R Conrad

Beyond Gay Marriage - A Radio Documentary

Filed By R Conrad | March 14, 2010 4:30 PM | comments

Filed in: Marriage Equality, Politics
Tags: gay marriage, HIV/AIDS, Radical Queers

The lovely Lisa Dettmer has produced a fantastic community radio documentary for KPFA on the historic shift from the radical gay liberation politics of the 1960's to an assimilationist neoliberal gay politic of our dismal present titled: "Beyond Gay Marriage: A Radical Queer Critique of the Gay Marriage Movement and the Mainstreaming of Gay Politics." The documentary is fierce and poignant with a vast array of interviews from queer activists around the United States. Enjoy!

For more screeds against assimilationist gay and lesbian politics check out the online Against Equality!


Recent Entries Filed under Politics:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


"...of the 1960s"? Uh, given Stonewall happened the last weekend of June in 1969, what other years in that decade involved so-called "radical gay liberation politics"?

And given that far more of the mainstream culture are having/trying to have sex than are married/trying to marry, is sex "assimilationist," too?

Thanks.

if you need some schooling on history, sex and marriage try jon d'emilio's piece in the gay and lesbian review: http://www.glreview.com/issues/13.6/13.6-demilio.php

if you need some schooling in radical queer politics of the 1960's read up on the compton cafeteria riots in '66 or Vanguard in '65.

your welcome. sort of.

conrad
ps. it's obvious you didnt actually listen to the radio piece, at least not in its entirety because it is an hour long and you posted only forty minutes after this blog post went live. gosh darn those time stamps....

Year before Stonewall the same thing happened in a bar in California. 1920s Chicago the first legally established organization in the US for G rights and the three leaders were busted. There is some stuff from the 1950s that might interest you also.

yeah for sure! i had dinner with José Sarria last fall when i was in san fran visiting friends at the GLBT Historical society. oh man, the stories he could tell! really great stuff!

Gay history did not start with Stonewall.

No one is forcing you to "assimilate", if that word is so offensive to you. Gay liberation has always been about EQUALITY. No one is forcing you to marry, either. Gays and lesbians who wish to marry should certainly have that right, and it is a shame that you and your historically misinformed friends are against the rights that many gays and lesbians want.
Why are you not satisfied with letting everyone live their life the way he or she wishes to? You pretend to be so liberal, so radical, but it is merely a pose. You advocate YOUR choices and YOUR restrictions on the rest of the community, whether others want these choices of yours, or not. How intolerant.

Actually, Peter, people ARE being forced to assimilate. In Connecticut and Massachusetts, for instance, several corporations and others have cut off domestic partnerships even for straight people on the grounds that since everyone can now get married, everyone should. Simply put, straight and gay people are indeed being forced to marry if they want their partners to continue receiving health care benefits (that whole universal health care thing being in jeopardy and all).

And it's kinda impossible to be liberal AND radical at the same time. Let's pick one (perceived) insult at one time.

"In Connecticut and Massachusetts, for instance, several corporations and others have cut off domestic partnerships even for straight people on the grounds that since everyone can now get married, everyone should."

Open your nearest dictionary and look up the word "redundant." Then, look up "red herring."

The whole point of domestic partner benefits offered by companies was to make up for the fact that same-sex couples can't marry, which straight couples have always been able to do. Companies provide those benefits as an investment to acknowledge the benefits of married couples on the economy. No company is going to give health and life insurance benefits to just anyone who wants them for a roommate, friend or girl/boyfriend he or she just met a week ago because, in case you aren't aware, insurance costs money, and companies want to know they are getting a return on their investment.

Alaric, your point about insurance is empirically false. I know multiple companies that have switched to allow benefits for the employee and one person they designate regardless of relationship. That's how the local hospital does things here, and they're one of the town's largest employers.

