Gay Marriage, the Community, Social Justice…

[wakeflood]

It’s been a little while since we’ve had a controversial topic here so I’ll toss a thought out that I’m sure will rile some folks up – even though it’s merely an attempt to pose a question that I’ve had for a few years and am curious what the answer will be.

Hang on for a sec while I lay a little groundwork for my thought process.

Ten years ago or so, I remember having lengthy discussions with my friends – some straight, some gay – about the push toward marriage equality. It was in the middle of Shrubdom and so many things were effed up that I was openly wondering whether some significant portion of that energy might have been better served by focusing on ensuring civil union recognition (the “rights” part) and let churches support the “M-word” part. I felt that the state shouldn’t participate in sanctioning a purely religious activity but they SHOULD sanction the part that makes folks equal. (In fact, I think the state should only sanction civil unions for everyone. And some of my gay friends agreed.)

I asked a number of my gay friends if they thought that once the LBGT community reached a functional level of equality, if they would pivot all that incredible energy and righteousness and money toward another very obvious and dire issue facing our society – that being poverty and income inequality? My assumption being that it was a related issue of societal justice and human equality and that their well-oiled and funded machine would be an incredibly useful tool to aim at this problem.

So, there’s my question in a nutshell.

Now that we’re pretty clearly at or past the tipping point with gay marriage (a very good thing), will the LBGT community as a demonstrated, powerful force for change push hard as a group to have their economically disadvantaged brothers and sisters get the change they so desperately need? Or have they no particular dog in this fight?

I know what I’d dearly like to see happen but maybe that thought isn’t realistic or unfair in some way?

Thoughts?

Share This

[seaopgal]

Well, the struggle for LGBT equality is more than gay marriage, and is far from over in this country or around the world, so it’s not exactly like people are looking around saying, “Oh, good, that’s done, what shall we work on next?” And even if they were, the LGBT community is not as “homogenous” as you might expect when it comes to general political, social or economic issues. So, yeah, I think your question is both unrealistic and unfair … unless you expect the same behavior from AARP on the issue of immigration rights, or the NRA on the issue of sexual trafficking, or Occupy on the issue of animal captivity.

Share This

[wakeflood]

Point taken. I was pondering the connection between the topics mentioned and the variable strength of those connections. Are they analogs? Maybe.

What’s the relative importance of social justice issues in this country currently? Is economic inequality bigger than immigration, sexual trafficking or animal captivity? Which one deserves the most energy and attention from groups that work on social justice issues?

Are those groups all analogs? Is the NRA/AARP functionally the same as the LBGT or Occupy communities? Depends?

I suspect that the vast majority of folks who support progressive social justice issues in general have supported the promotion of non-discrimination of the LBGT community. Is that a fair assumption?

Does your indication of limited homogeneity of the LBGT community suggest that the inverse would NOT be true for economic issues?

Share This

[JanS]

wakeflood…was just reading this today. We have a long way to go it seems. Does “sexual orientation”, which encompasses marriage equality, etc. belong in this language. Should someone as powerful as the Catholic Church be given a pass on state laws, considering they operate many hospitals in the state? the courts say “Yes”…

http://catholicwatch.org/swedish-officially-abandons-protections-gay-employees/

Share This

[wakeflood]

Yup. The fight continues on all fronts. Personally, if you’re a private, for-profit entity and you want to deviate from law to serve only those that meet some arbitrarily exclusive group, you can try to go that route. But you get not one penny of public money in your coffers. And you have no tax exempt status of any kind.

Share This

[Jeannie]

While I am thrilled that we have taken great strides in rights for the LBGT community (though, indeed, we still have far to go), I am concerned that less attention is being paid to extremely pressing matters (though perhaps less interesting to the media) that affect many, many people such as poverty among young people and the elderly. For instance, some right-wingers are pushing for massive changes in Social Security and Medicare, which seniors have worked for decades to earn. But perhaps that is less fun for the media than pictures of loving gay couples getting married.

Share This

[skeeter]

“Now that we’re pretty clearly at or past the tipping point with gay marriage”

I agree that society is past the tipping point. That probably happened in 2011 and 2012. But certain (most?) religious groups are not there. It’s a very interesting time to be Catholic.

Share This

[wakeflood]

OK, so maybe this thread is on the verge of being hijacked by a “religion vs. LBGT community” but that’s not the intent of the OP.

That’s a topic that deserves discussion to be sure but I’m looking for an open discussion on something a little different that I’ve rarely heard mention.

My posit: The progressive community as a whole has supported LBGT rights in near unanimity (with time, money, votes) as one of the pillars of social justice. Because it’s both the right thing to do and because it is a cornerstone of a just society.

