This just underscores the point many of us have been making for a while now: The current push for marriage and marriage-related rights at the federal level, particularly now when when ENDA is about to come up in Congress, is being driven by a small selfish group of wealthy Queer elites who really have little or no understanding of what's really going on out there and what's really important to most of our community.

If HRC and their ilk were really in tune with what's going on in most of our country with the American LGBT community, workplace rights would be at the forefront of their efforts. Yet, we consistently see ENDA ignored or given far less attention in favor of marriage, which is not only already banned in 45 states but is of far less importance to most of us than the right to be protected against discrimination in the workplace, housing, and public accommodations.

The myth of LGB affluence? It's not the fault of the straights, it's an image actively promoted and perpetuated by the Queer elites putting their own issues first and foremost, often to the exclusion of all else. They do it because it's all they care about and in the end they really just don't give a shit about the rest of us.

Gary,
I hope that the Transgender Veterans Survey helped provide you with a little insight to the poverty level of transgender people. I want to once again thank you for all the help you provided TAVA in getting that survey out. It has helped to open doors in the VA.

Yeah, this is a lot more in line with my experiences with LGBT people than what was on Will and Grace. Most of them that I know either have regular jobs or are poor. I'm not saying that there aren't any rich LGBT's (obviously), but if we believe the media myth, then there aren't any poor LGBT's.

As for lesbians facing a high rate of poverty, it's understandable what with the fact that women make so much less money than men do. Het women often marry men, but lesbians don't, so they don't have that access to wealth (not sayin' control, just access).

But, yeah, this challenges LGBT leadership. Marriage and DADT aren't the only things we need, as one popular gay public thinker said about a decade ago. We need jobs and means to support ourselves.

Dr.Gates

Thanks for setting the record straight on this subject.

And, thanks for pointing out the fact that GLBT African-Americans are "facing even more serious economic challenges" than their white counterparts. As I researched my series, "The Cancer that Slowly Consumes Our Very Souls: Racism," I found that homophobia, and particularly institutional racism, play huge roles in this unfortunate reality.

Keep up the inspired work.

One thing we have to remember: The simple act of coming out puts one at odds with the status quo. It may be 2009, but that is still true.

I don't mean to play victim, to blame every struggle in my life to the fact that the conservative half of America hates queers --- but there is no reason for us to pretend that that isn't true, either.

Rebecca Juro, Chitown Kev & Everyday Transperson,
Thank you for your comments regarding GLBT cmty.

I have been active in every major human rights
movement of the past half century including my
participation in "Three Days of Rage" protests
following the Stonewall Rebellion in New York.

Though I began advocating for Same Sex Marriage
more than 15 years ago, I always maintained that
SSM should not become the primary issue for GLBT.

In the Black Civil Rights movement we made
conscious decision not to elevate Interracial
Marriage to be leading issue for three reasons:
1) would not further energize existing activists;
2) would not activate non-existing activists;
3) would mobilize adversaries on every issue.

This has been more or less result with SSM issue.
Moreover, surveys show only 15% of GLBT ever want
to get married. Polls show 85% of GLBT concerned
about Employment Nondiscrimination. While Gays
blamed Blacks and Latinos for loss on Prop 8,
only 15% of CA GLBT participated in effort!

Additional concerns should include: GLBT
poverty, AIDS, women's health, teen suicide,
elder care, drug abuse, as well as many others.

Frequently find myself lone voice raising issues
of classism, racism, sexism, ablism, ageism,
biphobia and transphobia within community.
For this I have been subject to inattention and
ostracism a/w/a unrelenting ad hominem attacks.

N.B. With background in social science research:
I have to say that as much as I may like survey's
conclusions, the methodology is seriously flawed.

P.S. I am White, middle-class, Gay identified,
bisexual male.

Anthony in Nashville,

HRC is commonly referred to as the Human Rights
"Champagne" Fund. For this reasons are several,
including: 1) influence of big contributors who
tend to be upper middle class Gay White men; 2)
disproportionate leadership by and for same; 3)
choice of issues of primary concern to above.

I am not burned out by more than fifty years of
activism but I have been burned and back stabbed
by more than a few activists including GLBTs.

Old and New Left labelled Gay Rights "bourgeiose
cause." Fellow anti-war & civil rights comrades
only people to ever call me "fag" to my face.

I was only male Task Force volunteer to support
handful of females in changing organization name
to National Gay AND LESBIAN Task Force as well as
to change charter for purpose of allowing women
to become sole (as opposed to co-) exec director.
NTWST my popularity, criticized by fellow males.

Though I have been activist since childhood, I
now have several university degrees, couple of
titles in addition to my Movement credentials.
Notwithstanding, you are correct about notion
that organizational ability not based on such.

However, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King,
Bayard Rustin and Aung San Suu Kyi were all
heavily degreed. I would have to refresh my
recollection about Nelson Mandela, Cesar Chavez
and Harvey Milk but I suspect they went past HS.

Harry Hay, Mattachine Society founder, was Marxist
labor organizer, but ENDA supporters do not make
alliances with union movement as did Rustin.

Supporters of right for international marriage
recognition do not make common common cause with
advocates for Latino and Asian immigrant cmties.

Del Martin and Phyllis Lyons were feminists, but
AIDS advocates do not support women in general or
care about women's health issues in particular.

"Culture of Beauty" has led to general rejection
of those with physical or mental disabilities.
Thus, those concerned with teen suicide have not
reached out to other minorities such as bipolar
depressives who commit suicide at higher rates.

Generational divide has led to handful of GLBT
elder care organizations in the country and only
1 GLBT senior citizen housing project just built.
Even elders have not reached out to AARP & such.