Domestic partner benefits aren't just about what they were created to be, but what they have become. For a point in time, people have been able to obtain health insurance for their un-married partners. In many cases, without regard to gender. In several European countries once same-sex marriage became legal, rather than scrapping domestic partnerships they opened them up for everyone. So anyone regardless of the gender of their partner can choose either a domestic partnership or a marriage. And lo and behold, for a wide variety of reasons, a large number of folks have been choosing domestic partnerships.

I would like to see a variety of relationship recognition options like that. But when all the other options are taken away and special rights are sequestered only for relationships that are sanctified within marriage, then yes, people are being coerced into getting married. If a company that has been giving me domestic partnership health benefits says that I will lose benefits unless I get married, that's one hell of a coercive force. A lot of benefits were attached to marriage for the sole purpose of encouraging people in other relationship structures to get married instead. Before we can say that no one is being coerced into marriage, all those "incentives" need to be made available without regard to marital status.

Personally, I'm not saying we shouldn't have marriage for same-sex couples, but I'd like to see concerns like this taken into account. It wouldn't be too hard to follow the European example, to encourage companies to follow the example of my local hospital. However, if recognition of alternative relationship structures are abolished along the way to marriage, then it will be very difficult if not impossible to get them back.

Alaric, your point about insurance is empirically false. I know multiple companies that have switched to allow benefits for the employee and one person they designate regardless of relationship. That's how the local hospital does things here, and they're one of the town's largest employers.

That's great, but my company isn't one of them, and I have no way to change that, nor do I have the option of simply switching jobs. Maybe that'll change, but for now, I have health insurance and my partner doesn't, and he can't buy it himself because he has a chronic condition.

If a company wants to have domestic partnership benefits alongside same-sex marriage, then fine. I still think they're redundant, but I have no problem with that because it's the company's decision. However, my argument was that Yasmin's use of individual companies' decisions to eliminate them in Connecticut and Massachusetts as a way to bolster her argument against same-sex marriage was a red herring.

Thanks for posting this, Ryan. The documentary's quite a gem and deserves the widest possible audience.

We want to know your opinion on this issue! All comments from unregistered users are held for moderation. While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

If you would like to let the editorial team know about a possible policy violation, please use the Contact Us link at the top of the page.

Yesss, the Conrad/Yasmin/Mattilda triad! A guaranteed good time!

Please don't forget me. I am with them on this. The "Lefty Liberal Lesbian"

Maura - You will be the one who rounds us out, creating a fearsome Quartet. It'll be the Irish-Indian-British-American invasion of America, more powerful than the Beatles!

Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com | March 14, 2010 7:50 PM

Sorry. You confuse individual events with political implications, mostly NEVER actualized, with political MOVEMENTS. Hence the fact that, as admirable as it was in its own way, the Compton's "riot" had to be dug out of the dustbin of History decades after it happened.

As for the overreaching condescension of "need some schooling," age alone allows me to say that I've read more books on the history of the LGBT movement than I'd venture you know exist. PLUS the fact that I've personally known some of its pioneers. Would you like to know whether Frank Kameny [you can look him up] preferred white meat or dark at that Thanksgiving dinner I cooked for him and other history makers just possibly before you were born?

Now that doesn't make me any better than you, or more entitled to an opinion, but, collectively, it makes me better informed, and, in any case, as we all are, deserving of respect you seem unwilling to give anyone who dares question the sloppiness of your writing and the impudence of confusing ideology with a priori Truth.

No, I see no need to listen to the aural regurgitation of such ideological soup from another "intellectual ghetto" kitchen.

And I'm still waiting for the answer to my question about whether you've abandoned assimilationist sex which was entirely serious.

depends on the kind of sex yr having.

har har har...

"I see no need to listen to the aural regurgitation of such ideological soup from another "intellectual ghetto" kitchen."

