The Invisible Hand of Gay Liberation
Jason Kuznicki on Oct 17th 2005 07:24 pm |
As many on both the left and the right are quick to note, the gay rights movement has had a long history of confusions and missteps. Meanwhile its successes seem to come from nothing less than an invisible hand: As more and more people come out, we somehow all learn to live with each other, all with no apparent central planning or organizing principle to underwrite the process.
Most often, real improvement in the lives of gays and lesbians has come in steps so gradual as to be nearly undetectable: Pictures of partners appear on office desktops; newspapers here and there begin to print notices of commitment; a corporation extends partner benefits; the partners themselves come home and meet the family. By millions of small and sometimes purely selfish gestures, the world is transformed.
Given the scope of the change that we have asked for in the last forty years, unforeseen complexities are virtually inevitable. A case in point is the very idea of same-sex marriage itself, a notion that was perfectly ridiculous to the overwhelming majority of gays–until, that is, it became perfectly obvious. (Admit it: Our adversaries can be forgiven for thinking a vast conspiracy is afoot.)
Yet despite all the surprises, despite all the missteps and reversals, in millions of little ways, we muddle through. Why? Because the alternatives to muddling through–on either side–are either too ridiculous or too awful to contemplate. Or both.
Three recent pieces help illustrate what I mean.
First, the awful. Rob Anderson, a promising voice in the next generation of gay activism, has this to say about the execution of gay teenagers in Iran, a story that should be familiar to PL regulars:
For many gay Americans, the pictures from Iran that spread around the Internet in late July represent a watershed moment, a time when we realized that on top of demanding our rights and equality at home, we must also actively seek to influence the lives of LGBT people abroad.
We are now educating ourselves. Before July, many of my friends and I weren’t aware that LGBT Jamaicans are frequently attacked and driven from their homes, and that the police, instead of investigating the complaints, often join in the attacks.
We weren’t aware that in March of this year, Saudi Arabia imprisoned and flogged 100 gay men for attending a party — they were dancing and “behaving like women,” one Saudi government-affiliated newspaper reported.
And we certainly weren’t aware that LGBT Iranians, even minors, could be imprisoned, tortured, and publicly executed for engaging in same-sex activities. News of more sexuality-related Iranian executions surfaced in August.
Although it is hard to confirm the exact reason for the executions because of Iran’s opaque justice system, to the best of our knowledge, the killing of LGBT Iranians continues.
When history is written, minority groups are defined both by the restrictions placed upon their freedoms and by the ways those groups faced — or chose not to face — the challenges spurned by those restrictions.
European Jews of 20th century, for example, are defined both by the acts of Hitler’s Nazi regime and by the ways they responded to those acts. Likewise, African Americans are defined both by the atrocities of Jim Crow America and by the ways they reacted to the brutalities of that system.
Those who oppress LGBT people have already written half of our history. It is our part that remains unfinished.
Mr. Anderson, truer words were never written. Thank you.
And now for the ridiculous. While gay men and even teenagers are being flogged and executed abroad, consider what’s happening at home:
Cleo Manago, the founder of the Black Men’s Xchange, known as BMX, did speak to the [Millions More] rally. BMX claimed earlier in the week that it had been invited to speak at the rally as the sole representative of the gay community.
BMX is a controversial, all-male organization whose members don’t identify as gay but rather as “same gender loving.” BMX views the term “gay” as an identification created by and for white gays.
Manago told the crowd, “I’m here to bring the perspective of a black man who is a same gender loving black man.”
He called for “healing opportunities particular to the black experience that explicitly acknowledge our diversity which would include same gender loving brothers and sisters …
“That I’m up here indicates that [Minister Farrakhan] was very serious about us all coming together,” said Manago. “I, too, am often called a black nationalist, particularly by the white gay community because I don’t identify with their way of framing us in this world.”
BMX’s website says the following:
The term same gender loving emerged in the early ’90s to offer Black women who love women and Black men who love men (and other people of color) a way of identifying that resonated with the uniqueness of Black life and culture. Before this, many African descended people, knowing little about their history regarding homosexuality and bi-sexuality had taken on European symbols and identifications as a means of embracing their sexuality(ies): Greek lambdas, German pink triangles, the White-gay-originated rainbow flag, in addition to the terms “gay” and “lesbian.”
The term “gay,” coined as an identification by White male homosexuals beginning in the in the 50s, was cultivated in an exclusive White male environment. By the late 60s, the growing Gay Liberation movement developed in a climate excluding Blacks and women.
