It's great that they're acknowledging that some states are way under-resourced. But they don't do anything to address how this march is going to fix this. And then they make this weird rhetorical move of creating this category of "inequality states". Wha? It's like instead of actually addressing the issue of unequal allocation of resources, they're just acting as if the fact they lived in those states gives them some kind of strategic and moral authority.

Then within the span of about 4 sentences we go from "But we are still not equals" to "LGBT people are equals in every way." Well, which is it?

And then, I'm a bit creeped out by the mantra-like repetition of "we are equals", which we all know is objectively false comparing LGBT folks to straights in terms of rights, power, access, and privilege, and objectively false internally within the LGBT community given the inequality across racial, gender, class, age, ability, and gender identity lines within our community. It's almost as if they believe saying it over and over again makes it true, like they've been reading THE SECRET or something.

Comparisons to the 1963 march demonstrates the organizers' apparent ignorance about that march. The 1963 march WAS partially targeting specific legislation (Kennedy's civil rights bill), and WAS about compromise. In supporting the bill and yet criticizing it for not going far enough, it acknowledged the problems with compromise and also the political necessity of compromise. Compromise is how legislation gets passed and pragmatic political change happens. The no-compromise no-bargaining folks in 1963 were the ones that thought the march was silly.

And of course there's a lack of acknowledgment of the myriad ways that things that activism and protest have changed since 1963. Iconic moments like the 1963 march can't just be manufactured. Showing up on the mall doesn't make anyone more likely to take you seriously in 2009. 30,000 racist nutjobs just marched in washington, making uncompromising demands--guess what: we're going to pass national health care reform anyway.

You can't just say "we're being like Bayard Rustin" and act as if this replaces the hard work of thoughtful pragmatic strategy on legislative and judicial fronts.

One telling moment is that they describe legislation as "subdivided" and "confusing". Confusing? To whom? Is the issue that too few LGBT folks understand the way change happens in government? (That would explain some of the hostility directed at Obama by those who've made no effort to put extra pressure on legislators). Do we need to dust off our schoolhouse rock videotapes and relearn how a bill becomes a law? I'll give them "subdivided"--the only way to legislate expanded rights in a way that's not "subdivided" would be some kind of queer ERA. Good luck getting that ratified.

I appreciate that many people are supporting this march because now that it's happening whether we like it or not, we don't want to see it fail in a way that would be embarassing and set us back. But when the chief organizers are only capable of empty rhetoric like this, it definitely undermines my confidence.

Obviously, we are all aware that we are not equals in the eyes of the law or there really wouldn't be much work to do at the state or federal levels. The point is that as Americans, as humans, we all deserve to be equal and settling for partial equality...well that doesn't even make sense linguistically, much less is it acceptable. No one is saying that compromise doesn't have to be made in order for progress to occur at times, but why would anyone stop there? I can't think of a single person who would say "Well they gave me more of a right today than I had yesterday, so I'll quit now". Quite the contrary, we must (and will) continue the good fight locally and federally until we have FULL rights in all matters governed by civil law. And, please don't for a minute think that the people organizing this march aren't fully aware of the importance of doing the work locally. Not only are they people who have done and will continue to do work on the issues in their own communities; they are energizing people across the Nation to become MORE involved at a local level. And, I don't know what phone calls "Queer Today" has been on, but the ones I am a part of have taken into account all of the hard-working activists that won't be attending the march. There are solidarity marches springing up all over the country to help energize our local communities so after the march we can all come back together ready to move forward.

The March is badly timed to say the least. It comes just days before the critical referendums in Maine and Washington state and important electoral races in various states and communities, and it is sucking up attention and resources that should be going to those efforts. Any benefit that could conceivably come from even a huge attendance in D.C. will be outweighed a hundred times by the defeat of our causes and candidates in places like Washington state, Maine, Kalamazoo, Virginia, New Jersey and elsewhere.

No more waiting for crumbs

Sherry Wolf, author of Sexuality and Socialism: History, Politics and Theory of LGBT Liberation [1], makes the case for demonstrating in Washington at the National Equality March on October 11. Sherry is currently on a speaking tour of the East Coast [2].

September 18, 2009

THE NEWS this week that New York Rep. Jerry Nadler has proposed legislation to repeal the Clinton-era Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) would have been sufficient to quell the demands of LGBT activists one year ago.

Today, Nadler's bill is a welcome step. But the fact that it comes seven months into the presidency of a man who promised to repeal DOMA--and amid comments from Democratic leaders like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that getting rid of the federal anti-marriage equality law isn't a "priority"--highlights the molasses pace of LGBT rights legislation and the bankruptcy of the incrementalist strategy that has guided the LGBT movement for decades.

Like the moribund Equal Rights Amendment campaign for women's constitutional equality--initiated in 1923, reintroduced in 1972 and never passed by the required 38 states--LGBT gradualists have argued for a state-by-state legislative approach to winning change.

