause” arguments covertly deny and undermine the validity of the issue, because it cannot be a matter of social justice and equality after it has been reduced to merely what one individual “wants.” The heart and soul of the political Left, and the very nature of the concepts of justice and equality are that the causes are not merely personal. The right wing propagandists have worked hard at this, convincing people that we are all selfish and that there is nothing higher or more important than selfishness. We should not reinforce and promote that idea.

Then we have the fear of right wing backlash, or fundy resistance, and clever arguments as to how to trick them or get around them. This is particularly reactionary because it grants so much power to the right wing. The key thing to understand about the political right wing and the religious right is that the leaders are lying to the followers, deceiving and manipulating them. If we see the right as a bloc, that we must accept the reality that there are millions of followers of the religious right who all think the same and are no different than the leaders, and whom we must take seriously at face value, we have precluded any chance of talking about the lies and the deception, and we have granted legitimacy to the religious right political movement. We should be aggressively confronting the lies, not compromising with the leaders who are doing the lying. We do that by standing up and speaking out against injustice, not by pandering and compromising and reaching out to the leadership of the right wing.

The leaders of the religious right want us to believe that they have millions solidly behind them, that they speak for millions, but that is a lie and we should not accept it as true. We need to peel away their supporters, and we do that by standing up and speaking out. The followers have been manipulated and tricked into supporting the right wing program, they do not “believe” in it and we are under no obligation to respect those “beliefs.” They are not beliefs, they are fears and prejudices.

Then, anyone who has ever been in a bazaar in the Middle East knows that you never start with the price you would settle for, and you are not obligated to give the seller's initial offer any consideration. Too many here want to start with a compromise, begin the negotiations upon some imaginary “middle” ground. This has the effect of continually shifting the political context to the right, since we wind up halfway between our compromise position and their hard and fast extreme position.

Lastly, it is not possible to support the GLBTQ community and at the same time object to who they are, how they are expressing themselves, what they think, and what they feel. The people suffering are the authorities on what they are thinking and feeling, and denying their authority on that is denying their existence in a surreptitious and hypocritical way. "Look guys, I support you, but could you not be so, you know, so gay (angry, aggressive, confrontational, upset, radical, impatient, outspoken) because while I am OK with that - really I am - I am afraid that you will lose support for 'your' cause."

Supporting the cause of GLBTQ equality means supporting who people are, the way that they are, how they feel, what they are thinking, what they have to say, and the way they are saying it - without qualifications.

We cannot know exactly what all of the consequences, implications, or ramifications will be when we tale a stand and speak out clearly and unambiguously and without qualification, and we should not try to control the discussion for fear of certain negative results that we can imagine.

What we can know is this – if we do not take a stand and speak out things will never change and that if we do not take a stand and speak out on this, we become weaker and less likely to take a stand or speak out on any issue. We can also know that if we do take a stand and speak out, that things will eventually change.

[LostinVA]

1. You should try to get this published as an OP -- k&r

[Bucky]

2. Seriously, type this up and submit it as an Op-Ed to your local paper.

There's no such thing as gay rights. We're arguing about civil rights. I really admire the way you make that case.

[Bjorn Against]

3. Another great post Two Americas, once again you hit the nail on the head.

[readmoreoften]

4. Hopefully, people will have enough self-honesty to read your post and take it to heart.

If it doesn't apply, let it fly. If it does, you've got some work to do. That's okay. We ALL have 'work to do.' LGBT people in general are eternally patient with those who struggle to understand. We've grown up and loved many people who have a hard time 'getting it.' But its the willful ignorance and the reactionary rage that frightens us. That's indicative of a hardening political position against us. We have a lot of experience with that as well.

It really makes us depressed to see posts like you described with over 100 recs. It's a frightening reminder.

Thanks for a great post. You have amazing patience, my friend.

[Two Americas]

9. thanks

I wish we could generate a little more discussion on this.

I don't like letting the idea stand unchallenged that it is those talking about the Warren selection who are out of line and causing trouble, while those saying "get over it" are the "calm" and "rationale" voices who are the peacemakers. Peace that comes at the expense of isolating, marginalizing and dismissing GLBTQ people is not something we should seek or accept.

This challenge is parallel to the challenge we face on all of the issues. We are being told that there would be peace, and no partisan divide if only the annoying Left would just go away or shut up. Of course there will be peace if one side simply surrenders or disappears. But that is no sort of peace that we should be supporting or promoting.

[yowzayowzayowza]

18. Ok, you asked for it....

One more time, as I'm 'bout fed up with this issue.

"Lastly, it is not possible to support the GLBTQ community and at the same time object to who they are, how they are expressing themselves, what they think, and what they feel."

Tho true on a personal level, as a political matter "how they are expressing themselves" is of import. During the 1968 Memphis Sanitation Workers' Strike protesters would certainly have been justified in "expressing themselves" by calling the city management bigots and werce, but that may very well have resulted in whole groves of Strange Fruit. Their selected slogan, "I AM A MAN", accomplished two things. Firstly it positively affirmed their position, thus effectively avoiding shutting down the discourse. Secondly, and equally as important, it affirmed the dignity of all mankind in a manner that reached far beyond Beale Street. Unlike yer Bazaar scenario, politics is not a zero-sum game. "Isolating, marginalizing and dismissing GLBTQ people" is of no interest to me, however sharpening the tactics originating on the left most certainly is. (IMHO, the most advantageous political expression is rarely the naked truth, but rather a positive affirmation of a shared principle. Going negative or denying speech by your adversary shuts down communication; failing to connect to common values dilutes effectiveness.)

"Gradualism" is the way things get done. Sure matters lurch forward from time to time, but generally do so consolidating a whole lotta hard gradual work. Actually itz werce than that, as the next generation, after drooling and defecating on themselves for a half decade er so, will be subject to the same currents of racism and bigotry as those we now fight. Force of neither bullets nor law can change menz hearts, a fact to which postbellum blacks and James Bird would surely attest. Life izza journey, not a destination. IMHO, the oft cited Gandhi quote:

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

...is describing a successful battle, not the whole war as "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance." The sooner you adjust your political communication mode, the sooner progress can occur. Wordz matter.

2 cents thatz got squat to do with my preferred method of genital deployment.

[Two Americas]

59. your points are well taken

I agree with you that "going negative or denying speech by your adversary shuts down communication; failing to connect to common values dilutes effectiveness."

I agree with you about the importance of hard work in the trenches, and the need for sharpening tactics, and that words matter.

Thanks.

[defendandprotect]

150. Again, I only see you emphasising that . . .

the GLTB community has gotten their response wrong ---

Again, this is about women, it's about gay marriage and equal justice for all,
it's about organized patriarchal religions, it's about right-wing fanatics and
those who are supporting their beliefs, it's about those who support Separation
of Church & State and NO prayer at public events --- especially government run
events. It's also about not going backwards. Do we fail to see that if attacking
homosexuals on the highest level in association with government can be pulled off
that it wouldn't be long before there would be new racist attacks, new sexist
attacks -- a new avenue to destroy reproductive freedom?

And it should also be about people who understand all of those battles for justice
and join the fight every day.

"Gradualism" is the way things get done. Sure matters lurch forward from time to time, but generally do so consolidating a whole lotta hard gradual work. Actually itz werce than that, as the next generation, after drooling and defecating on themselves for a half decade er so, will be subject to the same currents of racism and bigotry as those we now fight. Force of neither bullets nor law can change menz hearts, a fact to which postbellum blacks and James Bird would surely attest. Life izza journey, not a destination.

I think you may be missing your own point ....

James Byrd, Jr. was killed 40 plus years after the Civil Rights struggles to end
Segregation -- where the threat of lynching, beatings, loss of employment, no right
to vote were all common. I'd say that's even less than "gradualism" - that's
going backwards.

Those who killed James Byrd were brought to justice. And that is quite different
from what happened during the Civil Rights Era.

Racism is propaganda . . . no different from that inflicted upon women or Jews or
homosexuals. It's an effort by elites to hide their exploitation of human beings
and it is cleverely disguised as the "inferiority" of those they exploit.

Progress has been gradual perhaps because too many of us have failed to support
justice . . . ?

[yowzayowzayowza]

154. Yes and no.

Again, I only see you emphasising that . . . the GLTB community has gotten their response wrong

Personally, no; politically, yes.

Do we fail to see that if attacking homosexuals on the highest level in association with government can be pulled off that it wouldn't be long before there would be new racist attacks, new sexist attacks -- a new avenue to destroy reproductive freedom?

Warrenz R/W inauguration prayer is going to do no more harm to the progress of your rights that those in 2005, 2001, 1997, 1993, etc. IMHO, you should have more confidence in your righteous stand and deal from a position of certitude rather than fear. Your apoplectic attitude is self defeating in that it limits your ability to envision responses more advantageous to your ends.

I'm sorry, but your James Byrd comment eludes me as you first state "that's going backwards" then assert "that is quite different from what happened during the Civil Rights Era." Which is it? :shrug:

[defendandprotect]

155. First, politics is personal . . .

Second, the WARREN event is not simply about the GLBT community --

it is about all of us.


