This is last week's non-blog material, but I'm going to crib a post out of it.
The Human Rights Campaign, toadying organization for GLBT rights that it is, disinvited the brilliant Margaret Cho from headlining their event at the DNC this week for fear of giving the right wing fodder to attack the John Kerry campaign and the Dems in general.
To me this is some serious bullshit, and I wrote a super-snarky letter to them and sent it to my friends as well. My cousin Mike (married, two beautiful daughters, queer-positive with fab politics) asked me for some more explanation, and I wrote back explaining myself. Below find all of this.
If you agree with me, email HRC at hrc@hrc.org and yell at 'em too.
-K
----
Initial letter:
To whom it may concern:
HRC's decision to uninvite Margaret Cho from headlining at your event at the DNC in Boston
disappointed me greatly, but unfortunately did not suprise me in the least.
HRC by virtue of its size and prominence wields a very large amount of influence. While I understand tha there is a need in all political movements for a diversity of perspectives ranging from the militant to the moderate, HRC continues time and time again to skew to the cautious end of the spectrum.
As we all know too well, this election is hugely important and represents a watershed. Given that, the
decision of your organization to continually "play it safe" is in fact playing into the hands of the militant right-wing agenda -- to silence all dissent.
The ironies are huge here -- Margaret has been a tireless advocate for GLBT rights for many years, and
has done so with humor, righteous indignation and intellectual creativity. She's made a career out of
speaking truth to power, and her fans (myself obviously among them) love her not only because she
makes us laugh like substance addicts but also because she is unafraid to continually point out injustice, bigotry and hate. Despite her more radical street cred being, ahem, well established, Margaret has made same-sex marriage one the issues for which she advocates most strongly.
I really could keep writing, but you get my point. HRC's dismissal of Margaret Cho serves to underline why HRC doesn't speak for my issues or concerns, and while I do not expect to ever become an HRC member. In fact, I'd love it if Margaret would start up her own GLBT rights organization -- I've got a nasty little suspicion that her group of queer folk would look a
little more like Queer America and a little less like DuPont Circle.
In short, Margaret speaks for me and HRC doesn't.
Thanks,
Kevin J. Bogart
-----
Mike wrote:
couple of questions. why do you rule out becoming a member of HRC? just curious. not saying that's good or bad. are you just saying that because of the Cho decision? and I meant to ask you this awhile back, but you said something interesting. said you have become more passionate about the gay marriage issue in the last six or so months. refresh my memory. what was your position six months ago? totally indifferent? just curious about all this.
My answer:
----------
http://www.draglink.com/text/essays/pg-human-rights-campaign-1.html#top
Just one of the things that googling "HRC sucks" gets you. You also get some clown bitching about the service at a Hard Rock Cafe, but that's just funny.
Seriously -- they are toadying and lame and getting worse. It's not just this Cho thing -- it's that this Cho thing is SO TYPICAL of how they suck. They are really an organization of wealthy white gay men -- and they advocate really mainstream issues -- like leading the charge for marriage.
I'll go off topic a bit to explain my thinking on the marriage issue -- i've never opposed it or anything as stupid as that, but it is not issue #1 for me and never has been. I'm much more concerned about employment nondiscrimination, hate crimes and health care than i am about marriage. All of those issues are more pressing, and have the ability to more dramatically impact the lives of a broader spectrum of queer people than the significance of state-sanctification for a couple of homos who are
already partnered. If you are partnered -- you are partnered. Like Joni Mitchell sings... "we dont need no piece of paper from the city hall/keepin us tried and true."
I also take issue with painting the struggle for queer liberation in terms of a single trajectory towards heteronormativity -- implying that queer folk only deserve respect/freedom/dignity etc when they act like straight people. This is the line of reasoning that that jerk who wrote _A Place At The Table_ puts forth, and it really sucks in my opinion. Liberation is only real when we're all free -- the trannies, the drag queens, the bulldykes, the sluts... everybody. Liberation is NOT when we define ourselves as "normal" when we couple up and settle down.
That is, however, a fairly nuanced argument -- and one that is mainly a response to to the tone and packaging
that organizations like HRC put forth in their messages on this subject.
Here's how my opinions have changed somewhat: I agree with everything I typed above, and I will not organize, advocate or give money to advance the marriage cause. That said, I have come to agree with the marriage-insistent folks on two points:
1. Fair is fair, equal is equal, and all of this "civil-union" stuff is all just some bullshit. Attempts to block legit forms of governmental samesex unions are by definition an attempt to write in some form of seperate but equal thinking into the law of the land, and that just sucks. (By the way -- my favorite footnote on all this is one of the proposed solutions to the Massachusetts constitutional crisis: simply have MA get out of the business of issuing any kind of marriage licences whatsoever, and only issue civil unions -- be they same or opposite sex. This is fucking fabulous and brilliant -- it solves the legal problem, establishes equal protection under the law, and FINALLY cleaves the issue of church/social marriage away from the question of civil/state recognition of social partnership. Big Fabulous).
2. It makes administrative sense. The horror stories of administering to all of the legal technicalities of legal inheritance, medical decision making, joint property ownership and oh boy children are SO complex and a lot of incredibly confusing stuff could just be wiped away by just letting people do this one thing and take care of it all IN ONE FELL SWOOP. This isexcellent.
I never had a different opinion on #1, I've just started to really hear the "fair is fair and equal is equal" argument in a way i didn't before. As for #2, over the past eight months or so I've had some interactions with people in my social circle negotiating this stuff and it is a FUCKING BITCH to keep track of all this stuff. (I've some good anecdotes, but they're long and I dont wanna do all the typing now -- i'll tell ya on the phone.)
So, back to HRC -- they are really, really milquetoast. Even the name -- "Human Rights Campaign" -- belies what the organization is really about (as opposed, to, say, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, which puts the homos right there in the name. Thanks for that). They are timid, and limited, and lily-white and male dominated... it's basically your standard lefty screed against a mainstream organization. They aren't as bad as, say, Andrew Sullivan, who needs a spanking... but they're pretty ridiculous and getting more so. The very idea of ANY liberation movement organization uninviting a speaker for fear of him or her being too outspoken indicates where their collective head is at.
In short, a trite but very appropos quote from HCHS' most well known and magnificent alumna, Audre Lorde: "The master's tools will not dismantle the master's house." HRC needs some new tools, and right quick.
At the end of this Big Queer Email on this Big Queer Subject -- a couple of questions for ya: do you and Samantha have any queer folk in your social circle? Have you guys ever gone to Pride? (You should; it's a hell of a lot of fun, and honestly pretty family-friendly fun at that).
As ever, kisses to the three mcnulty women...
xoxo
KJB