My question, to put a fine point on it is: Would the LBGT community support at similar levels one of the other (and I might suggest, highest priority) issues of social justice – that of income inequality?

So far, I’ve heard that it’s an unfair question – one, because the expectation of the LBGT community to be homogeneous enough to support that cause at near unanimous levels is unrealistic(?) Did I get that phrasing correct? And two, because they are still fighting for their main cause.

The second point is fair enough but I’ll take that out of the equation to get at the root of my question.

If/when the continued momentum makes sexual equality a generally practiced and accepted social norm, can we progressives expect the LBGT community and its influence, power, and organization to put that energy behind the fight for economic justice? If not, why not?

Share This

[Jeannie]

You make some very astute points, wakeflood. I admire and respect how the LBGT community has raised their voices so eloquently and effectively. But there are major issues affecting large portions of the population that need to be addressed as well. I’m sure many LBGT people are strong voices for alleviating poverty, helping the elderly, saving the environment, etc. – they’re not mutually exclusive. Yet we’re not seeing much progress on the poverty, environmental, etc. fronts, unlike the gay-marriage movement.

Share This

[seaopgal]

Now it sounds like your asking for payback … we “progressives” supported you, now you must support us. My point was why aren’t you asking the same question of other “affinity” groups (the ones I mentioned, or others)? Why call out just the LGBT community?

You may feel that economic inequality is the “one” issue that every progressive should be working on now … but I just spent a very intense week with people who believe that animal captivity is primary. For many of my religious friends, immigration and sexual trafficking are huge issues. Climate change just may trump them all! Doesn’t mean that these folks aren’t also concerned about inequality … but not all people need to be working on all issues, and that there isn’t (or shouldn’t be) a “litmus test.”

I almost feel like you are saying that the LGBT community would somehow be more hypocritical than others if they (we) don’t go all in on economic inequality. That’s unfair. And since the LGBT community is extremely economically (educationally, culturally, religiously, and otherwise) diverse, it’s also unrealistic.

Share This

[wakeflood]

I asked a question. Pointed yes, but simply a question. I don’t have the answer to it. You think the question unfair. So be it.

I don’t believe you need to be all in on one thing but I do believe that if you have power, especially one that’s demonstrated to have worked in the face of many feeling so completely powerless these days, that it’s incumbent upon you to leverage it in the most effective way you can. Do the most good for the biggest number.

Are you making the argument that Animal Rights and Immigration/sexual trafficking ARE in fact the same level of issue as economic inequality? Maybe you aren’t.

Am I singling out the LGBT community versus other advocacy groups? Sure I am. Why? because they have a formula that has worked to make change happen in the face of injustice. (AARP has started to address this issue with its constituency. I got a note about it recently. Was a bit surprised, really but pleased.)

Am I asking for payback? I’m asking what would prevent them from wanting to direct that energy to help? If your friend who has helped you in the past asks for your help in return, is that a bad thing? Why did it not occur to you to help unprompted?

Share This

[wakeflood]

I guess I can best describe my thoughts this way.

It would be whatever word best quantifies beyond a terrible pity, to have harnessed the power to create desperately needed change and then have all that evaporate because that battle is won. (And yes, I’m projecting that “win”. Update: “Gay Marriage will be the law of the land.” Orrin Hatch, today)

It doesn’t have to be that way and I hope that it doesn’t turn out to be the case. Whatever greater good can be the beneficiary of that power just so long as it doesn’t disappear into the ether. Climate Change? Excellent. Economic Justice? Perfect.

Just don’t let it evaporate, for godsakes.

Share This

[wakeflood]

“And since the LGBT community is extremely economically (educationally, culturally, religiously, and otherwise) diverse, it’s also unrealistic. “

What percentage of people ten or even five years ago would have said that it’s realistic to have gay marriage well on its way to being the law of the land now?

Share This

[kgdlg]

Wake, while you are asking some interesting questions here, I also think there are some big assumptions and false equivalencies in your thread here.

One, while we have had enormous success on the gay marriage front (allowing gays access to state sanctioned civil marriage btw) I would hardly say we are “clearly at or past the tipping point” with it.

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/states/

19 out of 50 states have freedom to marry. Even if you count the other 11 where things are hopefully trending for it in the courts you are still only at 30. Rather, it is an ongoing battle and we are smack in the middle of it. I think what you are picking up on it the rapid change in public sentiment towards gay marriage, which was now reached over 50 percent approval rates in polls in recent years. So I don’t think it is appropriate to now say, “time to turn your energies somewhere else!” For this issue, this would be the worst time for this.

I also think that it is a flawed assumption to at all assume that LGBTQ is a unified political community of one persuasion. While many vote democratic because of this issue, there are many stripes in this community and not all would identify income inequality as the “thing” they “should” be working on. While I agree that this is a big deal, it has much more to do with other factors in my life than my gayness. Identity politics are complicated and there are a lot of rich gays and lesbians that identify with the R and not the D. False equivalency.