Do we fail to see that if attacking homosexuals on the highest level in association with government can be pulled off that it wouldn't be long before there would be new racist attacks, new sexist attacks -- a new avenue to destroy reproductive freedom?

R/W inauguration prayers in 2005, 2001, 1997, 1993, etc. did not hinder the progress of your rights any more than this one will. IMHO, you should have more confidence in your righteous stand and deal from a position of certitude rather than fear. Your apoplectic attitude is self defeating in that it limits your ability to envision responses more advantageous to your ends.

What an outrageous thing to say! I'm a female and the support for organized patriarchal
religions certainly does "hinder" equality for females. It has also led to people like
HRC suggesting the left should look for "compromise" on abortion. Presumably it has
also encouraged thinking by politicians that they could successfully move our tax
dollars into the pockets of churches! Again, prayer at government run events does
violation to Separation of Church & State.

And, further, since it is organized patriarchal religion which has long preached
homosexuality as an "abomination," then, I would say giving "prayer and preachers"
a seat of honor at Inaugurations helps the offender and harms the victims.

Needless to say you also seem to not understand the importance of Separation of
Church & State to democracy. The right to freedom of thought and personal conscience
is protected by Separation of Church & State -- without which there is no democracy.

I'm sorry, but your James Byrd comment eludes me as you first state "that's going backwards" then assert "that is quite different from what happened during the Civil Rights Era." Which is it?

Murder is going backwards ---

Murderers brought to justice is progress ---

In other words, progress is still too "gradual."

[yowzayowzayowza]

156. On your conclusion on gradualism and general principles we are in agreement.

On the nature of an advantageous response to this situation, we differ. As with the cited Memphis Sanitation Workers, a just personal response may not be the most useful political one.

Happy New Year!!!

:hi:

eta: Sorry 'bout the edit in my last reply. I'z jus tryin to make it a lil more clear.

[defendandprotect]

157. Again, the response to Warren came from the world at large . . .

and not simply from the GLBT community ---

We have all responded against this selection in different ways, but
overall negatively.

And many other issues you don't seem able to acknowledge, as yet -- ?

Also, I think the homosexual community -- like women for equality --
have handled their own battle for equality as they have seen fit.
Indeed, I think they've done an excellent job of it all considering
where the began -- Stonewall Tavern -- and a situation of total
intimidation, by police and society and pushed by patriarchy/religions.

Therefore, I have every confidence that their responses will always be
as on target and as true.

Happy 2009 -- !!

[Name removed]

42. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ColbertWatcher]

86. Okay, I'll bite ...

those saying "get over it" are the "calm" and "rationale" voices who are the peacemakers.

It's almost like those people who say "get over it" are encouraging everyone to become passive. I count myself as one of the people who are disappointed by the Warren selection and hope a change will occur before January 20th and I don't intend to become passive. Not now. Not when we still have so much work to do.

We can't allow ourselves to become passive after spending 27 years having to choose between rights and security. Now is the time to fix all the messes the GOP have hidden in out government.

That includes all their little "wars against" everything from education and journalism to the judicial system and respect for people.

I'm not about to "get over" another GOP-instigated assault.

And I'm not going to stop fighting until we get this country back on track.

[Two Americas]

93. that is a great point

"Encouraging everyone to become passive" - yes.

There must be some fears there - fear of backlash, fear of losing control, fear of being ostracized socially, fear of losing what we think we have when we reach for what we do not have. Those fears can be presented as "realistic" and "practical" and can gain credibility with the listeners who are looking for a way out. The fears are not unfounded, and we shouldn't mock and ridicule those who express them. However, the question is this - do we cave in to fear, or do we go ahead in spite of our fears?

[ColbertWatcher]

124. "do we cave in to fear, or do we go ahead in spite of our fears?"

Do we become paralyzed by our fear or have we become conditioned to be passive when it comes to our rights?

That is the choice we are being presented by the GOP-controlled media.

According to them, the word "activism" has become a bad word (eg: "activist judges") and we've accepted it, maybe even unconsciously. Even though I basically agree with the fear angle, I wonder if there isn't more to the idea that we've been gradually dissuaded from participating in our rights?

[CTyankee]

173. But, is everyone being accused of saying "get over it" really saying that?

Nobody should ever have stopped working on behalf of gay rights because gay rights are truly inextricable from the rights of anyone. Telling people who are not bigots that they are will only get you so far, tho. There must be persuasion. "I believe in this and you should too. And here's why" is a powerful way to lead others. Some are unable to be led at this time but, unless they are trolls, they are not on DU. They are not on the receiving end of the blast here.

I have said it and said it and said it. You live your life the way you believe in your daily interactions with your friends, neighbors, coworkers, etc. You are a powerful ally and you can persuade. You offer rational arguments. If they walk away, they walk away. You have not lost anything and you might just get them to thinking.

This isn't about gradualism, it's about action but it is about action that is truly "activist." I saw this 35 years ago in the anti war movement. I belonged to the ecumenical wing of that movement and I think we were highly successful. Ask Bill Ayers what he thinks now about his brand of "activism". He has said it was wrong and it didn't work. Learn from that.

We need tow ork harder AND smarter...

[Zenlitened]

5. A truly terrific post!

K&R! :applause:

[maryf]

6. Two Americas

Please save this, this needs to be shared outside of DU...great! k&r of course...

[NashVegas]

7. What a Breath of Fresh Air!

Recommended.

[Zuiderelle]

8. I don't think I've read a better argument for gay marriage anywhere, ever.

Kicked and joyfully recommended.

Thanks for posting this.

[Two Americas]

11. hey thanks PelosiFan

Thanks for the kind words.

I wish we could get more attention and that more straights would discuss this calmly and intelligently. Post "get over it!" and dozens and dozens of people quickly join in. try to talk about it calmly and in depth, and people avoid it like the plague. That has to be fear, eh? And fear is what we need to talk about.

Maybe I need better titles, like "Does Warren Smoke?" or "What Should Blagoyevich Name his Dog?"

[CTyankee]

170. Actually, there is a problem with the accusation of "get over it" where it should NOT be applied.

I have posted here at DU in several threads about the need for MORE action by straights on this issue, not less. As opposed to endless wrangling on DU with accusations of bigotry flying. THAT is not activism.

What do I mean when I say straights who support gay marriage equality should be doing more? I mean talking about it with your other straight friends who may be uneducated on the issue, who need information and rational thinking to be applied to their own thinking. I mean bringing the subject up yourself! Here in CT for instance I say "Isn't it wonderful that that horrible ballot question on holding a constitutional convention got voted down!" Many straights might not even know that the cc question was just a ruse to 1)overrule the great decision by our state supreme court allowing gays to marry, the strongest one in the U.S., 2) adding more restrictions on a women's right to choose and 3) restricting union members rights. People don't know!

I opposed Warren being given that forum at the Inaugural but I gave Obama the benefit of doubt because I don't think Obama is a bigot against gay people. I simply don't believe it. He may, or may not, have made the wrong decision in this case and that will remain to be seen. Voices were raised against the choice and that was and is a good and necessary thing.

But the venting here has turned into bloodletting and that isn't very healthy. There is work to be done at every level of government, and within every community where injustice is found. We can find that injustice and do our part to work against it. Let's not attack our true allies on DU (I am not talking about trolls here, BTW).

[Two Americas]

174. I agree

"...straights who support gay marriage equality should be doing more - talking about it with your other straight friends...bringing the subject up yourself..."

Well said.

[CTyankee]

182. Thanks. You know, it works more than it doesn't, at least I've found it to be the case.

Of course, I live in liberal CT so it's easy for me to say. But the thing is, if you personally attest to something and these people know you and like you, you have a better chance of convincing them -- or even just getting them to THINK about it -- than if you just yell at them and call them a bigot. Those who truly can't be turned around you walk away from. Butyou always try...

[sundog]

10. great read

one thing that gets me upset is that fellow liberals feel so insecure in our democratic victory that they fear the glbt voice will somehow "rock the boat"

we all worked hard for this victory, but presidential victory is not enough

we have to keep moving forward

i don't think the religious right should be viewed at some sort of impenetrable monolith that can never be moved or changed or conquered

where there is rock, water will find a way

[Two Americas]

14. here is what is odd

The right wingers went all out to paint Obama as "far left" and "socialist" and "ultra-liberal." I see no reason to believe that they were any less successful at that then they have been in the past. But that didn't stop people from voting Democratic this time. They voted for "far left," and conversations that I had with hundreds of rural voters before the election support that. Until this election, I had rarely heard people say "we need another New Deal" and I heard it everywhere this past Fall, dozens of times every day. When people who had always been republican voters told me they were going to vote for Obama, I would jokingly say "but, but but he's a socialist!" The response was often a dead serious "well that may be just what we need now." I have been around white rural voters for decades, all over the country, and never heard things like that before. There is a massive shift happening out there, and a contingent within the activist community seems to be the last people in the country to get the message.

