Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
3/20: Get Divorced from State Terrorism
On Saturday, March 20th at Dolores Park, Gay Shame is promising a large presence at the anti-war demo to spread a radical queer perspective on the Gay Marriage debate -- discouraging anyone (queer or het) from marrying - or encouraging them to get divorced, and reminding everyone that Newsom is still a fascist after paying off the rich gays who got him elected. Look for the Gay Shame banner if you'd like to help stir some shit up with the liberals who view Gavin as a saint for what he's done.. Don't let the debate over gay marriage distract the public from the fact that marriage is a fucked up institution to begin with.
But first.. on the morning of Friday March 19th, in concert with a day of Direct Action to Stop the War, Gay Shame will bring to light San Francisco's housing crisis and propose some concrete solutions.
But first.. on the morning of Friday March 19th, in concert with a day of Direct Action to Stop the War, Gay Shame will bring to light San Francisco's housing crisis and propose some concrete solutions.
For more information:
http://www.gayshamesf.org
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
How is marriage a tool of racism, classism, war and state terrorism?
I see these claims repeated ad nauseum, but not once has there been a cogent explanation as to how a gay marriage oppresses anyone in society.
I see these claims repeated ad nauseum, but not once has there been a cogent explanation as to how a gay marriage oppresses anyone in society.
Exactly what does Gay Shame find objectionable about the marriage of two gay men or two lesbians?
Most of the recently-married queers at City Hall assert they have been living as (unofficial) married couples for many years. At what point did their unions become objectionable to Gay Shame? At the time of the issuance of a marriage certificate?
Or are coupled gay relationships just intrinsically wrong, in the eyes of Gay Shame, regardless of government recognition?
If queers are to take Gay Shame seriously, then there needs to be more than just overheated and nonspecific rhetoric. Let's have a dialogue.
Most of the recently-married queers at City Hall assert they have been living as (unofficial) married couples for many years. At what point did their unions become objectionable to Gay Shame? At the time of the issuance of a marriage certificate?
Or are coupled gay relationships just intrinsically wrong, in the eyes of Gay Shame, regardless of government recognition?
If queers are to take Gay Shame seriously, then there needs to be more than just overheated and nonspecific rhetoric. Let's have a dialogue.
Gay marriages commits many of the same violence as heterosexual marriages do.
1. While "fighting" for gay marriages public attenuation is taken off more pressing issues (remember that war going on somewhere?)
2. Gay marriages are being fought for under the guise of allocating "domestic partner benefits," The common mantras have become "we deserve our partners benefits," what this does is move us all away from universal health care and housing, it just allows privilege to stay within state sanctioned relationships. Why are those fighting for "gay marriage" not camping out overnight for healthcare for all?
3. Tax shelter. It is only upper-middle class people that benefit from tax shelters. If gay marriage helps you pay less taxes do you think the money will come out of Gavin's salary or public programs?
4. Coupling is not intrinsically oppressive, but the clamoring to become part of the same structures (the State) that have systematically wished us dead is terrifying For example "the freedom to marry" stickers that are saturated in blind patriotism vis-a-vis their red-white-and blue coloring. The Americana flag never has, and never will symbolize "freedom" for oppressed people.
5. Assimilation is STILL not liberation. Assimilation into the "mainstream" means redrawing the boarders of exclusion. We must not forget what comprises the "mainstream" specifically its racist, misogynist and homophobic histories and futures.
1. While "fighting" for gay marriages public attenuation is taken off more pressing issues (remember that war going on somewhere?)
2. Gay marriages are being fought for under the guise of allocating "domestic partner benefits," The common mantras have become "we deserve our partners benefits," what this does is move us all away from universal health care and housing, it just allows privilege to stay within state sanctioned relationships. Why are those fighting for "gay marriage" not camping out overnight for healthcare for all?
3. Tax shelter. It is only upper-middle class people that benefit from tax shelters. If gay marriage helps you pay less taxes do you think the money will come out of Gavin's salary or public programs?
4. Coupling is not intrinsically oppressive, but the clamoring to become part of the same structures (the State) that have systematically wished us dead is terrifying For example "the freedom to marry" stickers that are saturated in blind patriotism vis-a-vis their red-white-and blue coloring. The Americana flag never has, and never will symbolize "freedom" for oppressed people.
5. Assimilation is STILL not liberation. Assimilation into the "mainstream" means redrawing the boarders of exclusion. We must not forget what comprises the "mainstream" specifically its racist, misogynist and homophobic histories and futures.
Meet up on Saturday, March 20th, at 11am, 18th and Dolores
"Gay marriages commits many of the same violence as heterosexual marriages do."
---------------------------------------------------------------
This claim is not obviously true. Perhaps you are using a personal definition of the word "violence" that differs entirely from the common definition in our language?
---------------------------------------------------------------
"1. While "fighting" for gay marriages public attenuation is taken off more pressing issues (remember that war going on somewhere?)"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Inattention (I assume you meant 'attention') to any one specific issue, no matter how important that issue may be to you or even to both of us, does not equate with "violence."
Furthermore, it is not obviously true that all gays who marry are necessarily *not* involved in the anti-war movement or other issues you feel are more important than ours. Surely you don't think last year's massive anti-war demos consisted entirely of straight people and only those queers who oppose gay marriage?
--------------------------------------------------------------
"2. Gay marriages are being fought for under the guise of allocating "domestic partner benefits," The common mantras have become "we deserve our partners benefits," what this does is move us all away from universal health care and housing, it just allows privilege to stay within state sanctioned relationships. Why are those fighting for "gay marriage" not camping out overnight for healthcare for all?"
---------------------------------------------------------------
It's not obviously true that gay marriage is being fought for under any such guise, and as a gay marriage activist, I question the existence of what you claim are "common mantras." Did you make that up? I've never heard or seen these phrases used to explain the grassroots movement I'm a part of.
Indeed, gay marriage proponents are openly rejecting "domestic partner benefits" and pushing for total equality under the law.
Now, we can all agree that not all laws are just--which is precisely the point of the gay marriage movement: anti-gay laws like Proposition 22 (bans gay marriage) are unjust and must be overturned. The justness of marriage itself is a point of disagreement between your tribe and ours: we say we should have the right to choose our own marital status--not the church, not the state. You seem to imply that you only support freedom of choice if the choices are all in accord with your own.
Meanwhile, you try to portray equal marriage rights as necessarily detrimental to any attempt to achieve universal healthcare--and that is not obviously true. Why do you say that?
Is it because you believe the Bush-like fallacy that any action not advancing your cause must necessarily be harming your cause? And enough with the red herrings. Obviously you want gay marriage proponents to abandon our cause and join your causes--and denounce us for failing to do so at your command. This is an intellectual and spiritual conceit of yours that I will not dignify with a rebuttal.
Gay marriage--the subject at hand--doesn't damage the dream of universal healthcare, which many married gays no doubt share, or any other dream for that matter--save the dream of anti-gay marriage activists who want to deny us the freedom to choose our own marital status.
---------------------------------------------------------------
"3. Tax shelter. It is only upper-middle class people that benefit from tax shelters. If gay marriage helps you pay less taxes do you think the money will come out of Gavin's salary or public programs?"
---------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure where the talk of "tax shelters" comes in--is that a benefit of marriage conferred to all couples of all income brackets? It hardly seems like a reason to denounce and protest against gay marriage even if it were--where is your sense of proportion?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"4. Coupling is not intrinsically oppressive, but the clamoring to become part of the same structures (the State) that have systematically wished us dead is terrifying"
------------------------------------------------------------------
It is not obviously true that gay couples who seek to marry "clamor to become part of the same structures that have systematically wished us dead." Why do you say this?
It's a ludicrous claim on the face of it--San Francisco City Hall issues marriage licenses, and SF City Hall doesn't wish us dead.
You're trying to tie gay marriage to any and all things ever done by any branch of government that you find objectionable, and trying to hold gay married couples accountable for the actions of a government and society in which we have yet to attain an equal standing.
It's hypocritical, to say the least, for you to advocate inferior social standing for those whom you then turn around and blame for society's ills. Are you people really queer?
------------------------------------------------------------
(4 cont'd.)"For example "the freedom to marry" stickers that are saturated in blind patriotism vis-a-vis their red-white-and blue coloring. The Americana flag never has, and never will symbolize "freedom" for oppressed people."
-------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I'll agree with you that the stickers are stupid, and that patriotic images are not appropriate symbols for our movement in this time of war and jingoism. I suggested to a Marriage Equality member last week that the stickers be changed from flags to flowers, reflecting a peaceful and beautiful creation as well as the bouquets that were sent to gay couples from around the world for their weddings.