That's pretty hilarious - given that the doc. actually makes a point of interviewing people who were part of the history you describe - and might actually be among the people you cite. But you'll never know that now, will you? Pish posh to actually making points based on any known reality. Much better to show up on a million websites and continue the hard work of thread-jacking without bothering to actually read or listen to anything. It must be nice to have that much time, but the rest of us have stuff to do.


OMG, Ryan Conrad and the Yasminites are back !!! To paraphrase what I have read before on Bilerico, I am not going to let Maggie Gallagher, Pope Benedict, Ryan Conrad, or Yasmin Nair, or Senator Mitch McConnell tell me whom to love, whether or not it is politically correct in their dystopia that I be permitted to legally marry, and whether I sufficiently embrace their politics of "otherness" and "don't want to fit in at any cost" and "misfitness" enough, in order to be politically acceptable in their other universe.

Ryan, I lived through the '60s, and one of the main tenants which we had was "live and let live". People were encouraged to "do your own thing". If you did not accept someone else's life choices, you simply said "that's not my bag, " , and learned to be tolerant. You and the Yasminites have embraced the hyper-aggressive politics so fashionable today, of Glen Beck , Rush Limbaugh, the National Organization for Marriage. These people and groups may as well all be called "the national organization against gays and lesbians."

When will you folks recognize that gays and lesbians are not your enemies? Elements of straight society oppress us. Yasmin has written so much in the past about all the oppressive "privileges". Well, it is "straight privilege" mainly by by religious fundamentalists that oppresses LGBT persons in America today.

Today's "radical queers" are not only standing on the shoulders of the forebearers in the gay and lesbian liberation movements as they enjoy gay and lesbian rights and freedoms unheard of in the golden '60's and '70's, they are spitting in their faces and on their graves by creating false issues. You "radical queers" are free to have your own groups, raise your own money, and hey, a really radical idea, why don't you all actually do something constructive rather than just bitching and dumping and the gays and lesbians who are actually doing something positive for other gays and lesbians, and who actually can raise money for the LGBT constructive issues. Ryan and Yasmin, you are generating so much very negative energy all the time against fellow gays and lesbians, to use a more recent expression, "chill", PLEEZE.

Peter, dude,

You're the one who leaves ranting comments and we're the ones who need to chill?

Here's a suggestion: Listen to the documentary. You might actually learn something, including some history. The kind of history that's not a mere compendium of clichés and many, many mixed metaphors (standing on their shoulders AND spitting on their faces AND their graves sounds like a contortionist's nightmare - and more than a trifle dangerous). And when you do listen to the documentary, which is what this post is all about, please feel free to come back here and dispute anything you hear. I think people would be more than happy to engage in actual conversations with you.

But I doubt that you will because it's so much easier to cut and paste the same old vituperative rants you leave on every. single. post. that challenges you.

I will admit: I love "Yasminites." Thank you for that. Again. [makes notes in her collection of t-shirt slogans]

And now, have a lovely day. We'll talk if and when you have something to say about the documentary. Well, wait, let me clarify that: We'll talk if and when you have some substantial, interesting, and intelligent points to make about the documentary regardless of whether or not you agree with the interviewees. And, in fact, if you actually listen to the doc., you might actually hear some of your old friends on there. But you won't know unless you actually, you know, listen to it.

I listened to the documentary, with all the rants against gay white men. The basic theme of it was that gay white men are the source of all evil and if the world would eliminate same sex marriage, there would be a socialist paradise.

The documentary does not support the tens of thousands of gays and lesbians in the military, because you folks are anti military at all costs, so screw the gays and lesbians who are there. THe documentary never mentions ENDA , or working with the many groups and individuals trying to enact ENDA. WHy? Because you all prefer whining and complaining and being victims, rather than actually working with organizations with credibility.

We want to know your opinion on this issue! All comments from unregistered users are held for moderation. While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

If you would like to let the editorial team know about a possible policy violation, please use the Contact Us link at the top of the page.

Thanks Conrad for bringing this Radio Documentary to Bilerico. I find it quite interesting and I'm glad you contribute to this community.