I think the more apt question is how do political movements such as 15 Now here in Seattle share strategy and influence with the organizations that have seen success across the country in gay marriage? Unfortunately, the challenge with income inequality in this country is that politics are more and more driven by money since Citizens United, so ability to raise and sustain money is a big part of the equation. Can a national group like 15 Now bring reform state by state? I honestly don’t know if there are enough wealthy people that would fund this cause. To be really cynical, I don’t know if middle and lower middle class people would fund it! And that is a major problem. Progressive movements are so beat down, I feel, these days and everyone seems out for themselves. I sometimes even feel this way – that In the absence of true single payer healthcare, subsidized child care and family leave and reasonable college tuition, the middle class life is so busy clamoring to stay afloat. While the poor stay locked into less and less opportunity for movement out. These are the reasons I would support income inequality as an issue but I am not sure many others are there yet. And while I do support the min wage hike, I do think we will continue to be more and more like San Fran as a result, where only the very poor and uber rich can afford to live. In the absence of statewide mandates, this will continue to happen as long as we strong hiring by companies such as Amazon etc. $2000 a month for my kid to be in daycare? $20 burger out to dinner? $1700 a month for a one bed apt?

Ok end rant. A this point I am concurring with your identification of this issue as key. But I think others are as important: immigration, climate change, education.

Time to retire to a beach in Mexico!

Share This

[JoB]

i once had an argument with a transgender person who thought the discrimination faced by transgender people was far more important than the systematic violence perpetrated against women…

it was a futile argument since to the person experiencing discrimination, their own personal story is more compelling than any others.

We tend to focus our energy on that which affects us personally.

i tell the story of mws when anyone asks me how i got involved with the homeless community… but if truth were told, miws propelled me across the berm at Nickelsville but the plight of the women who lived there is what kept me involved. it still is.

In some ways the self interest which makes any social justice group cohesive is it’s undoing when it comes to translating the energy created to other causes:(

as for the debt to society argument.. if that worked we would have no social equity problems because those at the top would tithe downward… and that’s not happening any time soon.

The one movement that has mobilized our nation on the issues of social justice is widespread decimation of the middle class.. and we might just about be to the tipping point on that one because one way or another it affects us all…

even those at the top.

Share This

[wakeflood]

ok, kgdlg, you gave us several reasons to not count on any coordinated support from the LBGTQ community on any progressive issue. Does that about sum it up? Not Climate Change (why is that again?), and certainly not Income Inequality (you’ve got some R’s who don’t identify with this issue).

I actually feel similarly for the reasons that JoB outlines. No one tends to feel as strongly about (nor put as much energy into) any cause as the one(s) they live.

I have to say that there’s a lot of “can’t be done” in the replies so far. Sad really.

Like I said, a great pity. So much potential energy lost in the wind. Simply because “it’s not my issue”?

Share This

[wakeflood]

Trying to think of an analog. This one isn’t perfect but it’s not ridiculous.

MoveOn.org.

Founded during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. That issue ran its course and they asked their varied and diverse constituency what issues they should focus on going forward. They could have folded the tent and gone home but they had some momentum and wanted to see if they could help move the needle on other progressive issues.

Their efficacy on any one issue can be debated but they certainly have been good at coordinating public feedback to our electeds, amongst other things.

One might imagine a scenario with the LBGTQ community that utilized their very eloquent and visible leadership solidifying a consensus position within the community and externally with electeds.

Pipe dream, eh?

Share This

[kgdlg]

Wake, all I am saying is that every gay person isn’t aligned with progressive politics. I do agree that organizations like Freedom to Marry should band together with other progressive orgs and push for state to state changes (or national changes) on progressive issues. I think that might be doable but please don’t criticize the gays for what is a structural problem in American politics and capitalism – everyone is out for themselves. I personally care a lot about issues I have never “lived”. Although we struggled at times when I was young, I never lived in the street, yet I just finished building a 54 unit homeless housing project. And while I care deeply about issues like Climate Change and Immigration, I think that one of the problems is that besides marching and writing electeds and giving money, there aren’t any broad social movements anymore in this country (a la 1960s) that seem to force systemic change. So I too feel so helpless sometimes. Especially with how broken all levels of politics are, except maybe locally where our City seems to be passing some pretty amazing stuff lately. Even if you don’t agree, it will be pretty cool if min wage and preschool both get passed. It is the housing levy that allows me to do the work that i do, and this we owe to the citizens of Seattle too. The power IS in the people, but we all seem so lazy most of the time.