That said, some group's lame sticker-art is hardly sufficient grounds for you to then declare an entire grassroots movement "violent."
----------------------------------------------------------------
"5. Assimilation is STILL not liberation. Assimilation into the "mainstream" means redrawing the boarders of exclusion. We must not forget what comprises the "mainstream" specifically its racist, misogynist and homophobic histories and futures."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Not all queers want to live the same lifestyle, a fact you're going to have to learn to live with. If you don't approve of gay marriage, don't get married to someone of the same gender.
As for your attempts to tie gay marriage with racism, misogyny and homophobia in society--correlation does not establish causality. You might as well blame gay marriage for global warming.
I think the disconnect between Gay Shame and the gay marriage movement comes from differing views on the malleability of marriage specifically, and of society in general.
We both agree that society as it is must change. Here's a proposition: let's change society by fighting for our causes simultaneously, in parallel--our common enemies will not be able to stop either of us.
---------------------------------------------------------------
This claim is not obviously true. Perhaps you are using a personal definition of the word "violence" that differs entirely from the common definition in our language?
---------------------------------------------------------------
"1. While "fighting" for gay marriages public attenuation is taken off more pressing issues (remember that war going on somewhere?)"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Inattention (I assume you meant 'attention') to any one specific issue, no matter how important that issue may be to you or even to both of us, does not equate with "violence."
Furthermore, it is not obviously true that all gays who marry are necessarily *not* involved in the anti-war movement or other issues you feel are more important than ours. Surely you don't think last year's massive anti-war demos consisted entirely of straight people and only those queers who oppose gay marriage?
--------------------------------------------------------------
"2. Gay marriages are being fought for under the guise of allocating "domestic partner benefits," The common mantras have become "we deserve our partners benefits," what this does is move us all away from universal health care and housing, it just allows privilege to stay within state sanctioned relationships. Why are those fighting for "gay marriage" not camping out overnight for healthcare for all?"
---------------------------------------------------------------
It's not obviously true that gay marriage is being fought for under any such guise, and as a gay marriage activist, I question the existence of what you claim are "common mantras." Did you make that up? I've never heard or seen these phrases used to explain the grassroots movement I'm a part of.
Indeed, gay marriage proponents are openly rejecting "domestic partner benefits" and pushing for total equality under the law.
Now, we can all agree that not all laws are just--which is precisely the point of the gay marriage movement: anti-gay laws like Proposition 22 (bans gay marriage) are unjust and must be overturned. The justness of marriage itself is a point of disagreement between your tribe and ours: we say we should have the right to choose our own marital status--not the church, not the state. You seem to imply that you only support freedom of choice if the choices are all in accord with your own.
Meanwhile, you try to portray equal marriage rights as necessarily detrimental to any attempt to achieve universal healthcare--and that is not obviously true. Why do you say that?
Is it because you believe the Bush-like fallacy that any action not advancing your cause must necessarily be harming your cause? And enough with the red herrings. Obviously you want gay marriage proponents to abandon our cause and join your causes--and denounce us for failing to do so at your command. This is an intellectual and spiritual conceit of yours that I will not dignify with a rebuttal.
Gay marriage--the subject at hand--doesn't damage the dream of universal healthcare, which many married gays no doubt share, or any other dream for that matter--save the dream of anti-gay marriage activists who want to deny us the freedom to choose our own marital status.
---------------------------------------------------------------
"3. Tax shelter. It is only upper-middle class people that benefit from tax shelters. If gay marriage helps you pay less taxes do you think the money will come out of Gavin's salary or public programs?"
---------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure where the talk of "tax shelters" comes in--is that a benefit of marriage conferred to all couples of all income brackets? It hardly seems like a reason to denounce and protest against gay marriage even if it were--where is your sense of proportion?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"4. Coupling is not intrinsically oppressive, but the clamoring to become part of the same structures (the State) that have systematically wished us dead is terrifying"
------------------------------------------------------------------
It is not obviously true that gay couples who seek to marry "clamor to become part of the same structures that have systematically wished us dead." Why do you say this?
It's a ludicrous claim on the face of it--San Francisco City Hall issues marriage licenses, and SF City Hall doesn't wish us dead.
You're trying to tie gay marriage to any and all things ever done by any branch of government that you find objectionable, and trying to hold gay married couples accountable for the actions of a government and society in which we have yet to attain an equal standing.
It's hypocritical, to say the least, for you to advocate inferior social standing for those whom you then turn around and blame for society's ills. Are you people really queer?
------------------------------------------------------------
(4 cont'd.)"For example "the freedom to marry" stickers that are saturated in blind patriotism vis-a-vis their red-white-and blue coloring. The Americana flag never has, and never will symbolize "freedom" for oppressed people."
-------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I'll agree with you that the stickers are stupid, and that patriotic images are not appropriate symbols for our movement in this time of war and jingoism. I suggested to a Marriage Equality member last week that the stickers be changed from flags to flowers, reflecting a peaceful and beautiful creation as well as the bouquets that were sent to gay couples from around the world for their weddings.
That said, some group's lame sticker-art is hardly sufficient grounds for you to then declare an entire grassroots movement "violent."
----------------------------------------------------------------
"5. Assimilation is STILL not liberation. Assimilation into the "mainstream" means redrawing the boarders of exclusion. We must not forget what comprises the "mainstream" specifically its racist, misogynist and homophobic histories and futures."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Not all queers want to live the same lifestyle, a fact you're going to have to learn to live with. If you don't approve of gay marriage, don't get married to someone of the same gender.
As for your attempts to tie gay marriage with racism, misogyny and homophobia in society--correlation does not establish causality. You might as well blame gay marriage for global warming.
I think the disconnect between Gay Shame and the gay marriage movement comes from differing views on the malleability of marriage specifically, and of society in general.
We both agree that society as it is must change. Here's a proposition: let's change society by fighting for our causes simultaneously, in parallel--our common enemies will not be able to stop either of us.
Perhaps Emma Goldmans statements on women's suffrage sheds some light on Gay Shame's opposition to marriage:
"Woman's demand for equal suffrage is based largely on the contention that woman must have the equal right in all affairs of society. No one could, possibly, refute that, if suffrage were a right. Alas, for the ignorance of the human mind, which can see a right in an imposition. Or is it not the most brutal imposition for one set of people to make laws that another set is coerced by force to obey? Yet woman clamors for that "golden opportunity" that has wrought so much misery in the world, and robbed man of his integrity and self-reliance; an imposition which has thoroughly corrupted the people, and made them absolute prey in the hands of unscrupulous politicians. "
http://revolution.gq.nu/womansuffrage.html
Reading that section and the rest of her essay, one is struck by a few similarities to the arguments found here regarding marriage.
Imagine if at the time Emma wrote this there was a group called Women's Shame that decided to march against giving the right to vote to women on the ground that voting wont achieve anything? Imagine if there were a group called African-American Shame that marched against MLK demanding the continuation of Jim Crow because voting doesnt achieve anything. The argument that voting or marriage in and of themselves may not achieve much is a lot easier to make than it would be to defend the continuation of prejudice based off a push for equality focusing on disagreed with short term goals.
Marching against Gay Marriage today has two main effects. It drives a wedge between left wing gay activists and uber-radicals who oppose rather than merely reject reformism. It also helps in consolidating Newsom's power among the gay left; Gay Shame did a good job of exposing Newsom's anti-renter and anti-homeless policies in past protests but a march against gay marriage will make most activists ignore anything Gay Shame says. It will (and perhaps is) having a similar effect to Act UP SF's statements that HIV doesnt cause AIDS; gay conservatism in San Francisco is not merely a result of a tollerant city where one is not required to be radical because of one's sexual preference, it is also a result of uber-radicals alienating the community by equating radicalism with pseudo-science and divisive politics.
"Woman's demand for equal suffrage is based largely on the contention that woman must have the equal right in all affairs of society. No one could, possibly, refute that, if suffrage were a right. Alas, for the ignorance of the human mind, which can see a right in an imposition. Or is it not the most brutal imposition for one set of people to make laws that another set is coerced by force to obey? Yet woman clamors for that "golden opportunity" that has wrought so much misery in the world, and robbed man of his integrity and self-reliance; an imposition which has thoroughly corrupted the people, and made them absolute prey in the hands of unscrupulous politicians. "
http://revolution.gq.nu/womansuffrage.html
Reading that section and the rest of her essay, one is struck by a few similarities to the arguments found here regarding marriage.
Imagine if at the time Emma wrote this there was a group called Women's Shame that decided to march against giving the right to vote to women on the ground that voting wont achieve anything? Imagine if there were a group called African-American Shame that marched against MLK demanding the continuation of Jim Crow because voting doesnt achieve anything. The argument that voting or marriage in and of themselves may not achieve much is a lot easier to make than it would be to defend the continuation of prejudice based off a push for equality focusing on disagreed with short term goals.