The people rejected Reaganomics, they rejected "free markets" and "trickle down," they rejected the bigotry of the religious right. Yet to hear people here advocating for some cautious "middle" or "center" program, you would think that it was the political Left that has been repudiated and rejected. You would think that the religious right had been vindicated and endorsed.

[bread_and_roses]

21. exactly. another K&R here (n/t)

[AntiFascist]

117. Precisely !

I see Obama's kowtowing to the Religious Right as nothing more than damage control for the small portion of America which actually believed the bullshit they were being fed by McCain, Palin, and the right-wing blowhards. Republicans are masters at swinging the pendulum so far to the right that the best we can hope for, in being inclusive, is to bring it back to center-right.

[PeaceNikki]

12. Beautiful.

Thank you.

[leftstreet]

13. K&R 1,000 times

Very nicely done!

I am so tired of giving legitimacy to lies and deception - and calling it 'democracy.'

[Muttocracy]

15. very thought-provoking, about how people frame arguments themselves. excellent. nt

[EFerrari]

16. Well done.

K&R

[AntiFascist]

17. K&R, excellent post!

I'm all for reaching out to the Religious Right following and exposing their leaders for what they are (which often involves profiting off of homophobia). I agree that compromising with that leadership is a different matter.

[Norrin Radd]

19. This is merely the beginning, of being told to let go of issues.

[EstimatedProphet]

20. K&R - you mentioned the point that too many miss

Namely: who has a right to tell other people that what they feel is appropriate? People have hurt feelings here, and it is the height of arrogance to tell them it isn't supposed to matter.

[rhett o rick]

41. I agree with you. This is an important point. Why should anyone tell someone else to calm down?

How arrogant to tell someone to calm down or "get over yourself". If someone is upset, let them be. You certainly don't have to dialog with them. It's your choice. I think some people in here go around with a chip on their shoulder looking for a reason to argue.

But I need to watch it myself. Just the other day someone was "insulted" by something I thought very trivial. I started to tell them how childish it was to be insulted so easily. I caught myself. People like that should either be helped (maybe by explaining the issue better) or ignored, if they are looking to fight.

There is no charge for the above bs, it is free and worth every penny.

[NJmaverick]

22. You want to know the REAL mistake YOU are making

It's refering to DUers as "straight". Enough with the damn divisions all ready. The sexual orientation, preference or identification of a DU is unimportant. It's far more destructive to DU and the nation that 10 George Bushes.:eyes:

[crispini]

24. LOL. That's all you got?

the most thoughtful, best-written OP I've read yet on the subject and THAT's your response? Funny.

[NJmaverick]

25. You can't build on a foundation of quicksand

this simple, but very powerful, concept eludes you:eyes:

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[crispini]

40. It's idealism. I live in the real world.

Feel free to preach the gospel of "all-one" and other such hippy-dippy stuff. It's a great idea. But the real world does not so readily recognize the lack of divisions you preach. Tell your gospel to the people who were beat up because they were gay. They're not going to have much belief in your calls for unity.

[NJmaverick]

48. We live in a real world, but we should be guided by ideals

things only get better when people strive toward ideals. They only get worse if they decide they "live in a real world" and don't bother with ideals.

It's ironic that you speak of the evils commited as the result of labels, while then turning around and supporting the concept.

[crispini]

58. I'm not advocating labels.

I'm saying that they are part of the world.

An intelligent person reflects, not only on the ways that we are similar, but also on the ways that we are different, and learns from those differences.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[asthmaticeog]

30. Nomads by definition don't have a place of their own to shit.

;)

[sundog]

31. ha!

:D

[PeaceNikki]

35. So.... they just shit any and everywhere, huh?

[asthmaticeog]

38. Evidently.

Sometimes they think they're shitting rainbows. But they're totally not. It's just stinky ol' loose stools.

[NJmaverick]

108. You want to see shitting by people thinking they are shitting rainbows

go over to the thread on labels. You will see a handful of people, and their sock puppets doing their damnedest to shit on thread. Why is it that the people who whine about their own feelings being hurt are always the same one that go out of their way to try and hurt the feelings of others?

[Zenlitened]

119. This seems like a bit of Rovian projection on your part, no?

As I scan the thread, it seems to me that your response to anyone offering an alternative point of view has been simply to tell them they are wrong, wrong, wrong.

And when they persisted, you pulled out all sorts of rhetorical tricks, projections, obfuscation and outright insults in an effort to shut them down.

Which makes your repeated accusations of "intellectual dishonesty" particularly hilarious.

And by "hilarious" I mean "nauseating."

:hi:

[NJmaverick]

131. You see what you want to see, rather than what is

Since you can't see it, I will describe it to you. You had a handful of people, and their sock puppets, totally shut down a thread, by flaming it. Many of the more foul posts were deleted. Still I find it ironic that the people crying claiming they are being told to "STFU" are the same ones guilty of stealing other DUers right to free speech. Then again these are the same people who whine about how their feelings are hurt, while also being the worst people when it comes to trying to hurt the feelings of others. In time I hope the moderators will take the steps to improve DU, by removing most of the people guilty of these disruptive tactics.

I look at it this way, people can be judged equally well by their friends as their enemies. With the list of people who consider me their enemy, I am in line for Saint hood.

You know I noticed your post is long on generalities but very short on specifics. I guess that's what happens when you are spinning fictional tales, the details tend to be lacking.

Have a Happy New Year my fellow DUer :toast:

[Zenlitened]

160. Projection. See also...

... jaw-dropping, eye-popping irony. :wow:

Hope you have a better 2009 on DU. Your recent performances have generated escalating levels of acrimony, as evidenced on the now-locked you reference.

You might ponder why so many DUers felt free to deliberately turn it into an over-the-top delete-fest. It's not for the reasons you apparently think.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

45. We should call him Johnny Crappleseed.

[asthmaticeog]

51. !!!

:rofl:

:thumbsup:

[Lorien]

98. ....

:spray:

[NJmaverick]

106. Yeah you should go visit that thread

It shows how those that scream the loudest about their feelings are also the ones that go out of their way to hurt the feelings of others. Shows the fundemenatal hypocrisy and dishonesty of their position.

Oh and don't waste your time responding, as you are heading to my ignore list.

[EstimatedProphet]

37. That's truly one of the most idiotic responses I have ever seen on DU

That ranks up there with attacking an essay as being worthless because someone misspelled a name, or got a date wrong, even though every other point is valid, and then calling the poster a complete idiot and claiming every point made is invalid. It shows total misunderstanding of the entire situation on your part. Your response says far more about you than it does about the OP. I'm surprised you haven't left DU in embarrassment.

I looked over this thread, and saw one of The Ignored with a bunch of juicy slam responses. I knew I would have to undo my ignore list for this one. My choice didn't disappoint in its ability to disappoint.

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bullwinkle428]

46. We're a happy family, we're a happy family,

we're a happy family, we're a happy family!



:eyes:

[Two Americas]

57. thanks

I appreciate you reading the OP, contributing to the discussion, and kicking the thread.

I used the word "straight" to describe myself, I am not attacking some group to which I don't belong. I am describing a division that already exists, not trying to create one.

I agree with you that the sexual orientation, preference or identification of people should not be unimportant. That is my main point. Perhaps I was not sufficiently clear about that. "Enough with the damned divisions" is right. You may disagree with my approach for achieving that goal, but I don't think you have any basis for questioning my sincerity on this.

I am opposed to seeing each and every cause as separate and discrete. I think we need to see the common cause, and stand in solidarity. How would you recommend moving in that direction? If we don't talk about the existing divisions, are we not merely ignoring them or pretending that they are not there?

I assume that you are using hyperbole when you say that the ideas in my OP are "far more destructive to DU and the nation that 10 George Bushes."

[yardwork]

82. I would take that statement at face value.

To many people, the ideas in your OP truly are "far more destructive to DU and the nation than 10 George Bushes." That's how frightened they are by the implication of your OP, which, as you know, applies to a great deal more than gay rights.

[Two Americas]

111. now that is interesting

I have wondered about that. Why does there seem to be a greater fear among Democrats of the political Left than there is of the right wingers? I do think that there are some among us who intentionally promote right wing ideas, but why do so many people allow themselves to be driven by fear and manipulated into siding with those expressing right wing ideas? When there are polls here on specific issues, the left wing positions always win by overwhelming majorities. Yet to judge by the threads and posts, one would think that half or more of the people here were conservative and that the conservative positions had prevailed in the discussions as often as not.

The reason that this is important is because it mirrors what is happening with the general public. Pew research did a survey a while back, asking people detailed questions about social and economic political issues without giving them any clues as to which was the "liberal" and which was the "conservative" position, which might be Democratic party positions and which might be Republican party positions. On dozens of issues, 60-80% of the public supports left wing political positions on all of the issues.

The tail is wagging the dog, and it is time that the dog stand firmly on the ground and not let itself be moved around and knocked off balance so easily.