I don’t even know where to begin in replying to this nonsense.
A good starting point might be to note that the very idea of black exclusion from gay culture is all kinds of false. Spreading ignorant lies about black history and gay history alike is not liberation. It’s merely a new kind of oppression.
Another starting point would be to suggest that maybe, just maybe, calling oneself “same gender loving,” an ugly locution for a beautiful thing, might perhaps be a way of using racism to avoid talking about heterosexism, to avoid taking that final plunge, to avoid looking yourself in the mirror and say “my God, I’m a fag”–or whatever term you find most difficult for it.
A third starting point, and probably the most effective, would just be to remember Rob Anderson, and to remember how he’s standing up for gay men that he has never met, men who share neither his nationality nor his race. This is the strange power of being gay; it unites and divides along lines that we might not otherwise have expected, and, in doing so, it cautions us against all other forms of groupthink.
Of course, gayness has its own forms of groupthink. In Canada, conservative Christian pastor Stephen Boissoin faces accusations that he exposed gays to hatred:
In a letter published in the Red Deer Advocate in June 2002, Stephen Boissoin wrote that homosexual rights activists and those who defend them are as immoral as pedophiles, drug dealers and pimps.
After considering the case for three years, the human rights commission will finally hear a complaint filed against Boissoin by Darren Lund, a University of Calgary professor. Lund contends the letter contravenes Alberta’s human rights law.
Look, I’m as gay as they get. And I’m even an atheist. Yet all the same, I have to feel sympathy for the guy. Something terribly wrong is being done to him–even while, yes, he really is saying something that I find terribly wrong. Neither point should ever obscure the other; the freedom to be offended implies the freedom to be offensive, and vice versa.
To my gay friends: It’s nothing personal. It’s just that the freedoms of conscience and of speech are the foundations of your rights, too. Once, not so long ago, your speech was generally thought every bit as loathsome as Mr. Boissoin’s is today. And because my loyalties, my deepest and most profound loyalties, are with the system of free inquiry and free self-discovery, I must support him even as I have supported you. I daresay I’m even doing you a service.
How so, you ask? For starters, just look at the reprehensible pose of wounded dignity that this imbecile gets to strike under Canada’s hate crimes laws:
“My banner has now been raised and war has been declared so as to defend the precious sanctity of our innocent children and youth, that you so eagerly toil, day and night, to consume.”
One almost expects a reference, after Kubrick, to our precious bodily fluids.
It is his democratic right in a free society to make such comments, Boissoin said in an interview. It is also his duty as a Christian to speak out.
“What I wrote in my letter to the editor is not false, that is my religious belief,” he said.
“I believe the Charter of Rights protects my religious beliefs and I believe that it protects my right to freedom of speech.”
We’ve seen his kind before. The way to deal with them is not prosecution, but mere civic ridicule, which gives them all of the scant dignity that they deserve. Back when Anita Bryant came peddling this stuff, it almost made sense. But now, with gays and lesbians raising more children than ever before, the best way to fight Mr. Boissoin might simply be for gay and lesbian parents to speak up against him. Perhaps one fine Sunday morning they could show up at his church in droves–and pray (another “democratic right”) that he change his views.
Hate-crimes laws, and all solutions like them, are wrong, but not because the conduct they penalize is good or legitimate. These laws are wrong because they short-circuit the process of discovering what loathsome is; they are wrong because they isolate us from it and thereby weaken the defenders of the good. They are a shortcut that seeks to obtain the results of muddling through, in little victories here and there, without ever having to fight the fight at all, at least not properly speaking.
If it’s a question of either turning back the clock or legislating that all must instantly think in the way that I now do–well, I’ll take the third option every time. And quietly, hopefully, I’ll change the world.
Filed in Uncategorized
I think you have to distinguish between hate speech laws and hate crime laws. The law distinguishes levels of severity and punishes accordingly of all sorts of crimes depending upon the criminal’s motivation (for example, self-defense often ameliorates a violent crime whereas an intent to intimidate or silence can make it worse). It’s not unreasonable to impose additional penalties if, for example, an assault is committed for racial or religious reasons, as long as the additional penalties are not as serious as the penalties imposed for the crime itself absent racial or religious motivations. For example, if an assault would normally bring a sentence of two years, it’s getting out of hand to add another five years to it if that assault was done for racial reasons or out of homophobia, but it would not be unreasonable to add, say, a year to the sentence.