Marching against Gay Marriage today has two main effects. It drives a wedge between left wing gay activists and uber-radicals who oppose rather than merely reject reformism. It also helps in consolidating Newsom's power among the gay left; Gay Shame did a good job of exposing Newsom's anti-renter and anti-homeless policies in past protests but a march against gay marriage will make most activists ignore anything Gay Shame says. It will (and perhaps is) having a similar effect to Act UP SF's statements that HIV doesnt cause AIDS; gay conservatism in San Francisco is not merely a result of a tollerant city where one is not required to be radical because of one's sexual preference, it is also a result of uber-radicals alienating the community by equating radicalism with pseudo-science and divisive politics.
"Gay marriages commits many of the same violence as heterosexual marriages do."
---------------------------------------------------------------
"This claim is not obviously true. Perhaps you are using a personal definition of the word "violence" that differs entirely from the common definition in our language? "
---My definition of violence extends outside of the inability to go to David's Bridal. Violence to me, is not having food, cutting GA form people that very much need it, having no where to sleep, evicting people already extremely marginalized (people with AIDS, lower income families, etc.).
---------------------------------------------------------------
"1. While "fighting" for gay marriages public attenuation is taken off more pressing issues (remember that war going on somewhere?)"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Inattention (I assume you meant 'attention') to any one specific issue, no matter how important that issue may be to you or even to both of us, does not equate with "violence."
Furthermore, it is not obviously true that all gays who marry are necessarily *not* involved in the anti-war movement or other issues you feel are more important than ours. Surely you don't think last year's massive anti-war demos consisted entirely of straight people and only those queers who oppose gay marriage?
-- This highlights the paradox of this new "gay rights movement" when it comes to their "rights" (marriage) they are willing to commit enormous resources to advancing this singular cause, but it stops there. While they are busy celebrating "Saint Newsom" (direct quote from the community forum produced to "thank him" he is vigilantly working to ethnically cleanses this city, our city. Were are all these "equal rights" activist when we are being evicted or beaten by cops?
--------------------------------------------------------------
"2. Gay marriages are being fought for under the guise of allocating "domestic partner benefits," The common mantras have become "we deserve our partners benefits," what this does is move us all away from universal health care and housing, it just allows privilege to stay within state sanctioned relationships. Why are those fighting for "gay marriage" not camping out overnight for healthcare for all?"
---------------------------------------------------------------
It's not obviously true that gay marriage is being fought for under any such guise, and as a gay marriage activist, I question the existence of what you claim are "common mantras." Did you make that up? I've never heard or seen these phrases used to explain the grassroots movement I'm a part of.
"Marriage Equality U.S.A. (MEUSA)
Founded: 1998
Marriage Equality works to secure the freedom and the right of same-sex couples to engage in civil marriage, with all the federal and state benefits that entails, through a program of education, media campaigns, and community partnerships"
---taken from your own rhetoric----.
Indeed, gay marriage proponents are openly rejecting "domestic partner benefits" and pushing for total equality under the law.
---where?
Now, we can all agree that not all laws are just--which is precisely the point of the gay marriage movement: anti-gay laws like Proposition 22 (bans gay marriage) are unjust and must be overturned. The justness of marriage itself is a point of disagreement between your tribe and ours: we say we should have the right to choose our own marital status--not the church, not the state. You seem to imply that you only support freedom of choice if the choices are all in accord with your own.
---"Not the state"? Then why are you attempting to work THROUGH the State to negate its own power? I have no opposition to the coupling of one, two, or more people but asking for the State to give us "rights" will never work and in fact reinforces these same institutions through a dialectal relationship. Also, did we never learn that the master's tools will NEVER dismantle the master's house?
Meanwhile, you try to portray equal marriage rights as necessarily detrimental to any attempt to achieve universal healthcare--and that is not obviously true. Why do you say that?
Is it because you believe the Bush-like fallacy that any action not advancing your cause must necessarily be harming your cause? And enough with the red herrings. Obviously you want gay marriage proponents to abandon our cause and join your causes--and denounce us for failing to do so at your command. This is an intellectual and spiritual conceit of yours that I will not dignify with a rebuttal.
-- It is through your own wedding veils that you are unable to see the linking of oppressions, a charge you are trying to launch at us. "Bush-like" clever!
Gay marriage--the subject at hand--doesn't damage the dream of universal healthcare, which many married gays no doubt share, or any other dream for that matter--save the dream of anti-gay marriage activists who want to deny us the freedom to choose our own marital status.
Why are you all not spending your huge amounts of money and time on such issues if you all are so dedicated to such matter? I dont see ANYTHING about health care in ANY of the literature anywhere.
---------------------------------------------------------------
"3. Tax shelter. It is only upper-middle class people that benefit from tax shelters. If gay marriage helps you pay less taxes do you think the money will come out of Gavin's salary or public programs?"
---------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure where the talk of "tax shelters" comes in--is that a benefit of marriage conferred to all couples of all income brackets? It hardly seems like a reason to denounce and protest against gay marriage even if it were--where is your sense of proportion?
---My sence of proportion? We all know, I'm sure even you all would admit, that "tax breaks" have historically and currently only benefit those who do not need it. Remember Reagan economics? And why should the State reward those people that choose to get married?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"4. Coupling is not intrinsically oppressive, but the clamoring to become part of the same structures (the State) that have systematically wished us dead is terrifying"
------------------------------------------------------------------
It is not obviously true that gay couples who seek to marry "clamor to become part of the same structures that have systematically wished us dead." Why do you say this?
-- Do you not know your homo-history at all? I could suggest some good readings. Remember AIDS or what ALL administrations have and still do with it? Or how public schools "deal" with queer students? If you have not suffered any of this then consider yourself lucky and know that most queers feel this violence both physically and mentally.
It's a ludicrous claim on the face of it--San Francisco City Hall issues marriage licenses, and SF City Hall doesn't wish us dead.
Ever been bloodied by the hand of some of "City Halls" lovely cops? I'm sure they were just "serving and protecting " us.
You're trying to tie gay marriage to any and all things ever done by any branch of government that you find objectionable, and trying to hold gay married couples accountable for the actions of a government and society in which we have yet to attain an equal standing.
--YES i am tying gay marriage to all those institutions beeches you are fighting for gay marriage to be articulated THROUGH these institutions, i.e. the State.
It's hypocritical, to say the least, for you to advocate inferior social standing for those whom you then turn around and blame for society's ills. Are you people really queer?
--- This is the best one yet, again the wedding veil, all these systems are CONNECTED, yes I am "blaming" all that are complicit and profit from this structuring.
------------------------------------------------------------
(4 cont'd.)"For example "the freedom to marry" stickers that are saturated in blind patriotism vis-a-vis their red-white-and blue coloring. The Americana flag never has, and never will symbolize "freedom" for oppressed people."
-------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I'll agree with you that the stickers are stupid, and that patriotic images are not appropriate symbols for our movement in this time of war and jingoism. I suggested to a Marriage Equality member last week that the stickers be changed from flags to flowers, reflecting a peaceful and beautiful creation as well as the bouquets that were sent to gay couples from around the world for their weddings.
That said, some group's lame sticker-art is hardly sufficient grounds for you to then declare an entire grassroots movement "violent."
-- The symbol of the American Flag carries for many, a violent history not unlike other systems of domination. Maybe you should look into the funding of your own "grass roots" movement, the HRC and the log cabin REPUBLICANS are hardly "grassroots" .
----------------------------------------------------------------
"5. Assimilation is STILL not liberation. Assimilation into the "mainstream" means redrawing the boarders of exclusion. We must not forget what comprises the "mainstream" specifically its racist, misogynist and homophobic histories and futures."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Not all queers want to live the same lifestyle, a fact you're going to have to learn to live with. If you don't approve of gay marriage, don't get married to someone of the same gender.
-- This is EXACTLY the attitude that has gotten us into this most recent war. The complacency and lack of education has produced the "gay and lesbian" public as an every bride for himself "community" of selfishness.
As for your attempts to tie gay marriage with racism, misogyny and homophobia in society--correlation does not establish causality. You might as well blame gay marriage for global warming.
--sure if you drive your SUV to city hall.
I think the disconnect between Gay Shame and the gay marriage movement comes from differing views on the malleability of marriage specifically, and of society in general.
yes
We both agree that society as it is must change. Here's a proposition: let's change society by fighting for our causes simultaneously, in parallel--our common enemies will not be able to stop either of us.
