The Gay Rights Struggle Ain't Over

nighttimer · Apr 17, 2015

In his new book, It's Not Over: Getting Beyond Tolerance, Defeating Homophobia, and Winning True Equality, author, activist, journalist and Sirius XM host Michelangelo Signorile says the fight for gay rights isn't over by a long shot.

Signorile also believes the time for compromising on gay rights is past and the "religious freedom" argument being advanced is completely bogus. He spoke in a lengthy interview (but well worth your time to read it) with Gawker contributor Rich Juzwiak (bolded):

I sometimes wrestle with this stuff. Even with the Memories Pizza thing, they were clear idiots—Crystal O'Connor said the Indiana RFRA is about protecting religion and yet talked at length about discriminating against gays. Her rhetoric was obviously empty, but at the same time I remember writing about it and having some doubt crawl into my mind: Why should anyone be forced to serve anyone anything? It took me a second to realize: Of course this is fucked up beyond the rudeness of refusing pizza to people who never asked for it in the first place.

I think we're so used to being treated that way, we even grew up with the idea that homosexuality is different from other kinds of oppression because "people have their religious beliefs." Then the wins we have sort of blind us to seeing some of these things because we say, "We've gotten so much. Who cares? Let's let them have their space." That word "magnanimous" kept coming up, and I think that comes from, psychologically, this place where, "I just want to focus on the wins. I don't want to focus on what's left to do. That'll just take care of itself. It'll be inevitable." This moral-arc of the universe stuff. It's like: no. You have to actually change it.

I went into the supermarket in Williamsburg holding your book and the girl at the cash register asked me, "What's not over?" I had a moment where I was like, "I don't want to get into this right now," but like I said, I don't lie to people. So after a beat, I told her, "Gay rights...the struggle." And she said, "I like that." And then it was like, yeah, in Williamsburg that better be your point of view, otherwise you're in the wrong place and you should move somewhere cheaper.

[Homophobes] need to feel a ramification or an embarrassment sometimes. Not all the time. It's fine to let those moments pass, but you can't let every one of those moments pass. If you stand up at least once or twice or every moment when you can, I think it does a world of good. I embarrass them in front of everybody.

Why do bigots do what they do? I think it's perfect when you talk about the phrase "dog whistling" in reference to "religious liberties" protection. Protecting religious freedom is 100 percent bullshit. Nobody's trying to take anyone's religion away from them. That's not what any of this is about. It's just about not using religion to justify bigotry. But also, as a white guy, I find often that strangers will try to bond with me over racism. There's something cancerous in the human condition that makes hating people together a point of unity. Look at how gossip brings people together. Do you think that's part of the reason why people want to hold onto homophobia?

Absolutely. I talk in the book about the bigotry and that sense of threat that a lot of straight men feel to literal violence or aggression when I discuss the implicit bias studies, particularly the study where they looked at how straight men respond to gender non-conforming faces—what they perceive as an effeminate male face or a transgender face. They have this meticulous memory for it. They're able to recall that face because that face is what threatens them. That really gets at what it is: a phobia. A raging fear. A threat that's built into them. You can then understand how they then bond with other people on that and how it acts itself out in a violent way or an aggressive way. If you're perceiving an outside group as a threat, you'll do whatever you can to keep that group in its place. I pointed to some studies that were done in the '90s and then when they were done again in 2013, they were just confirmed: straight men who were perceived as hanging out with gay men were then perceived as gay. It was almost like a contagion. Then you can understand why it would erupt in a violent outburst, but also a kind of bonding thing of you're not one of them. It's a challenge to you to make them feel comfortable or stand up in a moment.

The boldest sentence in this book reclaims that way shameful bigots attempt to battle homosexuality ("By not tolerating my intolerance, you're the real one who's intolerant"). You write, "It's time for us to be intolerant—intolerant of all forms of homophobia, transphobia, and all forms of bigotry against LBGT people."

It's time to no longer agree to disagree. That's such an American phrase regarding how we get along. No. I don't choose anymore to agree to disagree. You are wrong. That's it.

Practically speaking, what happens during the time in between our declaring intolerance of intolerance and the world catching up? Homophobes will still be self-righteous and so will we be, and so what happens? What happens after, "You are wrong"?

I think we've reached the point where the debate's been had. So much of the media and the culture keeps engaging in it, while a lot of people have made up their minds. Let's claim that. Look, this debate is done. No matter how much we do that, they're going to still believe what they believe and still raise their children that way and still put it out there and we're going to have to continue to fight back against that. I think what's happened with other groups is that they sort of let that slide in a way. And then the next generation came up and forgot that certain things were settled and then we see it playing out all over again. I'm trying to warn people, using what's happened with other groups, don't let it slide. Keep it settled.