However, you are right on about hate speech laws. Such laws are misguided in the extreme, and I’m very happy that the U.S. has the First Amendment to make the passage of such ill-considered laws considerably more difficult than in Canada or Europe.
This is an interesting post, but regarding Boissoin, from Canada I will merely repeat a German phrase: Andere Laender, andere Sitten. Different countries, different practices. The Canadian courts may, or may not, agree with you. But you should be aware that other countries may have a lower bar for incitement that the US does.
I know full well that Germany does–and that is a reflection of their Nazi past. Is it true? Yes. Is it right? I’ll let you decide. But, since you are (I believe) a historian, I will just remind you that the US hasn’t been all that great in regards requiring freedom of speech.
Orac,
Why is it worse, in the eyes of the law, if someone beats me up because I’m white than if he beats me up because he had a bad morning? Shouldn’t the law look simply at the physical act of harm? If I’ve been assaulted, I don’t much care why. As a society, we might be more offended by the hateful crime, but it doesn’t make sense to punish that further. The offensive part is not actual harm, which is all the government is entrusted to prevent (and prosecute). Wouldn’t it make more sense to set the punishment for the hypothetical assault at the hate crime level and eliminate the hate crime distinction?
Tony, the law does not look only at the physical act of harm. It also looks at intent, which is why a pre-meditated murder carrys a larger punishment than one that was not pre-meditated.
If one believes that someone who harbors a documentable hate of a specific group, constitutes standing intent against this group, then there is justification to for hate-crimes legislation.
you know, I’m not sure where I stand with hate crime laws. I would hope that the strict enforcement against violent crime would be enough and I think this part of the ‘gay agenda’ (getting sexual orientation and gender identity hate crime laws passed) is very low on my agenda priority.
Yet, that said, we do already punish crimes based on intent. Kill an enemy while fighting as a soldier, Shoot someone who is coming after you with a gun and kill them, Push someone in a brawl and accidently kill them, hit someone with a car while driving drunk, kill someone in a fit of rage, plan out the death of your mother to get the insurance money, etc. all end up with the same outcome. Someone is killed. The difference is the intent, purposes and desires of the killer. And we rightfully distinguish those in law with very different punishments (if any). As a society we are saying killing someone in anger isn’t as grievious
oops, got cut off… isn’t as grevious… as killing them for a thought out reason, etc. Our thoughts, intents and purposes do have an effect on the punishment. Why is it any different to say ‘killing someone because they are black’ deserves a worse punishment than killing someone in a bar brawl.
Hate crimes are those which victimize an entire community not just the victim.
It is the intent of hate crime legislation to take into account the damage done not just to the individual targeted by the crime but the damage to the community to which that individual was perceived to belong. All gay people living within a neighborhood are targeted when a resident is targeted not because of that resident’s individual identity but because that resident was perceived – mistakenly or not – as a gay person (same can hold for jews, blacks, disabled, etc.).
This special classification of crime is not new. Enhanced penalties for sexual assault as opposed to assault have been around for some time now and have been effective.
While some people disagree about the need for hate crime legislation, most can agree that the intent to reduce this type of crime is noble.
There was a good discussion of this over at In the Agora a while back, and some points were raised that may be worth bringing up here. Eric Seymour in particular raised some good points against hate crime legislation.
One distinction he pointed out was between motive and intent. That is, the level of punishment for a crime can certainly depend on intent (e.g. whether the crime was accidental or premeditated), but having it depend on motive may be unique to hate crimes (I’m not a lawyer). For instance, if I steal to feed my family the punishment is no different than if I steal on a dare.
Another important point to think about is how hate crime laws impact on the idea of equal protections. Is it just for a member of a minority group to have more legal protections than any other citizen?
While some people disagree about the need for hate crime legislation, most can agree that the intent to reduce this type of crime is noble.
This brings me to a final important point that was raised in the ITA discussion, which is that there are ways of reducing hate crimes that don’t involve changing the way that criminals are prosecuted. For one, police forces can devote more resources to investigating and pursuing hate crimes. Reducing this kind of crime is in fact noble, but is hate crime legislation the best way to do it?
BTW – excellent post, Jason.
Another word for “hate crime” is “terrorism”, since the intent is not just to beat up one person, but to put hundreds or more in fear.