Sounds very flowery (maybe a new sticker) but the reality, our reality, is that malleability of capitalism will never feed us, or give us shelter, Gay marriage will never stop us from being beaten bloody by cops or other people (gay or straight). Our necessities are deadly urgent and your "equality" is contingent upon our oppression.
"Revolution is a serious thing, the most serious thing about a revolutionary's life. When one commits oneself to the struggle, it must be for a lifetime." Angela Davis
---------------------------------------------------------------
"This claim is not obviously true. Perhaps you are using a personal definition of the word "violence" that differs entirely from the common definition in our language? "
---My definition of violence extends outside of the inability to go to David's Bridal. Violence to me, is not having food, cutting GA form people that very much need it, having no where to sleep, evicting people already extremely marginalized (people with AIDS, lower income families, etc.).
---------------------------------------------------------------
"1. While "fighting" for gay marriages public attenuation is taken off more pressing issues (remember that war going on somewhere?)"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Inattention (I assume you meant 'attention') to any one specific issue, no matter how important that issue may be to you or even to both of us, does not equate with "violence."
Furthermore, it is not obviously true that all gays who marry are necessarily *not* involved in the anti-war movement or other issues you feel are more important than ours. Surely you don't think last year's massive anti-war demos consisted entirely of straight people and only those queers who oppose gay marriage?
-- This highlights the paradox of this new "gay rights movement" when it comes to their "rights" (marriage) they are willing to commit enormous resources to advancing this singular cause, but it stops there. While they are busy celebrating "Saint Newsom" (direct quote from the community forum produced to "thank him" he is vigilantly working to ethnically cleanses this city, our city. Were are all these "equal rights" activist when we are being evicted or beaten by cops?
--------------------------------------------------------------
"2. Gay marriages are being fought for under the guise of allocating "domestic partner benefits," The common mantras have become "we deserve our partners benefits," what this does is move us all away from universal health care and housing, it just allows privilege to stay within state sanctioned relationships. Why are those fighting for "gay marriage" not camping out overnight for healthcare for all?"
---------------------------------------------------------------
It's not obviously true that gay marriage is being fought for under any such guise, and as a gay marriage activist, I question the existence of what you claim are "common mantras." Did you make that up? I've never heard or seen these phrases used to explain the grassroots movement I'm a part of.
"Marriage Equality U.S.A. (MEUSA)
Founded: 1998
Marriage Equality works to secure the freedom and the right of same-sex couples to engage in civil marriage, with all the federal and state benefits that entails, through a program of education, media campaigns, and community partnerships"
---taken from your own rhetoric----.
Indeed, gay marriage proponents are openly rejecting "domestic partner benefits" and pushing for total equality under the law.
---where?
Now, we can all agree that not all laws are just--which is precisely the point of the gay marriage movement: anti-gay laws like Proposition 22 (bans gay marriage) are unjust and must be overturned. The justness of marriage itself is a point of disagreement between your tribe and ours: we say we should have the right to choose our own marital status--not the church, not the state. You seem to imply that you only support freedom of choice if the choices are all in accord with your own.
---"Not the state"? Then why are you attempting to work THROUGH the State to negate its own power? I have no opposition to the coupling of one, two, or more people but asking for the State to give us "rights" will never work and in fact reinforces these same institutions through a dialectal relationship. Also, did we never learn that the master's tools will NEVER dismantle the master's house?
Meanwhile, you try to portray equal marriage rights as necessarily detrimental to any attempt to achieve universal healthcare--and that is not obviously true. Why do you say that?
Is it because you believe the Bush-like fallacy that any action not advancing your cause must necessarily be harming your cause? And enough with the red herrings. Obviously you want gay marriage proponents to abandon our cause and join your causes--and denounce us for failing to do so at your command. This is an intellectual and spiritual conceit of yours that I will not dignify with a rebuttal.
-- It is through your own wedding veils that you are unable to see the linking of oppressions, a charge you are trying to launch at us. "Bush-like" clever!
Gay marriage--the subject at hand--doesn't damage the dream of universal healthcare, which many married gays no doubt share, or any other dream for that matter--save the dream of anti-gay marriage activists who want to deny us the freedom to choose our own marital status.
Why are you all not spending your huge amounts of money and time on such issues if you all are so dedicated to such matter? I dont see ANYTHING about health care in ANY of the literature anywhere.
---------------------------------------------------------------
"3. Tax shelter. It is only upper-middle class people that benefit from tax shelters. If gay marriage helps you pay less taxes do you think the money will come out of Gavin's salary or public programs?"
---------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure where the talk of "tax shelters" comes in--is that a benefit of marriage conferred to all couples of all income brackets? It hardly seems like a reason to denounce and protest against gay marriage even if it were--where is your sense of proportion?
---My sence of proportion? We all know, I'm sure even you all would admit, that "tax breaks" have historically and currently only benefit those who do not need it. Remember Reagan economics? And why should the State reward those people that choose to get married?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"4. Coupling is not intrinsically oppressive, but the clamoring to become part of the same structures (the State) that have systematically wished us dead is terrifying"
------------------------------------------------------------------
It is not obviously true that gay couples who seek to marry "clamor to become part of the same structures that have systematically wished us dead." Why do you say this?
-- Do you not know your homo-history at all? I could suggest some good readings. Remember AIDS or what ALL administrations have and still do with it? Or how public schools "deal" with queer students? If you have not suffered any of this then consider yourself lucky and know that most queers feel this violence both physically and mentally.
It's a ludicrous claim on the face of it--San Francisco City Hall issues marriage licenses, and SF City Hall doesn't wish us dead.
Ever been bloodied by the hand of some of "City Halls" lovely cops? I'm sure they were just "serving and protecting " us.
You're trying to tie gay marriage to any and all things ever done by any branch of government that you find objectionable, and trying to hold gay married couples accountable for the actions of a government and society in which we have yet to attain an equal standing.
--YES i am tying gay marriage to all those institutions beeches you are fighting for gay marriage to be articulated THROUGH these institutions, i.e. the State.
It's hypocritical, to say the least, for you to advocate inferior social standing for those whom you then turn around and blame for society's ills. Are you people really queer?
--- This is the best one yet, again the wedding veil, all these systems are CONNECTED, yes I am "blaming" all that are complicit and profit from this structuring.
------------------------------------------------------------
(4 cont'd.)"For example "the freedom to marry" stickers that are saturated in blind patriotism vis-a-vis their red-white-and blue coloring. The Americana flag never has, and never will symbolize "freedom" for oppressed people."
-------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I'll agree with you that the stickers are stupid, and that patriotic images are not appropriate symbols for our movement in this time of war and jingoism. I suggested to a Marriage Equality member last week that the stickers be changed from flags to flowers, reflecting a peaceful and beautiful creation as well as the bouquets that were sent to gay couples from around the world for their weddings.
That said, some group's lame sticker-art is hardly sufficient grounds for you to then declare an entire grassroots movement "violent."
-- The symbol of the American Flag carries for many, a violent history not unlike other systems of domination. Maybe you should look into the funding of your own "grass roots" movement, the HRC and the log cabin REPUBLICANS are hardly "grassroots" .
----------------------------------------------------------------
"5. Assimilation is STILL not liberation. Assimilation into the "mainstream" means redrawing the boarders of exclusion. We must not forget what comprises the "mainstream" specifically its racist, misogynist and homophobic histories and futures."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Not all queers want to live the same lifestyle, a fact you're going to have to learn to live with. If you don't approve of gay marriage, don't get married to someone of the same gender.
-- This is EXACTLY the attitude that has gotten us into this most recent war. The complacency and lack of education has produced the "gay and lesbian" public as an every bride for himself "community" of selfishness.
As for your attempts to tie gay marriage with racism, misogyny and homophobia in society--correlation does not establish causality. You might as well blame gay marriage for global warming.
--sure if you drive your SUV to city hall.
I think the disconnect between Gay Shame and the gay marriage movement comes from differing views on the malleability of marriage specifically, and of society in general.
yes
We both agree that society as it is must change. Here's a proposition: let's change society by fighting for our causes simultaneously, in parallel--our common enemies will not be able to stop either of us.
Sounds very flowery (maybe a new sticker) but the reality, our reality, is that malleability of capitalism will never feed us, or give us shelter, Gay marriage will never stop us from being beaten bloody by cops or other people (gay or straight). Our necessities are deadly urgent and your "equality" is contingent upon our oppression.
"Revolution is a serious thing, the most serious thing about a revolutionary's life. When one commits oneself to the struggle, it must be for a lifetime." Angela Davis
Voting changes the world! (see last presidential election for the importance of voting) and do we forget what the suffrage movement did to the abolitionist movement? Sounds like that story speaks more to the "gay marriage" people and their relations to "Gay Shame".