Note:
I mulled over whether this belonged in Politics & Current Events, my usual stomping grounds, or in QUILTBAG, where I usually only lurk and I concluded that here is where it belongs as it concerns the target audience whose lives are most directly concerned. A predominantly heterosexual audience might be inclined to give merely p.c. responses instead of honest ones.

Diana Hignutt · Apr 17, 2015

Thanks for posting this! Much to chew on and think about here.

BenPanced · Apr 18, 2015

I think we've reached the point where the debate's been had.

I agree with this point so much. I think a lot of us (*raises hand*) are finished talking and discussing, and have moved beyond that into more action. We can't really discuss things any longer because we're aware of the goals and what needs to be done to reach them. We need to keep the forward momentum going or else we'll fall right back to where we were in beginning. Too much has been accomplished in the last two years alone, we can't lose sight of what still needs to be done.

nighttimer · Apr 20, 2015

Hmmm...

Maybe the gay rights struggle is over.

Guess we'll just have to see how things work out once President Huckabee and Vice-President Santorum take over in 2016, huh?

:mob

BenPanced · Apr 20, 2015

Yes! The struggle is over! GAY PIZZA AND GAY CAKE FOR EVERYBODY! YAY! :partyguy:

Diana Hignutt · Apr 21, 2015

nighttimer said:
Hmmm...

Maybe the gay rights struggle is over.

Guess we'll just have to see how things work out once President Huckabee and Vice-President Santorum take over in 2016, huh?

This room isn't P&CE. It has a slower pace, and not everyone here is political. And that's okay.

I, for one, appreciate your posting the thread, but don't be so quick to write off the QUILTBAG folks lack of interest in a thread as lack of interest in the subject.

Shit, you should see the crickets some of my threads get...

Myrealana · Apr 21, 2015

It would be great if equality for all could just be "fixed."

LGBT rights - fixed!
Racism - fixed!
Sexism - fixed!

And we all go out for ice cream.

Unfortunately, it's a long, hard fight.

I think some intolerance of their bigotry is well-placed. I don't think the gay-rights movement can maintain that level of intensity for very long without burning out and alienating some of their allies. Sometimes, you have to get angry, and sometimes you have to walk away. The challenge is knowing the difference.

It's not over, and equality doesn't win every fight, but I think, on balance, progress is being made.

I'm not gay. No one in my family is gay (that I know about), and I used to be one of those "Love the sinner, hate the sin. As long as they repent, God can accept them" Christians.

Over time, I changed my ideas. I met some inclusive pastors. I read a lot. I searched my heart and I came to a new conclusion: Love is not a sin. As long as I was still behaving as if their feelings were somehow contrary to my Bible, I was part of the problem.

Minds can be changed, and changing one mind leads to more.

Usher · Apr 21, 2015

Believing gay people have enough already is another way of being intolerant.

Same goes for sexism etc

nighttimer · Apr 21, 2015

Diana Hignutt said:
This room isn't P&CE. It has a slower pace, and not everyone here is political. And that's okay.

I, for one, appreciate your posting the thread, but don't be so quick to write off the QUILTBAG folks lack of interest in a thread as lack of interest in the subject.

Shit, you should see the crickets some of my threads get...

Duly noted.

BenPanced said:
Yes! The struggle is over! GAY PIZZA AND GAY CAKE FOR EVERYBODY! YAY!

Ummm...gay pizza and gay cake. :e2woo:

Usher said:
Believing gay people have enough already is another way of being intolerant.

Same goes for sexism etc

But not for racism, eh?

JohnnyGottaKeyboard · Apr 22, 2015

Ah crap I typed up a long post with links and everything and then tried to quote the OP and lost everything! (The Gay rights struggle may not be over, but I occasionally get exhausted...)

nighttimer said:
Signorile also believes the time for compromising on gay rights is past and the "religious freedom" argument being advanced is completely bogus.

It is because it's built on the faulty premise that rights are somehow zero sum, and granting me rights means you must relinquish them. (Not me and you, NT, but me and you, American Citizens.)

JohnnyGottaKeyboard · Apr 22, 2015

So, after a glass of wine and the first episode of Penny Dreadful, I'm back, having recreated my lost post. I originally wanted to know:

Can we make this a general Gay Politico thread? Or maybe subtitle it, "Interesting Developments in the LGBTQ! Struggle"? I know I often stumble over interesting tidbits I'd like to discuss but worry they get lost spread over several disparate threads.

For instance, THIS HAPPENED. (LInk goes to RightWingWatch.) Apparently the CAAP has formed and decided to give awards for Equity Warriors. Roy Moore got the first MLK Jr Award (actually the “Letter from a Birmingham Jail Courage Award” -- which seems even worse somehow, maybe because it portrays him as under siege?). Alanis Morisette died of irony poisoning. I tried to find an unbiased source for the story but apparently only the spectrum sites considered it of interest. (Here's Brietbart, RawStory, and The New American.)