I find your work challenging and that's what I need.

The program mainly dealt with the opinions of some individuals on how to assist certain members of the LGBT underclass (prisoner populations, homeless, unemployed, etc). Somehow the idea is presented that if only we can all band together and destroy the members of our LGBT communities who are ahead a bit, or who have achieved something, that even though this will not solve the problems of the underclass, we may all be miserable together. There were NO concrete proposals, (not one single one !!!) on how to assist the LGBT underclass or other radical queers, simply manifestos on what should be attacked and destroyed in the LGBT community at large. The only suggestions or examples were attacks on same sex marriage, with no explanation offered on how this is really a bad thing.
Examples - the program wrongly asserts that same sex marraige is for rich white gay males. Nationally, most of the marriages in every jurisdiction have been between women. Furthermore, in places like the District of Columbia (Washington DC for all you who flunked geography), the applicants for same sex marriage licenses thus far have overwhelmingly been persons of color (black/brown/Asian) of all socio-economic strata. They are flooding into DC from all over. Again, these are largely women.
There was some carping about employment issues. OK, then why don't any of these people support ENDA (Employment Non Discrimination Act)? Others vaguely mentioned "immigration issues" with not a single example of how this is skewed aginst the LGBT community, and not a single example of what remedies are necessary. I do recall that a commenter above, MS. Nair, has written on Bilerico in the past against the LGBT immigration reforms advancing in Congress, as she has also written against the federal hate crimes legislation.
The only part of the program that I thought had real merit were the comments concerning violence against LGBT persons. But once more, no mention of the successes with Hate Crimes Legislation or the important work of those supporting the Matthew Shepherd Act and the Laramie Project. I guess his life didn't count because he was only a gay white male. Again, how does gay/lesbian marriage worsen the plights of victims of violence?
I did not wish to enter the military myself. However, many LGBT persons do go into the military, for all the same reasons that straights do. Many want the educational and career benefits. The military(with the GI Bills over the years) have been the road to home ownership, higher education, etc. for millions of Americans. Why not let the LGBT persons who want the same also get it? Whether some of the wars the country engages in is a totally separate issue, and should not be confused with the rights of LGBT persons in the military. I think that it is a shame to trash people like Dan Choi, as this program did. He is a hero on so many levels.
We can have some honest disagreements about the health insurance situation. In my opinion LGBT money at this time on health insurance legislation would be a waste because of the many hundreds of millions of dollars spent by the big lobbyists on the issues. After a bill is passed and enacted, LGBT groups can focus on the reality of the final legislation (with all its flaws) and make proposals how to improve it for LGBT persons. The reality is that health legislation will be an annual federal legislative issue now for the rest of all of our lives. These first costly rounds art not the ones for us to loose money on. However, like it or not, there are some gays and lesbians whose partners and children are assisted by the fact of marriage in those jurisdictions where it exists.
Of course, it is a real scandal that AIDS is such a problem. These funding issues are mainly local matters that demonstrate why local organizations are so necessary to promote these matters. AIDS work can not all be done by national organizations out of DC, NY, or LA.
No where in any of this program was a connection drawn to show that the existence of the same sex marriage issue in the media or in state legislatures and courts is in fact worsening the plights of the LGBT underclass. Of course, not a single scientific study or credible opinion polling is cited either.
There was an undertone to the report and to the comments that LGBT persons should proudly accept the label of loosers in society at large, and that all such persons should band together to rant and attempt to destroy the capitalist state.
The head of Queers for Economic Justice was espousing such nonsense, as his organization in fact also does. There is much gratuitous bad mouthing of gay white men and the national organizations. It sounded to me like the LGBT version of penis envy, jealousy that their organizations and budgets are bigger. Well, in non-profits, there is a "market" at work also. If your ideas are acepted by people, and if you are friendly about it, you can attract supporters and money. People who try to destroy their own communities do not usually get supporters or money, and yet they are fiercely complaining about it.
Finally, several interviewees used Maggie Gallagher's lines about how gays and lesbians already have domestic partnerships in some states, why do they want more? Aren't domestic partnerships and marriages really the same? Well, in a word, they are not the same, and what most gays and lesbians want is Equality. Look at the court decisions on these matters and Supreme Courts in California, Iowa, New Jersey have all explained this, especially how it plays out in the law. I know that the word Equality offends people like Ryan Conrad, who contributes to the Unequalitywebsite, and famously denounces equality. Well, go ahead and be inequal or less. I, and millions of other LGBT persons want equality. You don't have to have it if you do not want it. Equality means that LGBT will then have to accept more personal responsibility for their lives, and will no longe have "the system" or "capitalism" or "the oppressive gay white males" to blame for their misery. Self responsibility is considered to be the major task of maturity, and it is simply a task that many in all facets of society (LGBT or straight) do not want.
I have never heard anyone in any of the pro-same sex marriage movement oppose other LGBT organizations or to not wish them well in their efforts. I see no reason why LGBT persons can not proceed with a diverse agenda supported by whomever wishes to support a particular issue. Just quit trying to cut other LGBT persons at the knees, and stop denying civil rights to the millions of LGBT persons who want them.