"let's change society by fighting for our causes simultaneously, in parallel--our common enemies will not be able to stop either of us"
How can a march against gay marriage and a march for gay marriage work "in parallel"?
Perhaps the march "against gay marriage" is really just a march against consumerism, but the very name of march is divisive and only works to create divisions. Marriage may seem "middle-class" to some but if you look at marriage rates across the US you will see that wealthier and more educated people are more likely never to marry and more likely to get married later in life.
Opposing reformism as counterrevolutionary is dangerous to movement building, especially when its unclear what is revolutionary. Is opposition to consumerism revolutionary, or is it a worthy cause that is also espoused by Catholics, Buddhists and most major religions? Opposition to the state being involved in relationships at any level since one opposes the state in general is an idealistic cause, but one shouldnt warp that idealism into opposition to state sanctioned gay marriage just as one wouldnt warp it into opposition to state requirements of child support payments. Opposing reform as evil can serve as a justification for supporting just about anything. Why should one support aid to the homeless by the state if one rejects reformist policies that involve the state?
How can a march against gay marriage and a march for gay marriage work "in parallel"?
Perhaps the march "against gay marriage" is really just a march against consumerism, but the very name of march is divisive and only works to create divisions. Marriage may seem "middle-class" to some but if you look at marriage rates across the US you will see that wealthier and more educated people are more likely never to marry and more likely to get married later in life.
Opposing reformism as counterrevolutionary is dangerous to movement building, especially when its unclear what is revolutionary. Is opposition to consumerism revolutionary, or is it a worthy cause that is also espoused by Catholics, Buddhists and most major religions? Opposition to the state being involved in relationships at any level since one opposes the state in general is an idealistic cause, but one shouldnt warp that idealism into opposition to state sanctioned gay marriage just as one wouldnt warp it into opposition to state requirements of child support payments. Opposing reform as evil can serve as a justification for supporting just about anything. Why should one support aid to the homeless by the state if one rejects reformist policies that involve the state?
Indeed the argument Gay Shame makes for marriage is the same argument feminists have made and continue to make about pornography, that it's oppressive, it degrades men and women, etc.
But what would a certain GS organizer say to those feminists when they see a certain website that's around with him jacking off to a magazine. A website that promotes "straight guy" porn to gays.
But what would a certain GS organizer say to those feminists when they see a certain website that's around with him jacking off to a magazine. A website that promotes "straight guy" porn to gays.
From what I see they do not at all seem to be making the same argument, MaKinnon and Dworkin were making a moral judgment based on their own opinions, Gay Shame, or so it seems is doing the exact opposite. They are not wanting the State to be present in any relationship. The anti-porn "feminists" were trying, much like the pro-gay marriage people, to use the State to make the world as they want it. Gay Shame seems to be saying fuck the State.
Gay Shame isn't only saying "fuck the state," gay shame is also saying:
"fuck people who choose lifestyles we don't support"
"we support the discriminatory status quo, because by doing so we can effectively assist anti-gay bigots in using the state to coerce all queers into a non-marital status"
"Gay Shame has a moral right to decide what lifestyle is appropriate for all queers, regardless of their own wishes and with deliberate disregard for their best interests."
"fuck people who choose lifestyles we don't support"
"we support the discriminatory status quo, because by doing so we can effectively assist anti-gay bigots in using the state to coerce all queers into a non-marital status"
"Gay Shame has a moral right to decide what lifestyle is appropriate for all queers, regardless of their own wishes and with deliberate disregard for their best interests."
"From what I see they do not at all seem to be making the same argument, MaKinnon and Dworkin were making a moral judgment based on their own opinions, Gay Shame, or so it seems is doing the exact opposite."
So, wait. They are making no moral judgments? Come on. What do you call a critique of the State? A scientific inquiry?
It seems that all GS does is make moral arguments without actually providing any real evidence that state-sanctioned gay marriages are actually more detrimental than state-excluded gay marriages. In actuality, they assume that those who want to have the state recognize their equal rights are blind, assimilationist, right-wing, etc. These are vast moral judgments. I know GS is a knee jerk crew of cool kids and whatever is said here will not call them to question authority as it exists in their own lives. But what is relevant is that same gender marriage, devoid of the power inequities anarchists wrote about over 100 years ago, does more to remedy the oppressive qualities of the state and make it possible to initiate further reforms until the goals of the revolution are realized. That some would ignore the immediate human suffering of those who wish to marry because their wishes are simply "reformist" and not immediately revolutionary indicates a level of misanthropy present that one usually reserves for the extreme right.
"They are not wanting the State to be present in any relationship. The anti-porn "feminists" were trying, much like the pro-gay marriage people, to use the State to make the world as they want it."
First of all, it is rather unfair to put quotations around the word feminists like you do to imply that those who were morally opposed to pornography as the exploitation of women were somehow not really feminists or had no investment in ending the suffering of women. You may disagree with their stance, but to deny they are even feminists gets more towards the real mentality that GS and their passive supporters have towards diversity of opinion. Here we see, like so many have written before on this subject, the concrete manifestation of the inherent dogmatism present in Gay Shame and their supporters's arguments.
The other part of this is that while government exists, it is much more useful (as some of us believe), to affect change in the only wide-scale, non-religious, institution we can while we work for a new society that may, or may not, one day do away with that institution. Again, it seems the only ones really opposed to participatory democracy and using the institution of the State to rectify inequalities PRODUCED BY THE STATE are the large corporations and oppressive religious institutions. So therefore, what investment does a true radical have in allying oneself in siding with those for whom the State, as it currently exists, is simply an obstacle to unabridged power and domination?
"Gay Shame seems to be saying fuck the State."
Really? Then why so much energy spent on Gavin Newsom? Surely there are other non-governmental boogeymen they could rally their forces against. But then, that would actually require a level of committment that is hard to manage between being queer-as-fuck and chastising sex clubs for being racist.
So, wait. They are making no moral judgments? Come on. What do you call a critique of the State? A scientific inquiry?
It seems that all GS does is make moral arguments without actually providing any real evidence that state-sanctioned gay marriages are actually more detrimental than state-excluded gay marriages. In actuality, they assume that those who want to have the state recognize their equal rights are blind, assimilationist, right-wing, etc. These are vast moral judgments. I know GS is a knee jerk crew of cool kids and whatever is said here will not call them to question authority as it exists in their own lives. But what is relevant is that same gender marriage, devoid of the power inequities anarchists wrote about over 100 years ago, does more to remedy the oppressive qualities of the state and make it possible to initiate further reforms until the goals of the revolution are realized. That some would ignore the immediate human suffering of those who wish to marry because their wishes are simply "reformist" and not immediately revolutionary indicates a level of misanthropy present that one usually reserves for the extreme right.
"They are not wanting the State to be present in any relationship. The anti-porn "feminists" were trying, much like the pro-gay marriage people, to use the State to make the world as they want it."
First of all, it is rather unfair to put quotations around the word feminists like you do to imply that those who were morally opposed to pornography as the exploitation of women were somehow not really feminists or had no investment in ending the suffering of women. You may disagree with their stance, but to deny they are even feminists gets more towards the real mentality that GS and their passive supporters have towards diversity of opinion. Here we see, like so many have written before on this subject, the concrete manifestation of the inherent dogmatism present in Gay Shame and their supporters's arguments.
The other part of this is that while government exists, it is much more useful (as some of us believe), to affect change in the only wide-scale, non-religious, institution we can while we work for a new society that may, or may not, one day do away with that institution. Again, it seems the only ones really opposed to participatory democracy and using the institution of the State to rectify inequalities PRODUCED BY THE STATE are the large corporations and oppressive religious institutions. So therefore, what investment does a true radical have in allying oneself in siding with those for whom the State, as it currently exists, is simply an obstacle to unabridged power and domination?
"Gay Shame seems to be saying fuck the State."
Really? Then why so much energy spent on Gavin Newsom? Surely there are other non-governmental boogeymen they could rally their forces against. But then, that would actually require a level of committment that is hard to manage between being queer-as-fuck and chastising sex clubs for being racist.
I would like anti-marriage queers to consider the basic principle of the marriage rights movement, that it is freedom of choice. If you don't want to get married, you don't have to, but we should all have the CHOICE! Being denied this basic right plays out in all sorts of ways, and it affects lives of queers in very real ways. I am relationship with a non-US citizen. Because we cannot be married, I cannot sponsor him to reside in this country. When we thought he was going to be laid off a while back, we went into a panic wondering what we'd do if he lost his visa sponsored by his employer.