[yardwork]

114. I've wondered about that a lot, too. As you know, the U.S. government funded psychological studies

for many decades. In addition to learning about various ways to torture people without leaving visible marks, these studies also informed today's marketing techniques. The Republican Party has made particularly effective use of psychological techniques to manipulate people. So have the major corporations, which have the money to spend.

Why do millions of people vote against their own interests in election after election? Why do people buy things they don't need, even if the purchases drive them into debt? Why are people so easily convinced that guns, God, and gays are the most important things facing this country when their sons and daughters are coming home in body bags, their homes are being foreclosed, and their jobs are being outsourced to foreign countries?

[Heidi]

70. Easy to say that, annit, when you're a straight guy?

:eyes:

[Bette Noir]

74. Assuming someone might be straight is worse than 10 Gearge Bushes?

How many Iraqis did it kill, to assume someone might be straight?

[yardwork]

81. LOL!

[Lorien]

104. That damned Barak Obama! He's trying to destoy us all with unimportant

labels! How dare he!! He's more destructive to us all than 10 George Bushes!! :sarcasm:























Thankfully there were no "hateful bigots" banners on his website. There shouldn't be any at his inauguration, either.

[Bjorn Against]

110. Thank you, I only wish you could have posted that in his other thread before it was locked.

[crispini]

23. k & r -- very well done!

excellent piece. Said a lot that needed to be said.

[Bluenorthwest]

26. Well said

As usual. Man, you are good.....

[asthmaticeog]

28. Recommended, bookmarked and kicked.

:thumbsup:

[lukasahero]

32. Another vote for K&R 1000 times

This is the best, most well-reasoned post I have read on DU in years. Thank you.

[blindpig]

33. K&R does not do this justice.

Solidarity is what it's all about.

Arguments against solidarity are always weak and duplicious and require dubious claims amplified by shrillness and repetition.

[maryf]

64. Solidarity is the only way

to justice...

[Raster]

34. Kicked and highly recommended! Thank you, Two Americas! Excellent post!

Civil rights-

A broad range of privileges and rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and subsequent amendments and laws that guarantee fundamental freedoms to all individuals. These freedoms include the rights of free expression and action (civil liberties); the right to enter into contracts, own property, and initiate lawsuits; the rights of due process and equal protection of the laws; opportunities in education and work; the freedom to live, travel, and use public facilities wherever one chooses; and the right to participate in the democratic political system.

No one is free unless everyone is free!:kick:We Can Do Better!

[ChickMagic]

36. K&R

Excellent work! I agree with people upthread. You should submit this to your local newspaper - heck, any newspaper - as an oped. A whole lot of people need to read this.

[Waiting For Everyman]

39. Very thoughtful, but I mostly disagree with you.

I don't revere the seeming "civic contribution" of name calling, i.e. labeling - be it "racist", "sexist", "homophobe", "bigot", or whatever. I can see that calling-out is fashionable, but that loses my respect for both the person and the argument instantly. It's arrogant. And I'm not interested in my political correctness being judged. I simply won't play. If my non-participation and non-interest is what some are trying to achieve, ok then. They have. I don't think that striving to be validated as a "friend of" this-group or that-one is a good use of my time.

I notice that the same people who so freely label others as "bigots" over some issue or another are themselves religion-phobes and God-haters. So they are bigots too, and not so openminded and tolerant as they like to pretend. Being a member of a minority does not make a person free of bigotry.

I will support and vote for equal rights for any and all groups of citizens, whenever the chance arises. But I don't intend to actively work for gay rights, which some here say is "a must", to not be a homophone. Well then I'll be a homophone by that definition, and I'll lose no sleep over it. There is only so much time I have, and I'm more dedicated to economic issues which affect all people. But I will say that if black activists had taken this same approach to people, I don't think anything would've been achieved by now. It might be a thought to study the tactics and methods of those who have been successful at the same objective.

I won't address all the points but another one is, to advocate something, a hypothetical solution is not a preposterous thing to think about first.

Lastly, I understand the anger over Warren. I can't stand the guy either, or the Religious Right, and I wish someone more worthy and less offensive were speaking at the inaugural instead of him. He would not have been my choice. I would've had no invocation at all rather than him or anyone like him. Unless Obama has something strategic in mind in choosing him, it's extreme bad taste. I understand. But he is not important. I can only say that if I were gay, I would be angered and hurt by that but I would be more focused on what I could do to achieve the rights I seek. Granted, no chance to change that would come this week, or soon, but it would take planning and work to get to that point, and that's what I'd be focusing on now - I'm just saying that's what I'm actually doing concerning the issues I'm actively involved with.

I understand the hurt. I totally understand that when hurt or angry or intensely dedicated to an issue, people can be blunt and offend people. I do it too. I understand that some are protective of those they know are hurt by this. I can identify with all the sides of this which I read here. But... I do think that some who are seen as critics are trying to help by stating something true about the manner of making the point, and tactics used. They are right. That isn't being heard very well right now, but it's nonetheless true. Straight people after all, are the votes to be won, to change this. So some of the points straight DUers are making might help in getting that support. The way I read it, that is what they are trying to say. And by now, most seem just frustrated with it.

Over and out. I don't have a "dog in this fight" so I won't annoy those who do any further with my opinion.

[Two Americas]

55. thanks

Thank you for considering my points and for your thoughtful response.

I agree with you that labeling people can cause a breakdown in communication. I am questioning whether or not that is a serious or problem on this issue. I don't think it is.

I agree with you that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

I agree with you that loyalty tests can be destructive.

I agree with you that labeling people is not helpful.

I am describing lines of reasoning that in my opinion contribute to a climate in which bigotry can thrive, I am not attacking individuals nor calling them out, and I agree with you that doing so is not the best approach. Also, I am trying to make a connection between all of the issues we fight for, and I think that the economic issues you are focusing on and the struggle by the GLBTQ community for equality are in fact the same fight.

I believe that I do have a dog in this fight, and I am suggesting that we all do.

[yardwork]

85. I have a dog in your fight because you're a human being, and you have one in "mine"

whether you know it or not. I know your struggle, and I support you. Support doesn't have to mean that I spend hours everyday specifically working on the issue of veterans rights. Support means that I don't interfere with your fight by undermining it. Support means that I vote, each and every time, for candidates who will do the most to further veterans rights. Support means that I always, always tell you that I have a dog in your fight.

I hope that you will consider doing the same for gay rights, because if they can vote away my rights, they can do the same to everyone else. How much respect for veterans will there be in a country that doesn't care enough to give equal rights to all?

[Waiting For Everyman]

146. Agreed. By not having a "dog in this fight" I meant the controversy here on DU.

I should've been clearer.

I too see this as a general civil rights issue, which when some are denied, all are threatened... that's exactly why we don't want to pigeon-hole it or be pigeon-holed by it. I see a number of hetero people here taking that position, as I do, (that it's general civil rights rather than a sub-group issue to be labeled and divided over) and being jumped on for it. That doesn't make much sense. I know - the snap attacks are coming from emotion. But it IS counter-productive and pointless, as some are saying. Heteros can't suddenly awaken to some realization and change that reaction to the point we're trying to make. It isn't our doing, it isn't in our hands to change it, is all I'm saying, as are others. The misunderstanding just seems to keep repeating itself, which is frustrating.

Instead of "STFU" or that criticizing Obama is off-limits, I think some are just reaching the point of feeling that no communication is happening and it's a waste of time to keep going around the same tree. So we may as well move on and talk about something else, then, that being the case.

This thread is better though, and that's great to see. This is more like it.

And thanks OP, for your response to me too.

Oh, and... Happy New Year, everyone!

[Two Americas]

148. Happy New Year to you, Waiting For Everyman

Thanks for the good discussion.

[Waiting For Everyman]

151. Thanks back to you, TA. :)

:fistbump:

[yardwork]

193. I feel strongly that this is a general civil rights, human rights, issue.

I know that other GLBTQ people feel differently, but that's not surprising. Even though we're all lumped into one group, we're all individuals with very different points of view.

[JerseygirlCT]

177. Yup

Divide and conquer is not in our favor. The same values underpin most of the issues we as Democrats find important.

[Barbarien]

101. Chewing Gum and Walking

"I can only say that if I were gay, I would be angered and hurt by that but I would be more focused on what I could do to achieve the rights I seek."

Please don't confuse the media's singular obsession with this particular GLBT issue with what's going on in our community. GLBTs are working on a number of issues right now. Gay marriage is an obvious one, but we are also preparing for battles over ENDA, DOMA, and DADT. And trust me, none of us thinks those battles will be easy, even with a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President.

In other words, just because people are protesting the Warren thing loudly doesn't mean we're not doing anything else. Believe me, most of us can chew gum and walk at the same time.

[yardwork]

115. Not only that, gay folks work on a variety of other social issues, including veterans rights.

[Two Americas]

116. yes..

...and gay folks can be poor, can be homeless, can be people of color, can be unemployed, can be Union members, can be without health care, can be elderly...

