Monday, December 01, 2008

We're Here

Out in San Francisco, Prop. 8 was still the hot topic with my fag friends, and a few of them seemed genuinely bewildered by the silence of the incoming Obama administration on the matter, as if months and months of stated opposition to gay marriage were just a play for Ozarkan slack-jaws, who, once safely in the fold, would lose interest in distant California and the sodomitical goings-on out there, leaving the Black Reagan free to personally adjudicate every Adam-and-Steve nuptial in the Bay Area. Ha ha! I don't credit Obama's opposition to queer weddings with any greater degree of sincerity, mind you. He is, after all, a politician. The truth is that fags don't matter. What are you gonna do, vote Republican?

To me, the tepid face of queer activism became even more embarrassing during the whole charade of a California countermovement, replete as it was with straight celebrities making teevee ads full of bland encomiums to love and diversity. Sexual liberation, if I may use that outré phrase, was sacrificed at the alter of me-too bourgeois respectability, with predictable results. Everyone remembers Martin Luther King for his campaign of non-violence, but what they forget, what they choose to forget because his real radicalism terrifies most Americans, was that he was the man who stood before America and called in a debt, told the nation that the check was due. The power of his nonviolence was in the dramatic role he cast himself: this one man holding back a seething tide of implacable rage. Behind the entire civil rights movement lurked the specter of violence held in check, but not forever.

As an "issue," gay marriage hardly interests me. It's a dead-end item. Nonetheless, I regret the lame, whiny face of American queerdom, which has grown so tasteful and boring in its middle age.

7 comments:

Phillip Allen said...

One of the great drawbacks of what passes for a 'gay movement' these days is that it has been thoroughly taken under the sway of those whose main aim is to have all the privilege of the dominant culture without really criticizing anything about that culture. Thus we have years of movement activity directed toward the bourgeois democratic 'right' to be openly queer cannon fodder in the military, and the equally bourgeois democratic right to marriage.

There are reasonable grounds for demanding the same financial and legal benefits for LGBT partners as for straight, but the craven efforts to somehow convince the straight world that we're all just the same in a big ole rainbow by making us seem like slightly bent straights will not get that job done.

TGGP said...

Neither King nor Gandhi were dictators of people even capable of holding violence in check (Gandhi wouldn't have been killed he was). Sinn Fein may stand for a political rather than violent method of achieving whatever goals Irish nationalists have, but their existence doesn't make the Provos or Real IRA disappear.

Anyway, King was basically an establishment liberal. Malcolm was the real radical deal.

alansmithee said...

Well, look at it this way, HRC, Stonewall and such are just ways of coming to grips with ones inner second-class citizen.

Anonymous said...

That doesn't sound like MLK.

What you're saying does sound like union leadership. I've talked with a guy who once worked as a private security guard/goon during an automotive industry strike. They used to wear masks because union members were taking pictures and taking notes.

Get lots of sufficiently angry people together and things start to get broken. Management gets the picture that a deal with union leaders is the only way to stop the violence from escalating. "Nice factory you've got here. It'd be a shame if something happened to it. You still live at 1123 Maple Terrace?"

You're right -- that sort of activism is very hard to ignore.

Anonymous said...

"Sexual liberation, if I may use that outré phrase"

No, you may'nt. LGBT are as liberated as straight women have been since the late 60s and 70s -- free to fuck and be fucked. The political dimension of the Lib movement got sidelined waaaaay fucking back. The gay marriage issue circa now is a political issue, not a social one, so you're using the wrong terminology.

"As an 'issue,' gay marriage hardly interests me."

Mmkay. What about as a reality or a fact? Feigning disinterest when you're clearly vested in the principle of the matter is poor fucking form, IOZ.

IOZ said...

"a political issue, not a social one."

Uh, yeah. You can buy any number of rugs that don't have sentimental value to me.

Anonymous said...

Well, yeah. Gay Marriage California Thingie '08 has got shit-all to do with sexual liberation of the queer set. They're already sexually liberated; it's not a social faux pas to be queer in California. The issue at hand is a political and a legal one: marriage. I know you think it's sad and bourgeois for fellow gays to want to ape straights by getting hitched, but it's still not a question of sexual liberation.