“The driver, whose name was Ali, told me he was from Yemen and he’s straight. When a friend recently came to visit him, the two went sightseeing. “I took him to City Hall and we saw all these people getting married. We saw men marrying men and women marrying women,” Ali said. “I was really surprised. They were so happy.” [ ]

“I have seen bisexuality, gay, lesbian. The sexy parts. I had never seen the love before. But I saw these two guys get married and I realized, This is their happiness.” ”

Now, the reason I find this interesting is that, as far as I can gather, the no on 8 ads were almost devoid of images of gay married couples and their children. This very conservative (some would say cowardly) approach by the campaign may have cost it many converts — people like that taxi driver for whom such images and testimonies would have been a revalation. Hiding behind legalistic arguments was never going to make an impresion on the vast majority of voters. For them, the whole prop 8 thing was about whether you were pro or con homosexuality, plain and simple. Without the positive images of same-sex couples and families, those who would have been persuadable had nothing to hold on to.

Invisibility is not going to win the day. In every campaign, there are those who would be willing to support to underdog. If that dog is hiding under the bed and out of sight, he cannot expect support from anyone. Worse, if gays are perceived to be ashamed of themselves, so much so that they are unwilling to to be upfront about their sexuality in a public campaign, they cannot expect others to step into their shoes and fight their battles for them.

Fortunately, the public protests and many of the post-prop 8 analyses that I have seen have at least recognized that public visibility is essential to winning this fight. Obama (of god herself) can’t save us if we hide in the shadows.

But most of all, let’s forget this talk of race and which ethic group voted which way. This is not only nonsensical but dangerously counterproductive. Much like the Republican party, the gay movement is losing groung because its coalition is insufficiently inclusive (did someone say rainbow-like?). You can take your cue from Palin and “energize the base” while driving away everyone else, or you can learn from Obama and run a 50 state (county/district/neighborhood)strategy.

From now on, let’s promote the slogan “We are Family” in every corner of the media and on the streets. Let’s promote images of couples tying the knot and celebrating their marriages/civil unions. Let’s not be afraid to show gay couples raising their children, sending them to school, teaching them to ride their bikes and posing in their graduation pictures. And finally, let’s not be intimidated by the religious right into denying who we really are — whole human beings!

Are we the new Blacks? Not by a long shot. We’re the last of the religious repressions.

They didn’t have anything interesting to day then. Why should they now? ;-)

It’s a thoughtful article on the urge to compare…and in the end, it’ll do us all more good if we think deeply about these issues and act deliberately rather than simply be reactionary and try to scapegoat any one group.

Really? Of course transpeople are not even human yet, some day we can be the new gay!

Take a read, digest and then take from it what you will because someone does need to clarify our position and how it fits into the long standing traditions of civil rights struggles. It will also help us to be able to articulate more clearly to the general public because our struggle isn’t the same as the one for black advancement- but neither is it less valid or important.

I cancelled my subscription a long time ago.

So, does black make me look thinner?

Thanks for that.

- warbles -

After reading your post, reading the article, and re-reading your post, I’m confused by a couple of things. First, why is the highlighted segment “ironic”? Because the author makes a “bold statement” by taking a position that drag queens aren’t the best spokespeople for a national audience? Because the people who show up on television — in drag or not — are actually dedicated movement organizers? Because The Advocate should be the gay community’s, um, advocate? It may be none or all of these things. I just couldn’t figure it out.

Also, based on your pie chart (which I assume has numbers you pulled out of the air to illustrate a point), less than half of the article says “gay is the new Black.” Therefore, The Advocate is correct in NOT making a declarative statement about this. Though to be fair, I disagree with your segments. I would include “kindly old Black woman” as part of the gay is the new Black segment since she’s equating her civil rights struggles to those of gay people.

Again, for better or worse, you’ve kept me intrigued by what you will post next. At some point I’m sure I’ll write in because I agree with your post. Here’s looking forward to that day.

Bayard Rustin anyone?

Fuck the advocate.

No issue of any print media ever will show how the entire medium is becoming obsolete better then this magazine which arrived Nov 13, after the most important election ever faced by its constituency on Nov. 4, with nary a mention of the election.

The fact the editors did one of the most tremendous jobs I have ever seen of keeping the on line Advocate up to date only intensifies the point.

This is education for America, not gay, not straight, not even poultry. But sure to be discussed in journalism and political science classes for decades, and a magazine issue perhaps as valuable as the X-Men # 1 my mother threw away (along with my Bob Gibson cards) went I went off to college to become a man.