[AntiFascist]

121. I have called Obama 'religiously bigoted'....

for his comments at the Saddleback debate where he said that he believes marriage is between a man and woman, that this type of marriage is "sacred" and that "God is in the mix". Initially I was willing to tolerate these comments, but then his choice of Warren to be honored at the inauguration pushed it over the top for me. It then started to become clear that his comments may have been more than simply pandering to his audience. I will be tolerant of certain religious beliefs up to a point, but I will speak out wherever I see a breach of separation of church and state.

[thefourthwall]

168. Bigoted?

why do you call him bigoted for being true to his beliefs on marriage, and how do you see his beliefs as a breach of separation of church and state?

[AntiFascist]

172. Welcome to DU, and I very much appreciate you engaging this dialog...

By definition bigotry does not necessarilly imply hatred, but it does imply intolerance. By 'being true to his religious beliefs' he is automatically excluding homosexuals from sacred relationships with each other. By standing before the crowd, and the large national audience, at the Saddleback debate and voicing his religious opinion, he very much helped the Yes on 8 campaign achieve that goal. Obama is very eloquent, and his bully pulpit can achieve great things in drawing together Americans, but it can also be a double-edged sword against the minority which is often marginalized.

Who does Obama think he is to preach to me what should and should not be considered a sacred relationship? When I got married the non-sectarian person who solemnized the marriage did an excellent job of blessing the union in a special way that made us feel our life goals could work together mutually and as part of God's plan. If Obama feels otherwise, then he should please keep those thoughts to himself.

[rhett o rick]

129. I support the OP, but you also have good points. nm

[NWHarkness]

137. And there we see it yet again

As in so many posts on this subject, the construct is that straight people are being thoughtful and reasonable, and the GLBT people are driven entirely by emotion.

How do you not see how condescending that is?

[Waiting For Everyman]

149. Ok...

Instead of attributing the attacks to emotion, I could chalk it up to being intentionally nasty and intentionally missing the point, if that's what you prefer.

[geckosfeet]

43. I would suggest being more specific about who is making these mistakes.

It is unfair to paint all hetero's with this brush.

Gay rights are human rights. To discuss gay rights in any context other human rights is a victory for those who would deny them.

[Two Americas]

72. I have been

We can start with me. I have been making those mistakes.

But I am not talking about or criticizing any specific individuals, I am talking about the arguments and lines of reasoning that people are using. We cannot discuss politics if we cannot talk about that. Criticizing the arguments people are using is not attacking the people themselves, with a broad brush or anything else.

The ones who are making these mistakes - making these arguments - are the ones who are making these arguments.

[geckosfeet]

92. I am not sure what you have said. But I feel that talking about gay rights outside

the context of human rights is handing the opponents of gay rights a victory.

Human rights is the fundamental argument. IMO - lines of reasoning that argue outside of that context are ultimately spurious.

[Two Americas]

100. I hope that I am not doing that

I hope that I am not talking about gay rights outside of the context of human rights. My intention here was to do the opposite.

[bullwinkle428]

44. Now THAT, sir, is going to leave a mark! K&R!

:applause:

[stillwaiting]

47. Very nice post. The outrage over Warren is

about much more than Rick Warren. Much more. If the anger that has been expressed and directed to the incoming Obama administration prevents future selections of "holy" men like Warren, then the anger was sufficient. If it doesn't prevent these choices, then there will continue to be A LOT of anger, and it is certainly not misplaced anger.

Until individuals such as Warren are not given credibility by our elected officials the outrage simply isn't enough.

[Kajsa]

49. TwoAmericas, you are one heck of a

rational, intelligent, insightful and mature person!

I agree with everything you say here.

Constructive criticism is one thing,
Understanding people is another.

I have tried this example when I work with students
who are influenced to use the expression,
"that's so gay!"or anything even approaching gay bashing.

Imagine you, as a hetero live in a society where the
accepted norm is homosexual relationships.
You are not allowed to marry nor adopt children
together with a partner of the opposite sex.
You are targeted, harassed and had your life
threatened because of your heterosexuality.
Other heteros have been killed simply for being
who they were.

How would that make you feel?

It's the 'put yourself in their position'
that gets the students thinking, and usually turns
the tide.

Thanks so much for posting this, TA!

[elaineb]

50. Brilliantly considered and beautifully expressed.

k&r

[fascisthunter]

52. Well Said

again

[ColbertWatcher]

53. My favorite part of your OP ...

Then, anyone who has ever been in a bazaar in the Middle East knows that you never start with the price you would settle for, and you are not obligated to give the seller's initial offer any consideration. Too many here want to start with a compromise, begin the negotiations upon some imaginary “middle” ground. This has the effect of continually shifting the political context to the right, since we wind up halfway between our compromise position and their hard and fast extreme position.

Thank you for posting this. Kicked and recommended and bookmarked.

[GinaMaria]

54. Thank you. You have expressed what so many have been feeling

My job in this issue is to listen and try to understand how it feels from the perspective of a LGBT person experiencing these attacks on their rights. You have it so right about haggling in the open market... Always demand more than what you want. The compromise will then be exactly what you wanted in the first place.

This is so well written and clear. Hope you do as others suggested and share this outside of DU.

Best,
Gina

[Neshanic]

56. A masterpiece. Thank you.

[MadMaddie]

60. Two Americas thank you for a well thought out and provoking

essay. I think you have touched on many important lines of thought and you have done a good job of logically pointing out the flaws in the arguments.

I would like to see all Americans treated as Americans, all rights no matter what they are should be applied to all Americans.

K & R

[Horse with no Name]

61. Excellent. As always. K&R. n/t

[racaulk]

62. Fantastic post!!! Bravo!!!

:applause:

K&R!

[mentalslavery]

63. Very Accurate Analysis of Discource and Some of the Problems.

However, the author slips into binary polarization of the argument towards the end regarding the issue of "support" and at times dogmatically defines concepts or provides "framing associations" such as the use of "imaginary “middle” ground", etc.

[Two Americas]

68. yes

Certainly it is not always the case that we should see things in all or nothing terms. Sometimes we do need to take an unambiguous stand, however. I am saying that this is one of those times.

Also, I think that we have been chronically erring on the side of compromise.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

65. Ding-ding

K&R

Salut'

[Spryboy]

66. Brilliant post

And I just had to repeat this, because it hit home so hard:

Next, the gradualism arguments, so popular on this and on other issues, are flawed. The idea is that if we go slowly - take baby steps, give some politician a chance, be patient - it will be more productive than some imaginary dangerous alternative - going fast, I guess. But gradualism causes more resistance, not less, and gives a convenient place for outright enemies to lurk and engage in rear guard reactionary opposition. It may be true that things take time, but we should never be advocating going slowly. Discouraging urgency, seeing urgency as counter-productive, is arguing against progress, and it also trivializes the point of view of those directly harmed.

I've tried to make this argument before, but I never was able to put it so clearly and concisely. Very well done!

[Zenlitened]

73. I agree -- that paragraph jumped off the page for me too.

:thumbsup:

[ImOnlySleeping]

118. and how small of steps

I think the other point about this is that when you start taking steps, future steps will keep getting smaller.

[Time for change]

67. This post is excellent on many counts

I do have one significant disagreement though. Your statement:

"Supporting the cause of GLBTQ equality means supporting who people are, the way that they are, how they feel, what they are thinking, what they have to say, and the way they are saying it - without qualifications."

I don't believe that supporting ANY cause ever requires that you support the tactics that specific people use in support of that cause. Supporting who the people are and how they feel -- yes, if you don't support that, then you don't support them. But people who have a sincere devotion to a cause will not necessarily agree on the tactics that should be used in support of the cause. And it is a healthy thing for people who support a cause to voice their disagreements with the tactics that are being used when they disagree with them.

I say that as a generaly rule, not specific to any particular cause.

[Two Americas]

69. good point

I agree with you when you say that supporting a cause does not require us to support the tactics that specific people use in support of that cause, no matter what those tactics are. I hope you don't think I am saying that it should.

[Time for change]

102. That's what it sounded to me like

when you said:

"Supporting the cause of GLBTQ equality means supporting who people are, the way that they are, how they feel, what they are thinking, what they have to say, and the way they are saying it - without qualifications"

"What they are thinking, what they have to say, and the way they are saying it" are all related to tactics. I may disagree with what a person is thinking, what they say, or the way that they say it, and yet still support them and their cause. And I may tell them that I disagree with them, with the goal of advancing the cause.

Just as one example, I may believe that someone is being rude, and I may feel that being rude in that way impedes the cause. Telling the person that doesn't necessarily mean that I don't accept them as a person or that I don't support their cause.

[Two Americas]

109. it can be both

A criticism of what someone says could be an objection to tactics, and an invalidation of their reality. I am objecting to the second and not to the first. I should make the distinction more clear, yes.

What I discovered about myself is that I thought I was objecting to tactics - to methods and rhetoric, to what the speaker was saying or how they were saying it - when I was really not willing to fully accept the speaker, was not putting myself in their shoes, was not hearing or completely seeing them as human beings, but rather as an advocate of a cause, as two-dimensional and not fully human. I am ashamed to admit that, but it is true.

[Time for change]

113. Yes, it can be either or both

And sometimes there is a fine line between them.