Xerxes,

As usual, you show up with your misrepresentations (read: outright lies). "I do recall that a commenter above, MS. Nair, has written on Bilerico in the past against the LGBT immigration reforms advancing in Congress..." Blatant lie. I'm against UAFA, yes, for reasons that people can find out on their own. But I am not against real LGBT immigration reforms (and UAFA is no such thing; I'm not going to rehash he material you should have read more closely). I was for lifting the HIV ban, for instance - and it has been lifted, due to the efforts of many, many non-HRC-NGLTF-IE groups and people working on that issue since 1987. And, I'm for a humane reform of asylum on the grounds of sexual orientation, including the ending of the one-year deadline. Find a drop of evidence that I've written against these, and I'll buy you lunch, okay? Otherwise, stop showing up with your blatant lies. This is the second time, at least, that you've done this.

As for LGBT immigration reform, I do plenty of work on that level, enough to know that immigration IS LGBT immigration reform because...and this might shock you...lots of queers are immigrants and not all of them face isseus that can be solved by UAFA. Queer immigrants are also workers, and I'll leave it there.

As for the rest, it's clear that you choose not to grasp the fundamental reasons why work like ours is politically different from the mainstream as when you ask why we don't support, "Hate Crimes Legislation or the important work of those supporting the Matthew Shepherd Act and the Laramie Project." Um, because, as we've said countless times, hate crimes legislation only increases the violence of the prison industrial complex by increasing penalties and furthering the idea that it's okay to brutalise the most marginal, throw them in jail and do nothing about the systemic reasons for violence?

Dan Choi may be your hero, but he is no such thing to a lot of us.

The website you're referring to is http://www.againstequality.org/

And hey, thanks for the shoutout!

I strongly agree with your comment "Self responsibility is considered to be the major task of maturity, and it is simply a task that many in all facets of society (LGBT or straight) do not want."

Indeed rather than split people into gay/straight, White/Black, male/female, liberal/conservative, etc. the most meaningful division is between those who embrace responsibility vs. those who don't. Adults vs. children if you will.

In every case the losers of society ranging from radical feminists to radical queers to fundamentalist Christians to extreme liberals and more are on the side that does not accept responsibility due to lack of maturity. Instead they try to jack the laws and customs to make other people pay their way.

The only difference between the loser groups is the excuses they use to justify mistreating others in order to make them responsible for paying for the losers. Fundamentalist Christians use God as their excuse to oppress others. Radical queers use their deliberately maintained status as victims.

Radical queers use their deliberately maintained status as victims.