Now I know gay shamers probably don't support employment since it feeds into the oppressive capitalist machine, so if my partner and I could have gotten married (by our own choice!) then he would have been able to extracate himself from being a cog in the capitalist wheel of opression and could have stayed in the country nonetheless. Look, we are not a rich couple, we both grew up in very working class/working poor families, so don't give me that bullshit of marrying queers being all privileged and not concerned with all the many other issues which affect ALL people like access to healthcare, education, etc. Probably unlike many of the sanctimonious assholes who have a trust fund from Daddy back east and are rebeling cause it's cool, I know what it's like to be poor, to live off gov't funded food programs, etc. So, don't tell me that I have to choose between fighting for people like my family who barely eke out a living on a failing farm and the right should I CHOOSE to excercise it, of legally marrying the man I love. I utterly fail to see any logic behind your arguments other that a basic desire to tell all of us how we should live in order to be true to the larger struggle of fairness and justice. I believe I am capable of both.
Now I know gay shamers probably don't support employment since it feeds into the oppressive capitalist machine, so if my partner and I could have gotten married (by our own choice!) then he would have been able to extracate himself from being a cog in the capitalist wheel of opression and could have stayed in the country nonetheless. Look, we are not a rich couple, we both grew up in very working class/working poor families, so don't give me that bullshit of marrying queers being all privileged and not concerned with all the many other issues which affect ALL people like access to healthcare, education, etc. Probably unlike many of the sanctimonious assholes who have a trust fund from Daddy back east and are rebeling cause it's cool, I know what it's like to be poor, to live off gov't funded food programs, etc. So, don't tell me that I have to choose between fighting for people like my family who barely eke out a living on a failing farm and the right should I CHOOSE to excercise it, of legally marrying the man I love. I utterly fail to see any logic behind your arguments other that a basic desire to tell all of us how we should live in order to be true to the larger struggle of fairness and justice. I believe I am capable of both.
You have this exactly opposite. With the anti-porn "feminists" such as Dworkin and MacKinnon, they were wanting the State to intervene in the sexual lives of people, much like what the pro-marriage people are doing now. They stand together in a yearning to be validated and work through the same systems of domination that have also been cause of their own oppression (which will never work). Gay Shame on the other hand seems to be saying fuck (all) marriage and fuck the State.
Again, you are not listening, you are only hearing.
So, using your logic, then perhaps you would agree to end welfare benefits for women based on how many children they have, since offspring are a direct correlation of heterosexual promiscuity? And of course, what right does the state have in benefitting women who continue to have sex and have babies? It's their sex lives, right?
I'm being sarcastic. Incidentally, these are the very real arguments the right-wing makes.
And by the way, when GS works to end heterosexual privilege in terms of marriage, job advancement, etc., maybe I'll join you. As it is, you are only brave enough to attack queers.
So, using your logic, then perhaps you would agree to end welfare benefits for women based on how many children they have, since offspring are a direct correlation of heterosexual promiscuity? And of course, what right does the state have in benefitting women who continue to have sex and have babies? It's their sex lives, right?
I'm being sarcastic. Incidentally, these are the very real arguments the right-wing makes.
And by the way, when GS works to end heterosexual privilege in terms of marriage, job advancement, etc., maybe I'll join you. As it is, you are only brave enough to attack queers.
"You have this exactly opposite. With the anti-porn "feminists" such as Dworkin and MacKinnon, they were wanting the State to intervene in the sexual lives of people, much like what the pro-marriage people are doing now. They stand together in a yearning to be validated and work through the same systems of domination that have also been cause of their own oppression (which will never work). Gay Shame on the other hand seems to be saying fuck (all) marriage and fuck the State."
Faulty anaolgy.
Those who seek to ban pornography (for whatever reason) try to attain that goal by using the government to deny all persons the freedom to choose to buy pornography. It is an attempt to limit all persons' freedom to choose to do something. It is an attempt to force everyone to conform to the activists' values.
Those who seek equal marriage rights for gay couples are trying to gain the freedom to choose to marry by getting the government to stop denying us equal standing before the law. It is an attempt to unleash all persons' frreedom to choose his or her own marital status and personal lifestyle, and even when successful, will not force anyone to conform to any particular lifestyle or values
Faulty anaolgy.
Those who seek to ban pornography (for whatever reason) try to attain that goal by using the government to deny all persons the freedom to choose to buy pornography. It is an attempt to limit all persons' freedom to choose to do something. It is an attempt to force everyone to conform to the activists' values.
Those who seek equal marriage rights for gay couples are trying to gain the freedom to choose to marry by getting the government to stop denying us equal standing before the law. It is an attempt to unleash all persons' frreedom to choose his or her own marital status and personal lifestyle, and even when successful, will not force anyone to conform to any particular lifestyle or values
Gay shame does not seem to be "attacking " anyone, they seem to be offering a space of contention amongst the sea of assimilation and race towards heterosexual privilege, which is what this "choice" is about. The reality is that this "choice" is not working towards the ending of oppression for all people, It is simply a way for those you "chose" to marry to gain the same privileges as the rest of flag-waving-hetero-America already have.
Why is it that you all cannot invision other ways that the world should or could be?
Why is it that you all cannot invision other ways that the world should or could be?
It's good to know you can still be cutesy with all of this when this is an issue that seriously affects our lives. But then, this comes as no surprise. Using the old gay superficial standby of referring derogatively us as Catherine, or Blanche, or Mary reinforces your lapse in good judgment, falling back on what many queer men who've come before you have worked through in rejecting mysogynistic relics of old gay culture. To call your friends "mary" is one thing when it's elevating your love for them; when having a serious discussion and referring to your adversaries, it is another. You use the feminine to dismiss us, only unlike a patriarchal homophobe who would call us "sissy" or reprimand the football players as "girls", you call us "Catherine". But please, don't stop there, I guess we are "Catherine" Mackinnon. Or are we "Andrea" Dworkin? So not only are we lowly women, but our purpose is that of allying with the Right to enforce a lack of choice upon everyone else. How deep!
But then you say:
"Gay shame does not seem to be 'attacking' anyone"
...and!
"they seem to be offering a space of contention amongst the sea of assimilation and race towards heterosexual privilege, which is what this "choice" is about."
ROTFLMAO
Please. Learn to babble-speak a little more efficiently. PR is only effective when it sounds sincere.
"The reality is that this "choice" is not working towards the ending of oppression for all people, It is simply a way for those you "chose" to marry to gain the same privileges as the rest of flag-waving-hetero-America already have."
Note to future Phd.'s: Please refer to this discussion when writing your paper on moral relativism and the Left. So...equal rights for gay couples to marry is ACTUALLY adverse towards ending the oppression of all people! Uh, and please inform all of those Muslims, Christians, Jews, etc. who are attempting to reform their religions to be more inclusive of queers instead of stoning them to death that they should please cease, Catherine, because it only hurts everyone else who is oppressed.
In all seriousness, the world is not divided into black and white. There is no good vs. evil. How many times do we have to repeat this until folks realize that total agreement on everything that ever existed is not a prerequisite in uniting for positive social change!?! Having differences of opinion is one thing, to be sure, but to base your efforts solely on denigrating the other side of the equation because it doesn't jive with your revolution is just being reactionary.
"Why is it that you all cannot invision other ways that the world should or could be?"
If you cannot "invision" my right to make choices you don't agree with, then what world are you envisioning?
But then you say:
"Gay shame does not seem to be 'attacking' anyone"
...and!
"they seem to be offering a space of contention amongst the sea of assimilation and race towards heterosexual privilege, which is what this "choice" is about."
ROTFLMAO
Please. Learn to babble-speak a little more efficiently. PR is only effective when it sounds sincere.
"The reality is that this "choice" is not working towards the ending of oppression for all people, It is simply a way for those you "chose" to marry to gain the same privileges as the rest of flag-waving-hetero-America already have."
Note to future Phd.'s: Please refer to this discussion when writing your paper on moral relativism and the Left. So...equal rights for gay couples to marry is ACTUALLY adverse towards ending the oppression of all people! Uh, and please inform all of those Muslims, Christians, Jews, etc. who are attempting to reform their religions to be more inclusive of queers instead of stoning them to death that they should please cease, Catherine, because it only hurts everyone else who is oppressed.
In all seriousness, the world is not divided into black and white. There is no good vs. evil. How many times do we have to repeat this until folks realize that total agreement on everything that ever existed is not a prerequisite in uniting for positive social change!?! Having differences of opinion is one thing, to be sure, but to base your efforts solely on denigrating the other side of the equation because it doesn't jive with your revolution is just being reactionary.
"Why is it that you all cannot invision other ways that the world should or could be?"
If you cannot "invision" my right to make choices you don't agree with, then what world are you envisioning?