And we all (I think) sometimes don't listen to people carefully enough before reacting.

Anyhow, it's very refreshing to see someone think about this in the depth that you have, even to the extent of recognizing where you were making mistakes.

[AntiFascist]

143. Meta-understanding is called for...

understanding the emotions driving our anger and why we are lashing out (in some cases) is a very mature attitude. That shouldn't excuse condescension.

[Bette Noir]

71. I agree 100%.

Although, I should state, I don't consider lgbt rights "their" issue. My ties are too close to my gay friends to consider them the "other."

[bluedawg12]

75. Individual Rights are an inherent liberty, not awarded by human power.

There can be room for disagreement about tactics, means of protest, means of achieving the goals.

Those are fair grist for the opinion mill.

But the underlying principle cannot be seen as shades of grey.

[Two Americas]

90. yes

The problem arises when people disguise opposition to the cause with a supposed criticism of tactics, or unknowingly promote opposition to the cause by doing that.

I can remember hearing the same arguments used against the Civil Rights movements. People would say "I am not opposed to civil rights, don't get me wrong. It is just that the way some of them are going about it - marching and yelling and criticizing whites - is not helping them advance their cause."

[bluedawg12]

123. Being for civil rights but opposing tactics is a kind of irony.

There are only so many ways to oppose something. Most of them have been tried.

Many of those who claim to solely "oppose tactics" do so for reasons that do not further the cause and they seem to have no real idea of what and why the tactics are being employed.

They come at the issue from their own personal agenda and then wonder why their idea is soundly rejected.

[Mike Nelson]

76. Very Well Stated

It does Obama no good to waiver on this issue. Nobody should be calling for "impeachment". He is smart enogh to figure this out, and we will see how his ACTIONS as President deal with this matter.

[enigmatic]

77. Brilliant post

:thumbsup:

[Enrique]

78. it's partly the other way around

you write that some straights are letting perceived threats to their self-image get in the way of productive discussion or action.

That might be true, but it's also true that some advocates of the gay cause are letting their self-image as pro-gays get in the way as well. Demonstrating your correctness on the issue only goes so far, especially in a supportive forum.

This often takes the form of asserting your own pro-gay status by questioning others. This rarely does any good, and is often counterproductive, especially if false.

The last part of your post makes the assumption that advocates of the cause are righteous. This is not a correct assumption. The cause itself is righteous, but many of the advocates are not. Accusing people falsely of bigotry is not righteous.

It's not correct to say we must speak out and not worry about how we're doing it. Forgive me if this is oversimplifying what you wrote. But you don't imo appreciate the importance of TRUTH in whatever we do. Without TRUTH, any speaking and acting has little force behind it.

[Two Americas]

96. good points there, thanks

I am questioning myself. That is where my thinking started. I am not intending to demonstrate my correctness.

I don't think that I am saying that advocates of the cause are righteous rather than the cause itself. I also did not intend to accuse people of bigotry, falsely or otherwise.

I also did not mean to say that "we must speak out and not worry about how we're doing it." Rather, I am saying worrying about how we are doing it should not be an excuse for not speaking out.

When I say support who people are, and what they are feeling and thinking and saying, I am not talking about accepting or approving any tactics, I am talking about accepting people as human beings. I think that is what is at issue here, not tactics. Criticizing tactics is cover, is an excuse for denying people their voices, their reality, their existence.

I don't think it is important for anyone to assert their own pro-gay status, and those objecting to having their thinking implicitly questioned are the ones who are worried about their own pro-gay status, in my opinion. They are projecting when they think that they are being challenged because the other person is trying to assert pro-gay status and take theirs away.

People's pro-gay status, in their own minds, has come into conflict with their loyalty to Obama. They resent having that brought into relief. People want to be right on two things that conflict with each other. The subsequent drama is internal, and is not being caused by those who are talking about the Warren selection. That internal conflict is bring projected onto others and onto the discussion.

Being right - being a good person who is good on all of the issues, who is on the right team, who has done the right things, who has the right credentials - is the consolation prize in politics. We have been settling for being in lieu of results for 30 years now, while the opposition ruthlessly and relentlessly pursues results. I would suggest we drop all of the arguments about who is most righteous, who is and who is not "good on gay rights" or good on any of the causes. "Good" means results, and the results have been pathetic.

I will start. I was wrong, and I may well still be quite wrong. I have a long way to go. The OP is an attempt to start that journey and encourage others to join me. I say that in humility, not self-righteousness.

[valerief]

79. LABELEVATION: the act of elevating name-calling as highest offense.

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.

Something more people should remember.

Thanks for the post!

[xchrom]

80. i love this -- and you should submit it -- but please, please remember

is is OUR struggle.

the fight for lbtiq marriage equality -- while it can benefit everyone -- is about lgbtiq people.

[yardwork]

83. Not sure what you mean by this - I think that human rights are everyone's struggle.

[yardwork]

84. I recommend this to the DU Admins. It explains everything that is happening here.

This is brilliant. Truly beautiful work.

[Oeditpus Rex]

87. Somehow, it seems appropriate

that the post of the year should be made on the year's last day — rather like Ted Williams' final at-bat in baseball.



:applause:

[yardwork]

89. I agree that this is the post of the year. I think it's the single best post I've ever seen.

[Two Americas]

99. Mickey Mantle

The last time that Mantle came to the plate, in Detroit against Denny McClain, late in a game that was all but decided, McClain allegedly yelled to him "where do you want it, Mick?" Mantle laughed and the catcher Bill Freehan called time out and ran out to the mound to talk to McClain and ask him if he had lost his mind, no doubt. Mantle finally jokingly held his hand out to show McClain where he wanted it. McClain served up an easy one right down the middle, and Mantle hit his last home run. There is some doubt as to the accuracy of this story - and my memory may be a little off, too - but it will serve here.

When the Warren controversy first broke out, I started spending time in the GLBT forum for the first time, reading and thinking. Yardwork, and Chovexani and so many others kept serving up some easy "pitches" in the form of some brilliant and persuasive arguments. All I did was finally "see" the ball and take a swing at it. Credit goes to those who have done all of the hard work over the years - I was ignoring them. I thought I knew everything I needed to know. I was wrong.

[Oeditpus Rex]

112. The last time he hit against McLain, yeah

Dunno about McLain laying one in, but Mantle did take him out of the yard in the eighth.

http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/1968/B09190DET1968.htm



In Mantle's final game, he was 0 for 1 — grounded to short off Jim Lonborg in the first. Andy Kosco later replaced him.

http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/1968/B09280BOS1968.htm



In his last home game, he was 1 for 3 — got the only hit off Luis Tiant, who went 21-9, 1.60 that year.

http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/1968/B09250NYA1968.htm



I know what you mean about easy pitches. With me, they were thrown mostly by lionesspriyanka, though Chovexani, Terrya and a couple of others threw me a few gophers, too.

:toast:

[Chovexani]

138. I think that is the first time

Anyone has ever accused me of throwing an easy pitch. :evilgrin:

I had a hell of an arm when I played softball! :D :hug:

[Two Americas]

139. lol

Well you know what I meant.

:hug:

[Chovexani]

140. Hee. You bet.

And thanks for this post. :hug:

[Oeditpus Rex]

145. Softball?

Girl, that is so cliché. :eyes:









:hide:

[Chovexani]

186. LOL

It was just in junior high, I swear! But my girlfriend gave me Birkenstocks for a holiday gift this year. I think I got a little bit gayer.

[varelse]

91. K&R

The OP is a "keeper" - I'm bookmarking it. I hope you will choose to submit it to other forums or news organizations. It deserves a larger audience.

[Starry Messenger]

94. k & r!

Wow. I can only add (along with the others) that you really should get this published! This is one of the best things I have ever seen written about this. Please let us know if you submit it somewhere and it gets accepted.

BRAVO!

[saracat]

95. What a wonderful, thoughtful essay TA. Thank you for this and all your posts!

[Lorien]

97. K & R. Either everyone is free and has equal rights or none of us are

that's the way I see it when anyone is marginalized. I'm straight and Warren's views on the GLBT community are highly offensive to me as a human being, as are his views on Jews. His views on women are personally offensive to me; he seeks to put people like me on "the back of the bus", and thinks that my place in this world is as a servant to a man. How can any thinking person not find such beliefs offensive? Warren deserves to be marginalized and his views fought as much as possible.They aren't just "opinions" when they seek to strip us of rights and form public policies.

[Two Americas]

105. we shouldn't forget

Warren represents and promotes misogynist ideas, assaults on science, erosion of the separation between church and state, and many other reactionary political positions. He spreads those ideas and gains a following by misleading people and pandering to their base fears and prejudices, and attains personal power, wealth and public influence through his efforts. That is not something we should ever be reaching out to.

[Lorien]

107. Right on!

I couldn't agree more! :hug;

[defendandprotect]

152. IMO . . .

this choice was a signal -- intended or not -- to those who believe as

Warren does.