Brietbart has some quotes deserving of particular interest:

CAAP states the newly initiated “Letter from a Birmingham Jail Courage Award” is “granted to honor someone whose dedication to justice and natural law has led to an outstanding act in defense of first principles. There is no one who ands out as more deserving of this recognition than Chief Justice Roy Moore.”

Also this quote from CAAP "founder and President Rev. William Owens":

“The LGBT community hijacked our movement, a movement they know nothing about... President Obama is delusional to compare our struggle with the struggle for marriage equality. Gays have not had fire hoses or dogs unleashed at them. They have not been hung from trees or denied basic human rights.”

Because, y'know, who were James Baldwin and Bayard Rustin anyway?

My one LOL moment in this clusterf@#k of misappropriation however, came in the comments section of the New American story, courtesy of one Ann Klein (she's responding to the--apparently lost--voice of reason who posted above her):

Ugh, so not true. He is not taking away rights from anybody. Perversion is Not A RIGHT!!

Also THIS. (Link goes to HuffPo Gay Voices.) I'd never even heard of the Day of Silence (and confess it sounds like a SciFI movie) though apparently its been going on long enough to get blowback now from kids who apparently don't understand the significance of Flannel. that this story HAS NOT made the Nightly News disturbs me greatly. Lynch lists? Really?

Usher · Apr 22, 2015

nighttimer said:
But not for racism, eh?

Comes under the etc

Just because I do not believe segregation shouldn't happen based on skin colour does not mean I believe that battle to be won either. The fact people even argue for segregation based on skin colour shows it hasn't.

Myrealana · Apr 22, 2015

JohnnyGottaKeyboard said:
Also THIS. (Link goes to HuffPo Gay Voices.) I'd never even heard of the Day of Silence (and confess it sounds like a SciFI movie) though apparently its been going on long enough to get blowback now from kids who apparently don't understand the significance of Flannel. that this story HAS NOT made the Nightly News disturbs me greatly. Lynch lists? Really?

My son's high school observed the "Day of Silence" all four years he attended. Or, I should say, students at the school observed. The school took no official stance except to send home a letter explaining what was "acceptable" silence and what wasn't. (No, you can't remain silent in choir and get credit for participation, or be excused from an oral exam or class presentation.) I have to say, though, the teachers were as accommodating as possible, and there haven't been any incidents of vocal opposition from our students or parents.

I think silence can be a very effective protest, and the hate shown by homophobes against the simple act of not talking demonstrates how truly hateful they are.

nighttimer · Apr 22, 2015

Usher said:
Just because I do not believe segregation shouldn't happen based on skin colour does not mean I believe that battle to be won either. The fact people even argue for segregation based on skin colour shows it hasn't.

Then you should find someone who is arguing for segregation based on skin color to wag your finger at.

Your understanding of what segregation is faulty and flawed. If a high school were to hold a prom and with the caveat only girls can wear dresses and only boys can wear tuxedos would that be an act of discrimination against the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender students? I'd say so.

If a high school were to hold a prom with one for the LGBT students and another for the heterosexual students, would that be an act of segregation? I'm not so sure.

What you fail to understand is there is a vast difference between "segregation" and racial segregation and it smacks of White privilege at its most pernicious that even the thought people of color might be granted anything not also available to Whites is too absolutely horrific to even conceive.

Racial segregation differs from racial discrimination in a number of ways. Discrimination ranges from individual actions, to socially enforced discriminatory behavior, to legally mandated differences in status between members of different races. Segregation has, typically, harshly reinforced discrimination: If people of different races live in separate neighborhoods, attend different schools, receive different social services, etc., then people of the favored races can be largely insulated from societal neglect of people of other races.

Whether its gay rights, civil rights, or woman rights equality is not about becoming an artificial straight White Christian male. If it ever does deal me the hell out.

Diana Hignutt · Apr 22, 2015

nighttimer said:
Then you should find someone who is arguing for segregation based on skin color to wag your finger at.

Your understanding of what segregation is faulty and flawed. If a high school were to hold a prom and with the caveat only girls can wear dresses and only boys can wear tuxedos would that be an act of discrimination against the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender students? I'd say so.

If a high school were to hold a prom with one for the LGBT students and another for the heterosexual students, would that be an act of segregation? I'm not so sure.

What you fail to understand is there is a vast difference between "segregation" and racial segregation and it smacks of White privilege at its most pernicious that even the thought people of color might be granted anything not also available to Whites is too absolutely horrific to even conceive.