So true. I think the radical queers are aware that their vision of super-utopia is unrealistic, largely undesired and something that won't happen in our lifetimes. But they keep pushing for it with the knowledge that it won't happen, so that when it inevitably doesn't happen, they can play the victim and blame someone else.

I listened to the documentary. I have mixed feelings about it. For starters, I agree that marriage has trumped all other issues right now. No state has adopted an LGBT non-disrimination statute in the last year or expanded existing legislation. Marriage seems to be the only thing that matters (aside from a lot of talk at the Congressional level). Reduced focus on marriage and increased focus on the myriad forms of discrimination would be helpful.

However, I think the documentary did not do a good job presenting the issues that the Beyond Marriage project (http://www.beyondmarriage.org/) presents. There are a wealth of relationships that would not be benefited by changes to marriage laws. Also overlooked are the critiques of marriage and family presented by lesbian feminists and gay male sexual liberationists (and Ms. Nair -- couldn't resist the shout out!).

My point of disagreement is the criticism that rich gay white men only give money to support causes that help them. Why is that surprising? Should we expect otherwise? I doubt that political contributions are purely altruistic. If rich gay men perceive that marriage laws are the only source of discrimination against them, why wouldn't they focus their political giving there? They would be foolish not to. Prisons and homeless shelters are often beyond their realm of experience so they are unfamiliar with the discrimination faced by people in such situations.

thanks for the thoughtful feedback on the piece.

i have some concern about your logic in that last paragraph because it seems nihilisticly flawed to me. you raise an ontological question of human nature and why people do certain things (in this case financially contribute) that only benefit them. if this was true, then no one that hasn't experienced an earth quake or have family in earth quake disaster areas would make aid contributions to rebuild Haiti for example.

i'm not saying that people shouldn't act in their best interest, but i dont think it should be beyond expectation that people with money and resources help others in need, particularly when they are both marginalized by the same dominant social/cultural structures.

i guess i'm feeling more hopeful than what you describe as human behavior in your last paragraph...

Not very long ago, media coverage of gay issues was limited to park arrests, firings from government jobs for being gay, and then slowly evolved into also including the annual Pride events in many areas.

Then, there was an explosion of coverage of most of the so-called gay agenda. What accounted for this explosion? Simply, the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Court to recognize same sex marriage, followed by several other courts. Since that decision, LGBT rights are front page news everyplace, on every TV show, and on all the talk radio programs. Until gay marriage, this was not the case.

What do you do if you are an organization or an individual who wants some news coverage for yourself? Of course, you need to craft a way to connect your views to same sex marriage. It does not matter whether you are for it or against it. This is not an ideal world, but this is what works. Several LGBT individuals and organizations who have no audience and little financial support have decided to carve a niche to grab some media attention. What do they do? They proclaim themselves as LGBT persons or organizations AGAINST same sex marriage. Voila. Media attention that they never could have gotten otherwise in a million years. The spotlight on these LGBT anti-marriage types quickly wanes as an examination of their true agendas demonstrates that they really are not grounded in LGBT rights, but in revolutionary economic rhetoric with Cuba style solutions.

The radio documentary criticizes large LGBT organizations, especially the Human Rights Campaign (for its support of same sex marriage) which the program very wrongly calls an institution for rich gay males, mostly white. For all those claiming legitimacy of their positions through claiming spiritual descendancy from Stonewall, it should be noted that the national organizations would not support any of the same sex marriage cases any place in the country until the courts started ruling in the favor of the individuals who bravely brought the cases. Then, the organizations also saw that overnight, the media could not get enough of the LGBT Agenda as long as marriage was in the mix, and suddenly HRC and all the others began to support the same sex marriage movement. As an issue - it works miracles. It has gotten much of the public to support LGBT rights (including helping the anti-hate crime, and employment discrimination proposals) and it has raised all sorts of money for the big organizations. To their credit, the national organizations were smart enough to seize the unexpected historic moment, and to capitalize on the momentum generated by these marriage cases, even though they initially did not support them for fear of adverse court decisions. We would all be criticizing the big organizations if they had failed to capitalize on the marriage cases!