[Solon]

103. I think this post deserves two thumbs up!

Excellent essay! :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[Riverman]

120. Well stated! Thank you, What is Sad is that Obama's decision

inadvertantly stirred the divisiveness around this issue, first with GLBT people and same-sex marriage, and more broadly the Consitutional issue that those horrible propositions challenged - that being whether the majority can vote to remove won rights of a minority. Obama made a political mistake by dividing his supporters, and compounded the mistake by not acknowledging that mistake and correcting it - by revoking the Warren invitation. Of course he could not un-ring that bell because he put himself in a political box. He obviously believes that he needs to show homage to some segment of the religious fundamentalists. Maybe he thought he was splitting the religious right by inviting Warren to the give the innovation at the inauguration, but at what price with his own base. I hope he learns something from this.

On the other hand, the decision triggered a vigorous debate here on DU and elsewhere that while upetting to some, including me at times. But that is democracy isn't.

I wish everyone here a very safe, happy and prosperous New Year!

[scubadude]

122. Obama did it, on purpose. He's gonna hurt all sides working towards the center.

My belief is that he will make it up to all. He will work all angles of the problem until it goes away.

At least that is my hope. Can't say I support his method in this case, but that's what I see happening.

Scuba

[yardwork]

134. I'll believe that Obama is sincere about this when he honors a prominent white supremacist.

Until then, I'll continue to believe as I do now that Obama doesn't care very much about equal rights for all people, and is willing to pander to some very nasty people in order to build up his own power.

I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but so far Obama hasn't done anything to attempt to convince me otherwise.

[TheKentuckian]

125. You make a nice overall case but

"Supporting the cause of GLBTQ equality means supporting who people are, the way that they are, how they feel, what they are thinking, what they have to say, and the way they are saying it - without qualifications.""

is bullshit.

You most certainly can and should support people and issues without rubberstamping expressions and tactics, even if its not "your fight". If a tact isn't going to work then that should be honestly discussed. If the tone is alienating the minds that have to be changed then it is stupid to take counter productive steps.

I'm never going to tell anyone that they have my support carte blanche and "they" are always right. No one is always right, NO ONE. I think the logic is deeply flawed. If that makes me a bigot then fine, I've been called worse by better people. Right, wrong, practical, and possible are part of the equation EVERY time.

I take exception to your distrust of those that can look at a problem and seek to solve it. Politics is the science or the art of the possible. You're coming very close to being a thought police here. You're literally telling people whose minds work in a certain way that they are not to be trusted and have no insight. You're wrong there. You cheerlead for groupthink, in my opinion and that's always a dicey proposition, at best.

You seem to be truly advocating a position of demanding outcomes but no focus on how to get there other than however group X thinks best. That's fine but out of any form of alignment with my own way of existence and pretty pollyanna to expect from thinking individuals. Nor can one practically be expected to ignore consequences, especially the apparent and present ones. That's pie in the sky stuff. Admirable and all but potentially irresponsible and stupid. You don't just bare your throat in a fight.


This line of thinking of course carries into just general thinking. Same rules apply to all problems, more or less.

[Two Americas]

127. response

Telling people that they should not feel what they feel, think what they think, or say what they say is not about tactics. Nor does accepting the way people express themselves and feel mean you are "rubber stamping" anything.

Were I saying what you claim I am saying, then yes the logic would be deeply flawed.

People are "right" - are the ultimate authority - about what they themselves are thinking and feeling. Recognizing and respecting that does not mean that you must think and feel the same things.

I have no distrust "of those that can look at a problem and seek to solve it" necessarily.

I did not say that "people whose minds work in a certain way are not to be trusted and have no insight" and I reject the charge that I am the "thought police" or trying to enforce "groupthink."

[Divine Discontent]

126. K&R - simple, well thought, reasoned plea to realize we must speak up - always! eom

[Pithlet]

128. K&R Excellent, excellent post.

I could not agree more.

[rhett o rick]

130. K & Rec 100. Good post. nm

[JeffR]

132. Posts like this are why DU remains such a great resource.

Though in reality, there are all too few posts like this here or anywhere else on the Left Internet: carefully reasoned, circumspect, thought-provoking and deeply humane.

[myrna minx]

133. This has to be one of the best things I've read on DU.

Thank you.

[liberalhistorian]

135. I agree with most of your very well-put points,

and understand what you're saying. It drives me crazy when people try to claim that gays are somehow demanding "special" rights or "preferential" treatment when they're only asking to be treated like the human beings that they are. I just have one quibble. I wouldn't use "straight." I've always hated that expression in referring to gays, because it implies that there's something "crooked" about them, while those of us who are heterosexual are "normal." Heteros aren't more normal than gays, and vice versa. We're the same, just with different sexual orientations (not preferences. That's another expression I hate, sexual "preference", as if we actively and conciously choose our sexuality, which we don't.)

[Two Americas]

141. thanks

I guess as an old timer I am more likely to think of "straight" as the opposite of "hip" or "cool," if anything. You make an interesting point.

[liberalhistorian]

136. Delete, double

post.

[dysfunctional press]

142. GLBTQ???

when did the "Q" get added, and what does it stand for?

:shrug:

[jonmiller74]

164. Queer

Q stands for Queer. I've often seen it used by those studying gender and identity theories. As I understand it one of the beliefs is that while Male and Female are physical constructs, Gay, Lesbian and Bi are Sexual constructs, Trans. is a gender construct. Queer is a category those those the are outside of the nominative "Normal" construct, perhaps simply said as those who aren't any other the others but aren't plain vanilla. Those the Ozzy and Harriet crowd would still be uncomfortable with at a cocktail party because of their otherness.

[dysfunctional press]

189. i guess i'm not following...

are the queers straight, or gay?

[yardwork]

194. Some gay people prefer the term "queer" as it is all-inclusive.

Anyone who identifies outside the binary, male/female paradigm is included in the term "queer," whereas they might feel left out of just GLBT. Sometimes you see "I" included as well, for intersexed.

I am a lesbian who often refers to myself as queer. It's also part of taking back a term that was used as an insult.

Not all gay people agree with the use of queer. Some are offended by it. Many straight folks are confused and troubled by its use. I thought my (straight) boss was going to faint one day when I used the term. Even after I explained she was upset.

Edited to ad: Yes, you can be "straight" and still identify as queer. Many straights don't identify with the normative male/female binary. And some just like feeling "queer."

[dysfunctional press]

196. ...

:eyes:

[gollygee]

144. What a great post

and I hope lots of people read it.

[defendandprotect]

147. It's hard to believe that you could have ever been even a bit on the wrong side . . .

of this issue --- !!! Great post.

Especially this one which really drives me nuts . . .

Then we have the fear of right wing backlash, or fundy resistance, and clever arguments as to how to trick them or get around them. This is particularly reactionary because it grants so much power to the right wing. The key thing to understand about the political right wing and the religious right is that the leaders are lying to the followers, deceiving and manipulating them. If we see the right as a bloc, that we must accept the reality that there are millions of followers of the religious right who all think the same and are no different than the leaders, and whom we must take seriously at face value, we have precluded any chance of talking about the lies and the deception, and we have granted legitimacy to the religious right political movement. We should be aggressively confronting the lies, not compromising with the leaders who are doing the lying. We do that by standing up and speaking out against injustice, not by pandering and compromising and reaching out to the leadership of the right wing.

There's only one more category I would add and that is that somehow some DU'ers think
that opinion is made at DU. Most times it is not and we are simply discussing the
opinions of those outside DU. The Warren discussions are examples of that where
constantly I've seen the "uprising" blamed on the GLBT community. In fact, the
Warren situation effects all of us --- those who care about justice for minorities,
women, homosexuals, those who want equality of gay marriage, and it should most
certainly include those supporting the very primary issue Separation of Church & State
and NO prayer at public events -- especially this one!

Therefore there is still much to discuss re the Inauguaration and "prayer" and
Warren and the larger world outside of DU where it was clear most people were upset --
not simply the gay community -- but I note that it also seems to be being delivered
that way by MSM, as well. No-- this is about EVERYONE if you actually understand
what is going on.

[Two Americas]

171. tv

Opinion is made on tv I think. I would bet that almost every bitter argument argument here is between those whose reality is defined by tv, and those whose is not. I don't watch and have never owned one, but when I do see it I always think "ah, that is where people are getting all of those strange and improbable ideas."

We are often arguing about what announcers and readers say on tv, or more importantly we are discussing things within the context that tv news establishes for us.

You can tell what is being said on tv on any given day just by watching for the sudden widespread use here of certain words and phrases, and the emergence of new and strange and improbable lines of reasoning. When dozens of people are suddenly using the same words to argue the same point, words that had not been used commonly the day before and phrases that were not heard before and that are completely out of any consistent context, those are things that have been artificially inserted into the discussion, and they come from tv.

Whenever I catch the "news" on tv, I either laugh or say "f you" to almost every sentence I hear. But I see other people sitting their in rapt attention hanging on every word and soaking it all in.