Gay Shame attacks everyone and anyone who thinks differently than they do
Gay Shame attacks everyone and anyone who acts differently than they do
Gay Shame attacks everyone and anyone who couples differently than they do
Gay Shame, in short, attacks anyone who isn't Gay Shame.
Gay Shame attacks everyone and anyone who acts differently than they do
Gay Shame attacks everyone and anyone who couples differently than they do
Gay Shame, in short, attacks anyone who isn't Gay Shame.
Gay Shame in their own words. Let the record speak for itself.
"GAY SHAME OPPOSES MARRIAGE IN ANY FORM"
That's pretty cut and dry. So not only marriage issued outside of the state and religion, but any coupling, I would assume.
"Whatever happened to the time when being queer was an automatic challenge to the disgusting, oppressive, patriarchal institution of holy matrimony?"
Uh, we fought and got rights? And because of such, we changed and reformed some of the worst elements, although we still have a long ways to go?
And excuse me, but what's disgusting to me may be different to you and I don't feel it's productive to use such ad hominem attacks. I've seen many of the Gay Shamers and frankly, it's a sad lot, sexually speaking. Do you want me to bag on that? No. And I wouldn't.
"Now, it seems that queers are so desperate to get their taste of straight privilege that they'll camp out in the rain with the hopes that the state will finally sanction their carnal coupling."
Who wouldn't be for "carnal coupling"? This sounds rather Victorian to me. And yes, I would like to get a taste of straight privilege, but no matter how many beers I bought him he said no. I respect that.
"We are now faced with the spectacle of thousands of gay men and lesbians rabid with longing for any shred of acceptance from a violent, hypocritical establishment that really wants us dead."
Why does this sound so appealing? Rabid fags, unite! Rise up and Fight!
"Don't forget-marriage is the central institution of that misogynist, racist system of domination and oppression known as heterosexuality."
Uh, that's rather insulting to my straight friends. Excuse me, I hope you are not speaking for all of us queers!
"Don't get us wrong-we support everyone's right to fuck whomever they want-we're just not in favor of supporting the imperialist, bloodthirsty status quo."
Oh, I see that connection. What?
"Local, national and international-conservative and liberal-corporate and grass-roots media have all swarmed around City Hall as if Gavin Newsom is the vanguard leader of gay civil rights. Gavin Newsom came to power by aggressively pandering to the privileged gay vote with a message criminalizing poor people in a city wracked by years of greedy hyper-development. Now, he's giving back to the gays who got him elected. These are the same sellouts who have for years promoted gay marriage as the penultimate achievement on the road to "equality," yet they are now willing to bestow full credit upon Gavin Newsom for their own misguided work."
Gavin on the Brain, can I get no refrain? Isn't Gay Shame suppose to be against the State? So what's the issue?
"Newsom is using gay marriage as a wedge issue in order to get national press, and further his megalomaniacal quest for national power. What is depressing is that gay people are so blinded by their desperation for "rights" that they'll promote a cynical, closet-fascist as the messiah."
So what? Even if it was true, why does GS care about matters of the state? Are they going to run a candidate against him or just KVETCH?
Ah, that was a good session. I'm touching cloth. I've got a turtle head poking out.
"GAY SHAME OPPOSES MARRIAGE IN ANY FORM"
That's pretty cut and dry. So not only marriage issued outside of the state and religion, but any coupling, I would assume.
"Whatever happened to the time when being queer was an automatic challenge to the disgusting, oppressive, patriarchal institution of holy matrimony?"
Uh, we fought and got rights? And because of such, we changed and reformed some of the worst elements, although we still have a long ways to go?
And excuse me, but what's disgusting to me may be different to you and I don't feel it's productive to use such ad hominem attacks. I've seen many of the Gay Shamers and frankly, it's a sad lot, sexually speaking. Do you want me to bag on that? No. And I wouldn't.
"Now, it seems that queers are so desperate to get their taste of straight privilege that they'll camp out in the rain with the hopes that the state will finally sanction their carnal coupling."
Who wouldn't be for "carnal coupling"? This sounds rather Victorian to me. And yes, I would like to get a taste of straight privilege, but no matter how many beers I bought him he said no. I respect that.
"We are now faced with the spectacle of thousands of gay men and lesbians rabid with longing for any shred of acceptance from a violent, hypocritical establishment that really wants us dead."
Why does this sound so appealing? Rabid fags, unite! Rise up and Fight!
"Don't forget-marriage is the central institution of that misogynist, racist system of domination and oppression known as heterosexuality."
Uh, that's rather insulting to my straight friends. Excuse me, I hope you are not speaking for all of us queers!
"Don't get us wrong-we support everyone's right to fuck whomever they want-we're just not in favor of supporting the imperialist, bloodthirsty status quo."
Oh, I see that connection. What?
"Local, national and international-conservative and liberal-corporate and grass-roots media have all swarmed around City Hall as if Gavin Newsom is the vanguard leader of gay civil rights. Gavin Newsom came to power by aggressively pandering to the privileged gay vote with a message criminalizing poor people in a city wracked by years of greedy hyper-development. Now, he's giving back to the gays who got him elected. These are the same sellouts who have for years promoted gay marriage as the penultimate achievement on the road to "equality," yet they are now willing to bestow full credit upon Gavin Newsom for their own misguided work."
Gavin on the Brain, can I get no refrain? Isn't Gay Shame suppose to be against the State? So what's the issue?
"Newsom is using gay marriage as a wedge issue in order to get national press, and further his megalomaniacal quest for national power. What is depressing is that gay people are so blinded by their desperation for "rights" that they'll promote a cynical, closet-fascist as the messiah."
So what? Even if it was true, why does GS care about matters of the state? Are they going to run a candidate against him or just KVETCH?
Ah, that was a good session. I'm touching cloth. I've got a turtle head poking out.
For more information:
http://www.gayshamesf.org
Didn't the Gay Shame extremists actually turn to violence in an attempt to injure Newsom during last year's Gay Pride Parade?
No. They were, as usual, grandstanding and being dramatic, but the cops had no right to attack them. It was wrong for the police to injure, arrest, or attack them.
This is not a defense of their beliefs or the righteousness of their cause, because frankly, they are just tools.
GS aren't a violent group. Their fault is that they only believe in "activistism". They have no apparent deep convictions other than ending a nebulous "oppression" and no plan to accomplish that other than taking to the street in what has been accepted by some as a legitimate way of reclaiming the publics, though I would argue that even sports fans have this right, but doesn't make it right or worthwhile.
To working class folks like myself, it is sorrowful distraction.
This is not a defense of their beliefs or the righteousness of their cause, because frankly, they are just tools.
GS aren't a violent group. Their fault is that they only believe in "activistism". They have no apparent deep convictions other than ending a nebulous "oppression" and no plan to accomplish that other than taking to the street in what has been accepted by some as a legitimate way of reclaiming the publics, though I would argue that even sports fans have this right, but doesn't make it right or worthwhile.
To working class folks like myself, it is sorrowful distraction.
I am thoroughly enjoying reading everyone's comments on this subject. I think Gay Shame has many valid points, even if I do not share their manner of presentation. I also think their critics have good points too. What would their critics be happy with, I wonder? The silencing of a radical queer group? If people disagree with them so strongly, maybe they should go to their meetings and try to influence their actions. If this discussion is any indication, people (even their fiery critics) do take them seriously. If people do not like the messages of GS, they can *choose* to not listen. Of course there are political consequences for SF with regard to the possibility that more queers will be driven to the right by GS's indictments of marriage, consumerism, voting, et al. But, they are entitled to their positions. While I do not agree with their position on marriage, I am certainly willing to concede that marriage can be a tool of assimilation, of racism, of patriarchy. It seems odd that people are so threatened by GS. Why is that people are threatened by GS?
On the other hand, I know why GS is threatened by their critics. The power of the fascist police state to silence dissent is all too real.
No - they may not be the most articulate bunch, and they may be reactionary sometimes, and they may grandstand - but their unrelenting call to an anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-classist movement is an asset to the queer culture of SF.
That state or church approved marriage has links to patriarchy, racism, and capitalist exploitation is undeniable, and GS deserves credit for shedding light on those links, whether or not one agrees that all marriage is oppressive.
On the other hand, I know why GS is threatened by their critics. The power of the fascist police state to silence dissent is all too real.
No - they may not be the most articulate bunch, and they may be reactionary sometimes, and they may grandstand - but their unrelenting call to an anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-classist movement is an asset to the queer culture of SF.
That state or church approved marriage has links to patriarchy, racism, and capitalist exploitation is undeniable, and GS deserves credit for shedding light on those links, whether or not one agrees that all marriage is oppressive.
Really? Check out the national corporate news sometime and you might get a better sense of why gay marriage activists feel threatened by a second front in their war to end discrimination against gays and lesbians.