Whether its gay rights, civil rights, or woman rights equality is not about becoming an artificial straight White Christian male. If it ever does deal me the hell out.

You, with your Straight privelege...you're adorable..

Usher · Apr 22, 2015

nighttimer said:
Then you should find someone who is arguing for segregation based on skin color to wag your finger at.

Your understanding of what segregation is faulty and flawed. If a high school were to hold a prom and with the caveat only girls can wear dresses and only boys can wear tuxedos would that be an act of discrimination against the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender students? I'd say so.

Personally, I'd suggest an outdated hang up on gender roles was the issue.

I'd say it was sexist before you get onto anything else. You don't have to be LGBTQetc to be a girl who likes wearing trousers or a boy who likes wearing dresses. And what do you do about the Intersexed students who are neither entirely male nor female? Given one in fifteen hundred babies is intersexed there are one or two in every high school.

And why would you hold a separate prom? I'm straight female and went with a whole rainbow of folk. What's the worst that happens you end up with two (or more) blokes or two women dancing, holding hands and a quick one round the back of the bike sheds. And yes it would be segregation if you separated people based on sexuality. I've always thought they should have a separate one for those identifying as bigots.... and yes that would be segregation but one based on a lifestyle they've chosen for themselves.

If we are arguing for segregation based on sexuality, gender, race etc then the battles have a long way to go. I'd even argue unisex toilets and changing rooms would solve a lot of issues. Our leisure centre has had them for 20 years and guess what - we're all used to them.

JohnnyGottaKeyboard · Apr 22, 2015

Usher said:
.... and yes that would be segregation but one based on a lifestyle they've chosen for themselves.

I wonder why this never comes up--even sarcastically--when someone is debating one of these "Civil Rights Protections for Christians" issues. I can't think of a lifestyle that is more obviously a choice.

Of course, I doubt the people in support of the CRP4C would make the connection to the twenty years I had those words ("It's a choice!") flung in my face when I suggested CRP4Qs.

Usher · Apr 22, 2015

JohnnyGottaKeyboard said:
I wonder why this never comes up--even sarcastically--when someone is debating one of these "Civil Rights Protections for Christians" issues. I can't think of a lifestyle that is more obviously a choice.

I bring it up quite frequently. I'm not gay but my best friend is and my mum was living with a woman when I was in my teen years. And my brother is intersexed and my husband is trans so I do encounter the issues. So I've received the comments by proxy. Also the only person I know (but sure I'm not the only one) who had to come out to a parent as straight. (she was rather off men at the time0

nighttimer · Apr 22, 2015

Diana Hignutt said:
You, with your Straight privelege...you're adorable..

Thanks. Your White privilege and entitement is pretty cute too.

BenPanced · Apr 22, 2015

I have a feeling I'm been baited so I'm going to bow out of this particular thread.

kuwisdelu · Apr 22, 2015

MacAllister · Apr 22, 2015

Whee! Oppression Olympics!

Diana Hignutt · Apr 23, 2015

MacAllister said:
Whee! Oppression Olympics!

If we can't even win most oppressed in our own room, what chance do we have in RL?

nighttimer · Apr 23, 2015

Diana Hignutt said:
If we can't even win most oppressed in our own room, what chance do we have in RL?

Should the goal be to win most oppressed or to end oppression of everyone?

Admittedly, straight Black males enjoy privileges that come with being straight and male, if not necessarily Black, but if there really is a tournament to crown the Most Oppressed Group, I doubt anybody here is going to make the Final Four.

Viridian · Apr 23, 2015

nighttimer said:
Should the goal be to win most oppressed or to end oppression of everyone?

Sure.

Is there a reason you decided to suggest @Usher doesn't care about racism?

There are all kinds of discrimination, Nighttimer. We could write a whole list. I'm pretty sure that's what Usher meant when s/he said "sexism, ect." The "ect" part stands for other forms of discrimination.

Just how I took it. Maybe I'm missing something, here.

The Gay Rights Struggle Ain't Over

Is Michelangelo Signorile Right That Homophobes Are All Wrong?

Yes. Zero tolerance of intolerance against the LGBTQ community.

No. We should not use the enemy's tactics against the enemy.

Undecided. There Has to Be Another Way.

No Gods No Masters

Very Tired

THE BLUEBERRY QUEEN OF HADES (he/him)

No Gods No Masters

THE BLUEBERRY QUEEN OF HADES (he/him)

Very Tired

I aim to misbehave

No Gods No Masters

Who let this guy in...?

Who let this guy in...?

I aim to misbehave

No Gods No Masters

Very Tired

Who let this guy in...?

No Gods No Masters

THE BLUEBERRY QUEEN OF HADES (he/him)

Revolutionize the World

'Twas but a dream of thee

Very Tired

No Gods No Masters

local good boy