Incitement is a real phenomenon, as evidenced by the “Nuremberg list”, which lists abortion providers’ home addresses and as much personal info as possible, such as schools attended by their children – and which has “crossed out” a provider just hours after the individual was shot to death AND BEFORE THE DEATH WAS REPORTED ON NEWS SOURCES.
I don’t agree with Jason that the lgbt community has been a model in dealing with lgbt of color, just that it has been better than the generality of white culture. There are still bars that demand multiple IDs from blacks but let in all non-jailbait-age whites without IDs. Clearly, some white gays are ok with this, since the practice probably went on for a while at the bars in question. However, more white gays are against it, and one bar in SF Castro was picketed out of business for that policy once it became well known. Also, there are the annoying white guys with a fetish for black, or Asian – anyone will do – and I imagine that gets old after a while… .
Now I don’t much care what black lgbt care to call themselves, as long as they stay open to allyship. The women’s movement had much the same name game – some black women perceived (often correctly in the early days) that the feminist movement focused on white middle-class concerns because it was run by white middle-class women, with not much chance for poor women or non-whites to get real agenda-setting power. In the mid-1970s, black feminists started using the term “womanist” for their feminist ideology which tended to include race-specific issues (sterilization of vulnerable women) or poverty/reproductive issues (eg, access to prenatal health care and access to abortion for poor women, not just access to abortion for those who can pay). Well, white feminists by and large woke up from their naivete about needs of non-white and poor women, and organizations tried more vigorously to be inclusive of both women and concerns.
I have to say “same-sex-loving” seems a bit clinical, since it is close enough to the epidemiologic term “MSM” (men who have sex with men) which is designed to describe acts and not states of mind.
I don’t have much time right now, but I’d like to reply to a few points on hatred as a category of crime.
I am aware that there is a difference between hate crimes and the criminalization of hate speech. I do not, however, find it a terribly meaningful one. I should have been a bit clearer in spelling this out.
I am also aware that our present legal system does take some motives into account in sentencing. But this in itself is not a slam-dunk in favor of hate crimes legislation of any type; merely considering certain motives in sentencing does not mean that all conceivable motives should be treated alike.
The question of whether the criminal code should take into account the political unpopularity of the reasons for committing a crime strikes me as bizarre to say the least–as if killing your mother to collect the insurance money (or killing your lover in a fit of jealousy) was somehow a better motive than racial or religious hatred. Aren’t they all pretty awful?
The only sort of sentencing change I could support in this area would be the stipulation that no one should ever receive a lighter sentence because a crime was motivated by the victim’s belonging to a particular minority group. This becomes particularly important for gay men, who are often accused of having provoked crimes against them by making sexual advances (the so-called “gay panic” defense).
Lastly, as to the argument that hate crimes are directed not merely at the victim, but at the entire community, I have two replies.
1. Aren’t all crimes an assault on the general community of citizens?
2. Couldn’t the logic of punishing a crime more intensely because of a supposed but altogether vague threat to the community (made by someone who will soon be in jail and in no position to carry out any threat at all), couldn’t that logic end up criminalizing speech as well? Yes, I do support laws against menacing, or against making specific, targeted threats. But there’s quite a difference between that and saying merely that someone’s lifestyle is immoral.
Keep in mind that gay Blacks (mostly men) have been victimized so much within the Black community that adopting new terms may be the only way to reconcile an LGBT culture (mostly white just by proportion) that has settled on “gay” by default and doesn’t want to accept many new terms for simplicity’s sake.
There isn’t really any overt oppression of Blacks within the gay community, but the reverse isn’t be true. Adopting a new term to define gay blacks that fits between the two identities is a way to help those gay blacks on their way to full self-acceptance.
I would submit that the firebombing of a gay activist’s house, resulting in the deaths of two people, and done in the context of an imminent gay-rights referendum, is of a different and more severe nature than the torching of a rental property for insurance fraud, with death of two people. Similarly, the beating of a witness, by a party to the upcoming criminal court case, is of a more severe nature than an equivalent ‘random’ beating. In the first case, the aim is to intimidate a whole class of people from exercising their right to free speech and political activism. In the second case, the aim is to subvert justice and probably also to intimidate any other witnesses. Damage has been done to the polity as well as to individuals.
I believe Anita Bryant later softened (or even recanted) her stance on gays, admitting that she hadn’t actually known any gays (in Hollywood? well, maybe she didn’t notice) when she campaigned against them. The invisible hand at work.