Enough begging for crumbs. If we want equal rights for LGBT people in all matters governed by civil law in all 50 states, we have to demand it from the federal government--and that means getting out and marching on October 11 in Washington, D.C.

That's what Generation Twitter and thousands of others--via Facebook, street heat and word of mouth--have been expressing in protests across the country since the passage last November of California's anti-equal marriage referendum Proposition 8.

President Barack Obama's own equivocation these last months shows the limitations of an electoral strategy--and the importance of struggle.

He is the first president to publicly utter the word transgender and to honor the anniversary of the 1969 Stonewall riots last June. Yet his Justice Department first insultingly upheld and then opposed DOMA. And Obama continues to drag his feet on repealing "don't ask, don't tell"--a policy that its own author, Gen. Colin Powell, calls for ending.

The relationship between LGBT activists and the Democratic Party has been a dysfunctional one. The Democrats court LGBT votes and money, but offer few gains and a fair share of abuse in exchange.

Notably, openly gay Rep. Barney Frank has refused to sign on to Nadler's DOMA repeal bill, saying, "It's not anything that's achievable in the near term." Frank, quite busy these days shoveling bailout money to the Wall Street bankers, was also instrumental in tossing transgender people out of proposed employment non-discrimination legislation in 2007.

For LGBT activists wooed by the Democrats, ditching the more militant strategy that won a hearing in the first place for a "don't rock the boat" approach is the price to play.

Thirty-five years have passed since gay civil rights legislation was first proposed in Congress, yet LGBT people remain an unprotected class of citizens. Whereas the denial of the rights of gays to work for the federal government, for example, was enacted with the stroke of a president's pen in Executive Order 10450 in 1953, no such swift action has been taken to overturn decades of institutional discrimination.

When Bill Clinton was in the White House, it wasn't until nearly six years into his presidency that he Executive Order 11478, providing partial relief for lesbian and gay federal employees--not including 3 million military personnel.

But the fact that his action left intact sodomy laws (finally overturned by the Supreme Court in 2003), anti-same-sex marriage legislation (which he signed), the military's unequal status for LGBT people (which he introduced!), and never mentions the rights of those who are transgender, exposes the failure of the electoral route for winning civil rights for sexual minorities.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

WE'VE GOT to strike while the iron's hot. Today, political tectonic plates are shifting rapidly, and groups and individuals need to get on board or step aside to let a new generation push ahead for full equality.

When Harvey Milk's protégé Cleve Jones put out the call for the National Equality March on Washington in October, almost every major LGBT group balked, arguing that there wasn't enough time, and a march wasn't the right strategy.

But the force of events and popular sentiment compelled organizations such as the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) to endorse this march. It's a positive sign that HRC feels the pressure to endorse--while grassroots activists shaping the march haven't watered down its demand for full equality now.

Unlike marches of the recent past, this one will not be brought to you by Miller Beer, Citibank or any other corporate entity. Its bare-bones budget is posted on its Web site [3], and celebrities like Cyndi Lauper and Lady Gaga are volunteering their services and paying their own way. It's grassroots all the way.

New activists are showing the way forward. When Black lesbians Aiyi'nah Ford and Torian Brown were kicked out of a Silver Springs, Md., diner for embracing, they called a protest in late August--and then got involved in building the march on Washington. A police raid on the Rainbow Lounge bar in Forth Worth, Texas--carried out on the night of the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall rebellion--sent patron Chad Gibson to the emergency room. Outraged LGBT folks called a protest--and now they're also building for the October 11 march. So are the local LGBT people in Atlanta, who responded with protests after an early September raid at the Eagle bar.

All of these actions have made international news and are forcing authorities to apologize and change policies.

Many transgender people, accustomed to being pushed into the shadows, have thrown themselves into building this march--from veteran Florida activist Donna Lee, who serves on the steering committee, to newer radicals like Dove Paige Anthony in Chicago's Join the Impact. Trans voices will be heard from the stage as well.

Whether the National Equality March draws tens of thousands or many more is hard to tell since so many established media outlets are ignoring it--though CNN, MSNBC and the LGBT cable network LOGO have agreed to give it exposure.

No matter how many turn out to march on October 11--or attend the vast array of workshops the day before--it will help punctuate a turning point for LGBT civil rights.

And a new network of activist groups will emerge from this march: Equality Across America. As Massachusetts activist Gary Lapon puts it, "We are not simply organizing to protest, but protesting to organize."

The new mood for LGBT equality is a reflection of a generation that grew up with unprecedented cultural exposure to sexual and gender variance, yet lives with draconian laws and organizational strategies that asphyxiate dynamism and shut down debate. No more crafting our demands to suit the tepid conservatism of a bygone era. We want it all!

President Obama, this is our Rosa Parks moment. When will you allow LGBT people sit at the front of the bus?