[maryf]

180. So true, Two Americas...

TV uses the classic propaganda techniques of repetition and imagery to pound ideas into people's heads. My mindset has changed so drastically since I got rid of tv almost 4 years ago. Now, when with family for example, I do see the news I not only shout "f you" alot!! but when I try to point out the blatant spins and twists I just get met with "HuH?", takes forever to explain myself and then I'm told I'm conspiratorial! Keep speaking the truth, TA, Congrats on the front page here!!! :applause:

[Hannah Bell]

181. yes, very difficult to even discuss things outside the tv-imposed frame.

[maryf]

184. "why do you think they call it Programming"

[defendandprotect]

192. Me, too -- haven't watched "news" in decades . . .

In fact, can't believe that anyone has ever watched the Sunday political shows!!

Well, a bit of Olbermann and some Jon Stuart -- a very weak left --

[defendandprotect]

153. LATE K&R . . .

[baby_mouse]

158. Excellent writing. Bookmarking.

May I copy and paste from this in future arguments?

[Two Americas]

161. absolutely

Please feel free to use this in whole or part wherever you think it might be useful.

[DeanDem10]

159. An outstanding post. Thank you n/t

[jonmiller74]

162. Thank you. K&R

[catrose]

163. I realized when Scalia told us to get over Florida

that perps cannot successfully convince victims/survivors to get over anything, nor do they have any right to try. That realization has made me look closer whenever ANYONE says to get over it, to see if my getting over it would only make life easier for them.

[Two Americas]

169. "get over it"

we have been told to "get over it" for 40 years, in my experience at least, always "for our own good" supposedly. Get over it really means submit, surrender, stop talking about it or else, don't even think about it if you know what is good for you.

[ruggerson]

165. Bravo - thank you very much

n/t

[Iwillnevergiveup]

166. Very thoughtful post - especially about the lying

by the right, including the religious right. I remember back to election day in CA when I encountered a young woman who told me she had voted YES on Prop 8 because she didn't want her children exposed to the teaching of "gay sex" in their classrooms. She, like many other thousands of people, was responding to the avalanche of lying ads practically predicting an early Armageddon if NO on 8 won.

IMHO, Warren's performance at the Inauguration will definitely be a moment to cringe and get through for those of us disgusted that he's anywhere near that podium. However, Obama will have many more opportunities to take a stand on gay rights which are, of course, human rights. Maybe he'll even address the issue in as profound and compelling a way as this OP and we'll see some postive, measurable results.

It took one of my gay friends 43 years to come out 10 years ago. But when he heard about Rick Warren, he told me, "Now I know exactly how Rosa Parks felt, and I'm not liking being in the back of the bus."

[Iwillnevergiveup]

167. Well, at least a kick

Error: you can only recommend threads which were started in the past 24 hours

[IndianaGreen]

175. K&R n/t

[JerseygirlCT]

176. Too late to recommend, but I wish I could

I think you hit on a great many terrific points there.

And I'll just add that I've seen a few of the same sort of arguments used to put some women's issues on the backburner.

I think there's always going to be a difference between our ideals and our values and what we can get to happen right now. Refusing to see that difference inevitably leads to much heartbreak, then burn-out and not a great deal of action.

OTOH, sticking with one's values while work toward them is how it gets done. No one should be ready to abandon such really core values as individual rights simply because it's either something they don't feel impacts them personally or because it might get in the way of other goals. Those are always just excuses for not wanting to deal with difficulties.

On the Warren issue in particular, while I'm not ready to throw Obama out wholesale because of it (I think that's also pretty reactionary and pointless), I do think he made a huge, huge and painful mistake. And it angers me.

The thing we all have to realize is that gay rights are women's rights are minority rights are EVERYONE'S rights. When one group is attacked (such as with Prop 8), we are all endangered. When injustice is allowed or even celebrated, we are all diminished.

Thank you for a great post.

[quaker bill]

178. I beg to differ slightly

"Lastly, it is not possible to support the GLBTQ community and at the same time object to who they are, how they are expressing themselves, what they think, and what they feel."

It is entirely possible to profoundly support any community and still object to "how they are expressing themselves".

One can entirely support a cause and unfortunately find that the activists representing it are doing a poor and perhaps even counter-productive job. I have had the experience often over my years as an activist for various causes. Supporting a cause does not end the right to criticise and the right to hope for better.

[JerseygirlCT]

179. I agree with you on that

Good point.

[Two Americas]

183. yes

I was not very clear on that point, as several have pointed out earlier in the thread.

If in fact the debate has been merely about tactics, then yes, your point is well taken. But is that what the debate has been about? I am objecting to attempts to invalidate and silence people that use the tactics argument as an excuse for doing that.

Many have said that calling other people bigots is not constructive. There is a problem with that. While I have seen hundreds of instances of people complaining about being called bigots - labeled and attacked they say - I haven't seen anyone actually call another member a bigot. when I have quesrtioned people about this, they either do not respond or else they say something like "well you know, they were implying that I am a bigot." Hmmmm. "The wicked flee when no man pursueth" might apply there.

I do not agree that we have some great problem here worth mentioning of "people being called bigots." I haven't seen it. It may have happened on rare occasions. But I have seen many examples of people accusing the critics of the Warren selection of accusing others of being bigots. That line of reasoning should have a familiar odor for all of us, since it is so similar to so many right wing rhetorical tactics, such as the "reverse racism" arguments.

[AntiFascist]

185. I also think there is a subtle difference between...

calling someone a bigot and saying that they are displaying bigoted behavior. It could be that once they understand what you are seeing and why, then they will stop it.

[Two Americas]

187. big difference I think

Saying "isn't that a racist idea there?" as opposed to saying "you are a fascist" makes a big difference.

The right wingers got everyone thinking about what people "are" rather than what they say and do. People will always defend what they "are" and resist others telling them what they "are." When the right wingers can get everyone telling about what people "are" it prevents ideas from being discussed or considered.

[curt_b]

190. Another Thumbs up!

"Supporting the cause of GLBTQ equality means supporting who people are, the way that they are, how they feel, what they are thinking, what they have to say, and the way they are saying it - without qualifications."

TA, the statement above seems to have been the most provocative of your essay. I think you've defended it well as it relates to individual conversations.

Another difficulty here lies in the move from individual campaigns to wider transformative movements. Arguing that aggressive tactics reflect poorly on the people oppressed, is really arguing that these tactics reflect poorly on some loosely conceived coalition or united front (in this case that united front is the Democratic Party); and that real change is dependent on the success of gathering wide agreement for the general program of the coalition, as a necessary condition for the liberation of those oppressed. Militant tactics adopted by those most affected by a single aspect of exploitation, then interfere with mass acceptance of the wider program.

I fail to see an effective political movement in the US that advocates for the universal liberation of victims of class, racial, gender, kinship or economic oppression. Absent such a movement, the argument against tactical decisions made by liberation campaigns becomes one of how those tactics make building such a movement more difficult. Popular campaigns thrive on self-determination, democratic organization, struggle and victories. Movements fail without such histories.

Solidarity means standing with those struggling for their own liberation, and gaining strength and inspiration from them when they win. Repealing Prop 8? Great! Passing Gay Marriage Laws? Great! Challenging the appearance of Rick Warren at an Obama celebration? Even Better!
What's next?

The tactical decisions about Prop 8 or Gay Marriage or Rick Warren's invocation belong to the GLBTQ political movement.

[Two Americas]

191. exactly right

Very good.

The essay could have just as easily been titled "the mistakes that we who are not homeless are making, or who are not people of color, or who are not women, or who are not poor..."

You say "absent such a movement, the argument against tactical decisions made by liberation campaigns becomes one of how those tactics make building such a movement more difficult." Yes. But I also think that the argument against tactical decisions is actually an argument against forming a wider transformative movement.

Yes, the tactical decisions about Prop 8 or Gay Marriage or Rick Warren's invocation belong to the GLBTQ political movement. However, the building of a wider movement, while connecting the GLBTQ to the wider movement is the job of all of us. The idea that it is an either/or choice is false.

I think that most of the arguments against tactics here are really saying this: "given that there is no wider movement (and if I have my way there never will be one) these tactics are unproductive." Since there is no wider movement, therefore conservative thinking must be compromised with and pandered to in order to "win people over to the cause" and not alienate some complacent and inert "middle." The problem with that is that we are always looking in the rear view mirror, always reinforcing the status quo, and that wishy washy middle will always drift to the right and we will be compelled to follow.

[yardwork]

195. Remember, though, that there is no such thing as "gay leadership."

There are activists who fight for gay causes, and they may even claim the role of "leaders," but the GLBTIQ community is actually millions of individuals, many of whom have very little in common other than the single attribute of being somehow outside "normal" heterosexual pairings.

I don't think that this is what you meant, but I wanted to respond as there seems to be a misconception among some folks that if Elton John says its ok, then it should be ok with me, too, even though Elton John is a gay man living in a different country with different laws than mine. As a lesbian who does not live in England, is not a famous singer with a very large income and high social status, and has never pretended to be straight (as Elton John did for quite a while), I have virtually nothing in common with him, and he assuredly does not speak for me on this subject.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

188. Kick and I wish I could rec.