As worthy as the several issues of the LGBT underclass are of solution, they will never get the money nor the support that they deserve within or without the LGBT community. The issues all deserve to be fought for by the big organizations. However, can most of us imagine giving money to the current individual radical queer spokespersons for these issues who have no agenda other than killing off the LGBT spokespersons and organizations who are more successful, especially if their success is related to the marriage issue? And should the "radical queer" LGBT groups be ranking a hierarchy of suffering to determine whether LGBT issues should be supported or not? What's wrong with supporting all LGBT civil rights for all LGBT persons?

"We would all be criticizing the big organizations if they had failed to capitalize on the marriage cases!"

Um, no, as is evident from the documentary and in so many of our pieces, where people say, over and over: None of us asked for the focus on marriage. Please stop using "we" as if it applies to every queer person. The majority of queers do not support gay marriage as the only/major focus of the "movement," and the empirical evidence for that is mounting.

As for your analysis: "Several LGBT individuals and organizations who have no audience and little financial support have decided to carve a niche to grab some media attention. What do they do? They proclaim themselves as LGBT persons or organizations AGAINST same sex marriage. Voila. Media attention that they never could have gotten otherwise in a million years."

Damn. And, oh, pooh. You caught us. We shall now slink away, having been exposed by the spotlight of such searing analysis. Seriously? Conspiracy theories is where we're at now?

"As worthy as the several issues of the LGBT underclass are of solution, they will never get the money nor the support that they deserve within or without the LGBT community."

Breathtaking bit of honesty with regard to your feelings, there, so thank you for that! I keep hoping that privileged queers will just fess up to the fact that they have no interest in eradicating inequality, so I long for gems such as these.

As far as I can see, your logic goes something like this: "Only the big fat cat organisations can make progress on our behalf because they're the only ones willing to completely ignore matters of real inequality, which is the only way for them to keep resources in the hands of the privileged few like them, and having huge resources is the only way they manage to stay important and define themselves as successful. So the rest - the whiny poor people, for instance, or those stuck in jail for eternity - should shut up and wait for the crumbs to fall from the tables of HRC et al.

Because, really, look at all the fantastic progress we've all made in the past few decades and are making by focusing on garnering bigger resources for causes like marriage that can only affect a small part of our lives. Health care for all! The eradication of HIV! The lowest poverty rate in the world! The best education available to every child, regardless of income level! Clean air and plentiful resources!"

I trust you see my point: The world we live is occupied by more than just queers wanting to get married, and queers are affected by a lot more than the issues related to marriage.

As for "And should the "radical queer" LGBT groups be ranking a hierarchy of suffering to determine whether LGBT issues should be supported or not? What's wrong with supporting all LGBT civil rights for all LGBT persons?" I couldn't agree with you more. Except: Marriage is not a right. And: Substitute "mainstream" for "radical queer" and you have a picture of the reality.

If you want more evidence of how HRC et al have been ranking marriage as the only cause and to our great detriment, please read Ryan's excellent piece about the allotment of resources:

http://www.bilerico.com/2009/11/against_equality_in_maine_and_everywhere.php


Less than 20% of Americans support Socialism.

More than 60% of Americans support Equality.

But, every few weeks we have to endure these anti-equality rants. That's unfortunate.

For the sake of progress - please pick one:

Socialism or Equality?

While you're doing it, please remember Equality Advocates are not pissing on socialism. They're just trying to be treated equally.

Less than 20% of Americans support Socialism.

More than 60% of Americans support Equality.

But, every few weeks we have to endure these anti-equality rants. That's unfortunate.

For the sake of progress - please pick one:

Socialism or Equality?

While you're doing it, please remember Equality Advocates are not pissing on socialism. They're just trying to be treated equally.