Share This

[JoB]

wakeflood..

the example of a social justice movement that has focused it’s energy on other social justice issues already exists and has for over a century..

it’s called the women’s movement.

over half of the population of these United States consists of women. There is hope ;->

Share This

[wakeflood]

I feel all that too, kgdlg, but there is clearly something about the gay marriage scenario that needs to be understood and replicated, if at all possible.

We went from a significant negative public opinion on that issue just a few years ago, with DOMA and states banning gay marriage to having one of the most conservative Senators in the country conceding that gay marriage is going to soon be the federal law of the land.

That didn’t happen in a vacuum but it DID happen and FAST.

And it happened for a distinct minority of directly affected people with a very organized and virulent opposition.

It took getting people with no particular self interest to get aligned to that cause and change their minds and hearts. Many of them contributed time and money to the effort.

How did that happen and why can’t we replicate it?

Shrugging our shoulders seems defeatist to me.

Share This

[wakeflood]

I CAN envision a very short list of reasons that it happened but I have no idea if these are true or substantial.

And they don’t bode well for most other progressive issues, including Climate Change and Income Inequality.

My guesses at the list of “why”:

1. It turned our laziness into an advantage. The big advantage is that it required nothing tangible by way of change for the vast majority of the not-directly-affected people. (For most, all they had to do was either flip a lever in the voting booth another direction than they might have previously. And for some, just not voting at all.)

2. Enough people were convinced that it wouldn’t impact their lives negatively. Either they realized that someone in their circle was directly affected and they wanted to support them OR they realized they wouldn’t be impacted at all. The message somehow, some way got through.

In short, they shrugged and said, “whatever”.

It may have taken a lot of energy, time and money to convince them but it didn’t take anything substantial for them to eventually concede.

The same cannot likely be said for Climate Change OR Income Inequality. Gulp.

Share This

[kgdlg]

Again wake, I agree with you! I think your points are astute. And personally I think this largely has to do with what Harvey Milk called for “come out come out!” As soon as gays started living open lives, friends, loved ones, colleagues started realizing that equality was “no skin off their back” and in fact enhanced the social fabric, especially in regards to raising children. It was a deeply personal change for people like Dick Chemey etc. the same cannot be true for income inequality. While you may know your barista’s name their struggles to take three buses to get to work and pay rent in Renton (barely) while you and family make 250k+ in Seattle is not the same. And it doesn’t help that we have a whole narrative in his country around this being “good” for her to struggle so that she has motivation to “pull herself up by her bootstraps”. That is what has been so interesting about 15 Now – it is really a reframing of what is a fair and just wage.

Climate change is a whole other issue wake. When you really look at it we are all a massive part of the problem and virtually everyone is in some level of denial that will eventually undo us. That is for another post…

Share This

[wakeflood]

Thanks for the insights and thanks for taking the time to share, kgdlg. I’m trying to get some things sorted in my head and you gave me plenty to ponder – as did the rest of you responders. :-)

It’s always hard to step out of your own shoes and head and you helped me do just that.

Share This

[wakeflood]

Maybe that’s the key to change in America? Any substantial progressive issue has to be framed in a way that seems like it not only won’t affect your day-to-day life but it requires NO effort. :-)

I’m only half joking.

Share This

[elikapeka]

A couple of thoughts come to mind reading this thread. I’m not as articulate about this as I’d like to be, but here goes –

For many years, we’ve all had gay friends and relatives and co-workers. Once gay people decided to start living their lives more openly, it quickly became apparent that there was no threat to anyone’s straight marriage, their kids weren’t going to be molested or “turned gay” and the tide turned quickly. Gay and transgender people are with all of us every day, whatever your social or economic group otherwise. It eased the way for acceptance of marriage equality.

When it comes to income inequality, while we of course see the homeless people on the corners and we know that the folks selling Real Change or making your fast food order are on the bottom of the economic chain, if you’re not in that group you don’t really have a connection with them. They’re not your neighbor or co-worker, and chances are that your social groups don’t overlap. Not because of snobbery or evil intentions, it’s just the way life works out. We have a relative who has done very well financially, and we are no longer as close. Why? Well, they are able to do lots more than we do. They travel, attend concerts and sporting events, shop in certain places, talk about their investments a lot. We can’t afford to keep up and do the things they enjoy. So eventually we have just sort of drifted apart. Income inequality is really a divider, much more so than anything else I can think of. And it’s harder to bridge.

No group is monolithic. One of the things that surprised me most in the marriage equality debate was the opposition from many African American churches. I would have thought that those who have been discriminated against would be the first to oppose it against others. But it turns out that in that case, religious convictions were more important. I’m not making any judgments one way or the other, it was just an observation that I found interesting. I don’t think you can ever take a group and expect them to support any other issue. People are too complex.

Share This

[Author]

Posts