I didn't have a chance to link to this column by Steve Ault last week in the Gay City News. He was one of the organizers of two of the successful gay marches on Washington and he had some advice for the organizers of this march (and he comes down against it being a good idea, of course). He explains a little more about how the successful marches were organized:
Briefly, here's how our first three marches were organized and structured. The primary decision-making steering committee, national in scope, was comprised of delegates elected at regional meetings, assuring representation from all parts of the country while also mandating gender parity and inclusion of people of color. National organizations and spokespeople from unrepresented and underrepresented constituencies were added to make sure just about everyone had a seat at the table. The leadership was in turn elected from and by the steering committee. This decision-making process -- admittedly contentious and chaotic at times -- won acceptance as fair and inclusive. The ability to be both heard and represented motivated people from all over the country to commit time, energy, and resources to building these marches -- a factor at the very heart of their success.
In each instance, when the big day finally arrived, we reveled in and were empowered by our accomplishment. The first three marches on Washington strengthened our movement largely because they were democratically-run grassroots efforts on a massive scale. They have thus become milestones in both our developing self-awareness and our history as a politically effective community. They have even served as models for other movements seeking social change. Some traditions are worth fighting for.
Ault goes on to discuss how the March's demand (full equality), isn't really specific enough to have much meaning, and implies (maybe I'm reading a little into this), that the fact that it's not enumerated is because the organizers simply assume that anyone who identifies as L, G, B, T, or Q would simply have to agree with whatever policy proposals they want. In the end, the point of the March seems to be more: "We're disappointed, frustrated, angry, and in some ways resentful, but we don't know how to channel that energy." Definitely justified, but it doesn't make for an effective campaign.