NGLTF Keeps Sunshine out of Meeting on Gay Marriage
In a post today, the left-of-center (I think he calls himself a socialist) blogger and gay activist Michael Petrelis offers the same sort of criticism of what he deems “Gay, Inc.” (the various establishment gay organizations) that we’ve been offering, taking those organizations to task for their “collective failure to regularly provide open, on-the-record, unfiltered community engagement.”
In his post, he excerpts Bay Area Reporter Cynthia Laird’s editorial broadside against Freedom (sic) to Marry’s Evan Wolfson for closing a “marriage institute session” at the Gay and Lesbian Task Force’s annual Creating Change conference to the media:
Anyone who was following the federal Proposition 8 trial via Twitter or on numerous blogs knows full well what the community is up against regarding opposition to marriage equality. And for goodness’ sake, if progressive activists and others can’t articulate their views in a public forum, how are they ever going to accomplish the hard, on-the-ground work of talking to people – in public and private settings?
(Well, technically, it wasn’t closed to the media, just off the record which Laird finds is a distinction without a difference.)
Now, while I quibble with the term, “marriage equality,” I think Ms. Laird is on the money. We need open discussions, not just among progressive activists, but also with moderates and even sympathetic conservatives. Petrelis and Laird fault “Gay, Inc” for an absence of, to borrow the leftist blogger’s expression, “unfiltered community engagement,” we fault them for not excluding conservatives, even gay conservatives.
Such open conversations might not only expose “Gay, Inc” to the diversity of views in our community, but also provide insight into the diversity of views in American society at large on same-sex marriage and relationships.
At times, it seems, gay activists are like the movie Avatar, where characters are caricatures, cardboard cutouts, with one side “good” and the other “bad.” In this case, either you’re for “marriage equality” or you’re a “H8er.” There is no middle ground.Indeed, among those who oppose state recognition of same-sex marriage, there is a vast spectrum of opinion, including those who really do hate gay people as well as those favoring same-sex civil unions, but opposing gay marriage because they believe the institution is defined by gender difference.
To effect change, it would help to understand the views of those whose minds you want to change.
In such open fora, Petrelis and I would surely offer different perspectives. He would likely call for more energetic activism. I would fault the gay organizations for not defending marriage as an institution, defending its ideals and responsibilities–and the ability of gay people to fulfill them. And for not reaching out to conservative organizations and for failing to develop plans to appeal to conservative individuals.
Yet, Petrelis and I both agree that more open discussions are needed. Yet, it seems that the heads of the various gay organizations would rather protect themselves from the public, even the gay public. Perhaps, that stems from their extended tenure in their current positions. Their organizations likely would benefit from new leadership, more responsive to the community and more willing to change course.
7 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I felt the same thing when the First National Tea Party Convention closed itself off to the media. No journalists allowed except pre-chosen friendlies. And this is “closed to the media”, not just off the record. If the Tea Partiers have any interest in converting others to their movement, acting afraid of sunlight isn’t the way to do it.
Comment by torrentprime — February 4, 2010 @ 5:05 pm - February 4, 2010
torrent, this time, we agree.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — February 4, 2010 @ 5:31 pm - February 4, 2010
[...] NGLTF Keeps Sunshine out of Meeting on Gay Marriage [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » Ballot Proposal to Overturn Prop 8 — February 4, 2010 @ 5:45 pm - February 4, 2010
The reason there is no discussion is because the gay left wants sexual liberation for everybody, not access to traditional marriage. The gay left is not trying to find legal recognition for gay relationships which are lifelong, sexually exclusive, and publicly accountable. They are trying to free everyone from patriarchal and oppressive traditions which have pesky things like only one partner and age limits.
They don’t want to include gay conservatives or gay Christians because they might end up with a marriage law that, rather than bringing in open relationships, multiple partners, and serial monogamy, actually requires some level of morality and loyalty. And who on the gay left wants that?
Comment by Ashpenaz — February 4, 2010 @ 6:36 pm - February 4, 2010
I find Petrelis’ blog informative and he is very insightful on many issues. Unfortunately, he has no room to criticize others for “failure to regularly provide open, on-the-record, unfiltered community engagement”.
He has recently had an important series of posts about the murder of a gay rights activist in Honduras. Unfortunately, in those posts he mischaracterizes last summer’s removal from office of Honduran President Zelaya a “coup”.
I submitted a comment to one of the earlier posts pointing out the long history of strong-man government in Honduras and throughout Latin America (caudillismo). In an attempt to counteract that legacy, Hondurans’ have constitutional provisions that not only impose presidential term limits, but prohibit public officials from advocating changing the term limit provision. Last spring Zelaya was openly advocating for a plebiscite to repeal the term limits – an open violation of the other constitutional provision.
Unfortunately, their Constitution does not specify any particular method by which a President is to be removed from office (our Constitution provides for Impeachment). The Honduran Supreme Court, Attorney General and Congress all agreed Zelaya violated the Constitution and had to be removed. They asked the military to remove him and it did.
After setting out the argument that what happened was, in fact, Constitutional Rule of Law, I suggested that labeling the removal a “coup” was akin to Yanqui imperialists telling Hondurans that we know how to run their country better than they do.
My post never appeared in his moderated comments, though other comments showed up in blog postings written after I submitted my comment. I resubmitted it a couple days later in case there had been a technical error. Still nothing. The comment was quite siimlar to this one. It simply set out a view of Honduran recent events that differed from the blog’s author’s view. There was absolutely no reason to filter it if he truly believes in “unfiltered community engagement” that blogs can uniquely provide.
Comment by Banzel — February 4, 2010 @ 10:12 pm - February 4, 2010
I felt the same thing when the First National Tea Party Convention closed itself off to the media. No journalists allowed except pre-chosen friendlies.
Oh really?
The media elites could only sit on their hands for so long. After biting his lip for twenty minutes New York-based ABC reporter John Berman ripped into the National Tea Party Convention leaders at their press conference today.
Do you just repeat everything you receive from Obama, torrentprime? When are you going to learn that Obama’s black skin does not mean that he always tells the truth, as you believe?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 5, 2010 @ 7:30 pm - February 5, 2010
Link for above.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 5, 2010 @ 7:30 pm - February 5, 2010