For reasons of political opportunism having to do
w/ increasing constituency numbers, Gay & Lesbian
"community" invited in Bisexuals & Transgenders --
only to treat them as stepchildren. Then wonder
why lack of SSM support by Bi's concerned with
polyamory & lack of ENDA suppt by TG's left out.

I have never demanded the unlikely: that anybody
share my social, econ, political, philosophical
or psychological views. Were I to do so not only
would I have no comrades, I would have no friends!

Ten years ago, I attended HRC forum on "Next 30
Years of the Gay Rights Movement." I believe
myself to have been only participant who was
present at Stonewall 30 years before. Two of
panel members were Log Cabin Republican and HRC
communications director. Both insisted that SSM
be at least primary issue of Gay Rights Movement.

A month ago, I attended HRC "forum" on SSM in DC.
There were only three panel members: 1) director
of DC Marriage Campaign; 2) Stonewall Demo ofcr
for SSM; 3) HRC Liaison to national SSM Campaign.

One audience member, young Black male activist,
spoke about working class issues; one audience
member, older Black female activist, spoke about
community issues; I, White mid-class male activist
was only person to suggest intra-community class,
race, gender, age & ability issues take priority.

After I spoke in a vacuum, Black female activist
remarked: "I don't think you have answered his
questions." DC Blade reporter promised to
include my comments but failed to do so.
Though for this unconventional wisdom I have
recieved print & broadcast attention in the past!

For my questioning priority of SSM and resource
allocation which I think is disproportionate to
issue, I have been attacked by GLBT activists who
have known me for 20 years! On account of my
disagreement, I am treated like a traitor.

A.J. Lopp

As above stated: Old & New Leftists labelled
Gay Rights a "bourgeoise" cause. My fellow anti-
war and civil rights activists have been only ones
to ever call me a "faggot" or "queer" to my face.

Majority of Democrats -- including many so-called
"liberals" -- are opposed to SSM in particular.
Polls show that 25% of Democrats are opposed to
any legalized form of GLBT marital arrangement.
One third of San Franciscans oppose SSM; 45% of
Los Angelinos oppose any form of GLBT union.

Thus, no reason to pretend that "conservative
half of America hates queers" so long as one
remembers that so do at least 25% of liberals --
not to mention tremendous number of GLBT who hate
themselves or have bought into "victim mentality."

The "wealthy gays" studies gained traction because the studies were done before the population-based studies, and were heavily promoted. The purpose of the studies was to better convince "non-traditional" advertisers (ie, other than HIV drug, reverse mortgage, and cigarette ads) to buy ads in glossy gay magazines and other gay media. The performer of at least one commonly cited study was a small advertising agency that specialized in ads directed at the gay community.

The "wealthy gays" study population was selected from gay glossy magazine (Advocate, Poz, and others) subscribers, a subpopulation of the community that is disproportionately white, well-off, male, and cisgendered. The number of interviewees was small, and of course the individuals participating were those who were accessible and willing to answer surveys. Of course the income level, amount of travel, etc were reported by the interviewee, without confirmation through other means, so bragging may have been an issue with the study.

The studies may have been embraced by naive activists trying to maximize the LGBT movement's political potential as donors, and by social-climbing gays looking for external validation for the status of being gay.

In the early days it was very difficult to conceive a population-based study of LGBT, because 1. people were even more fearful of being outed and were unwilling to be counted 2. databases had little potentially useful information (eg, cohabiting adults of same sex are not necessarily gay, and do not equal the totality of the gay population, since many gays live alone, are in a heterosexual marriage, etc).

It isn't surprising that the ad agency's "study" got finished first, got promoted to reporters looking for canned info on gays, got reported as gospel truth without attention to study limitations (most reporters are innumerate, unfamiliar with basic principles of polling design and interpretation, intellectually sloppy, lazy, and/or too pressed for time to look for accurate info.

My respects to Drs Gates, Badgett, and the other demographers, sociologists, statisticians working in this area.

Quick question - I read the post with LGBT sometimes and LGB at others. Were trans folk included in the study or not? I'm confused.

Back to the point of this post: Gay Affluence, and the Myth Thereof.

Friday night Bill Moyers Journal on PBS included this stat:

My friend Peter Dreier, who teaches politics at Occidental College in California, says "This Economy is a Real Killer." He cites research estimating that for every percent the rate of unemployment climbs, an additional 47,000 people die - half from heart attacks. More than 800 are murdered. And nearly twelve hundred commit suicide.

I suspected that economic conditions as bad as we are experiencing now would push certain people "over the edge" --- people who were already suffering from depression, for example, or people who lose their existing income but returning to work is not an option (due to health, family responsibilities, and so on), or people who just lose hope that they will find another job in time to avoid losing everything --- but I had never seen a hard statistic about this.

And obviously, there are subtle and not-so-subtle ways that GLBT people might be particularly vulnerable, along with other disfavored groups.

Frightening. Quite frightening.

Isn't this study just looking at one side of the equation - defining "affluence" as the absence of poverty? Shouldn't the study also look at the proportion of gays and lesbians who live far above the poverty line?

One of the big problems in our society is that the media likes to take hold of "sound bites" and then popularize them. In other words, if a study shows that the gay population, on average, has a higher income and net worth than the straight population, then the media often simplifies the statistic and say "gays are richer than straights." But averages are AVERAGES. They are not indicative of every individual in the population being measured, or the relative proportions. I believe that the author is making a similar error by titling this post "The End of Gay Affluence." By using such a simplified title, he is generating a sound bite - now the media can run out and say "look, gay people aren't wealthier than straight people."
A more useful study of affluence might look at the *distribution* of wealth in populations and compare them. We might find then find that the *true* sound bite is "the divide between rich and poor is more extreme in the gay and lesbian population than in the heterosexual population."