Not only is gay marriage a pretty mild demand that is facing outrageously fanatical resistance in a right-wing nation, but also, I think, this is a meta-issue as well.
In a national context, I think this gay marriage issue is really about whether or not we (and when I say we, I mean everybody from middle-aged, middle-class Midwestern lesbian couples to transfabulous Gay Shame commandos) can be truly, freely queer in America without the state or the church stepping in to deny us the lives we want to live.
I understand that many do not want to have anything to do with marriage, and aren't too excited to see the more conservative edges of the gay envelope get pushed, and that's cool. But one thing seems clear to me: if gay marriage goes down to defeat with a Constitutional amendment, there isn't any aspect of queer life that will be safe from the tyranny of the majority.
Not only is gay marriage a pretty mild demand that is facing outrageously fanatical resistance in a right-wing nation, but also, I think, this is a meta-issue as well.
In a national context, I think this gay marriage issue is really about whether or not we (and when I say we, I mean everybody from middle-aged, middle-class Midwestern lesbian couples to transfabulous Gay Shame commandos) can be truly, freely queer in America without the state or the church stepping in to deny us the lives we want to live.
I understand that many do not want to have anything to do with marriage, and aren't too excited to see the more conservative edges of the gay envelope get pushed, and that's cool. But one thing seems clear to me: if gay marriage goes down to defeat with a Constitutional amendment, there isn't any aspect of queer life that will be safe from the tyranny of the majority.
A lot of what you say about GS and how "threatening" they are is the same thing folks said about the second coming of Act Up SF. Many folks like me tried to sound the alarm and often were met with silence and ignorance by folks who knew better.
And what do we have today?
One dead Ronnie Burk and one dead David Pasquerelli.
But who else died because of their lies? How much harm does a AUSF or a GS do? It can never be measured.
But to all of you moral and spiritual cowards out there who say and do nothing: may you follow the same, pathetic, and painful path as Ronnie and David. Gay Shame on you indeed.
And what do we have today?
One dead Ronnie Burk and one dead David Pasquerelli.
But who else died because of their lies? How much harm does a AUSF or a GS do? It can never be measured.
But to all of you moral and spiritual cowards out there who say and do nothing: may you follow the same, pathetic, and painful path as Ronnie and David. Gay Shame on you indeed.
Moral cowardice? Well it should be clear to all that gayshame has no monopoly on self-righteous grandstanding. Wishing death on your detractors in an email discussion - what an asshole.
Nobody should wish AIDS upon anybody. Gay Shame sucks, and I think they may end up doing more damage to more people than they realize, but they're still people--and thus deserve a basic level of respect.
it's amazing how demanding these pro-marriage people are that everyone *fall in line with their agenda*
if you don't you're characterized as a threat to the people, as tyrranical and fascistic...
why, isn't that just what the republicans do, in order to go to war? "saddam = hitler. if you're against war, then you're pro-hitler!"
and so then they get to call the objectors, oppressors.
gee, you just can't lose, with logic like that. classic neo-liberalism-slash-"compassionate" conservatism.
it reminds me of cold war era anticommunism, too.
if you don't you're characterized as a threat to the people, as tyrranical and fascistic...
why, isn't that just what the republicans do, in order to go to war? "saddam = hitler. if you're against war, then you're pro-hitler!"
and so then they get to call the objectors, oppressors.
gee, you just can't lose, with logic like that. classic neo-liberalism-slash-"compassionate" conservatism.
it reminds me of cold war era anticommunism, too.
hi-
i just read your site and am writing to tell you i totally disagree with your positions on public sex and gay marriage. im gay and i think its not OK to have sex in public alleys, etc. hello - there are other people living in the world who dont want to see your ass sucking off some leather daddy in an alley. take it back to your house or somewhere private.
i dont agree with bars being raided - but san francisco is not a free for all - fuck wherever you want city. quit trying to make it appear like our rights are being taken away and they are trying to stifle visibility on this issue - some of us would rather not have those kind of images be our visibility. you weaken our stance with inane protests like these.
and your marriage argument is weak. maybe you have lived in san francisco too long and have run out of things to protest - but fighting equal rights against your own people is lame.
sorry your 1970's free love party is over - but some of us have had it with people fucking in our alleys and shitting on our sidewalks. its not your city - its OUR city. its time to clean it up, get over it.
i just read your site and am writing to tell you i totally disagree with your positions on public sex and gay marriage. im gay and i think its not OK to have sex in public alleys, etc. hello - there are other people living in the world who dont want to see your ass sucking off some leather daddy in an alley. take it back to your house or somewhere private.
i dont agree with bars being raided - but san francisco is not a free for all - fuck wherever you want city. quit trying to make it appear like our rights are being taken away and they are trying to stifle visibility on this issue - some of us would rather not have those kind of images be our visibility. you weaken our stance with inane protests like these.
and your marriage argument is weak. maybe you have lived in san francisco too long and have run out of things to protest - but fighting equal rights against your own people is lame.
sorry your 1970's free love party is over - but some of us have had it with people fucking in our alleys and shitting on our sidewalks. its not your city - its OUR city. its time to clean it up, get over it.
"I had my fun back in the day but it's over and you should just grow up and celebrate my marriage."
Who's projecting their own agenda onto everyone and trying to force conformity to it?
But then.... what might one expect, of Gavinites? I mean, this guy thinks racism is over. That kind of says it all right there, now doesn't it?
Who's projecting their own agenda onto everyone and trying to force conformity to it?
But then.... what might one expect, of Gavinites? I mean, this guy thinks racism is over. That kind of says it all right there, now doesn't it?
How dare they? These gay marriage activists, with their own agenda based on their own needs! How selfish of them to stand up for their rights when no one else will! They should support only the causes we support, think only the thoughts we think, choose only the lifestyles we want them to choose!
Who do these uppity gay marriage activists think they are, free men and women? They must be punished for speaking out against the elite and misunderstood revolutionarie cadre of Gay Shame! The ends justify the means! Either they are with us or they are against us, these "Gavinites!"
Who do these uppity gay marriage activists think they are, free men and women? They must be punished for speaking out against the elite and misunderstood revolutionarie cadre of Gay Shame! The ends justify the means! Either they are with us or they are against us, these "Gavinites!"
Newsom made it happen, simple and to the point. And as a resident of The City I am unaware of a "payoff" to anyone. No matter what you think about him as mayor he pales in comparison to the shark that was and is Willie Brown.
From a queer perspective if anyone needs to be shamed its Barbara Boxer, she needs to have her ass shown the door this fall, and if its Bill Jones who cares. At least with him we know he isnt going to be for same sex marriage, unlike with the back stabbing Boxer who has no conviction or the guts to stand for equal rights.
From a queer perspective if anyone needs to be shamed its Barbara Boxer, she needs to have her ass shown the door this fall, and if its Bill Jones who cares. At least with him we know he isnt going to be for same sex marriage, unlike with the back stabbing Boxer who has no conviction or the guts to stand for equal rights.
Her press statement that gays and lesbians already have equal rights and that she opposes gay marriage (and not on the grounds that marriage isn't good enough for gays, either) made me ill.
I denounced her by e-mail (to which she failed to respond--surprise!), and promised to work against her re-election unless she apologized and reversed her statement.
I, too, hope Boxer loses. The Democrats in general have been pandering to the right wing more than they usually do--which is to say, a lot--and it's high time we send them a message that there's a price to pay for supporting discrimination against gays and lesbians.
With friends like Boxer...
I denounced her by e-mail (to which she failed to respond--surprise!), and promised to work against her re-election unless she apologized and reversed her statement.
I, too, hope Boxer loses. The Democrats in general have been pandering to the right wing more than they usually do--which is to say, a lot--and it's high time we send them a message that there's a price to pay for supporting discrimination against gays and lesbians.
With friends like Boxer...
Gay Shame is promising a large presence, but they will back out at the last minute. they are only here for them selves
they will claim every one elses work! as usual
they will claim every one elses work! as usual
what's lame is gavinites trying to own the progressive mantle by bashing radicals on an indymedia site. lame, shameful and hard to explain.
news flash: the real "gay shame" is you, in case you missed the critique (which is absolutely correct, imo).
news flash: the real "gay shame" is you, in case you missed the critique (which is absolutely correct, imo).
All of this hype.
No single GS member present. Sad. Predictable.
Love,
Mattilda
No single GS member present. Sad. Predictable.
Love,
Mattilda
So much ground covered succinctly. Thanks Mattilda!!
For more information:
http://www.sfbg.com/38/26/x_oped.html
"He said he's proud of me,'' Newsom recalled of the brief exchange with the president at the dinner -- a clubby Washington event in which politicians, celebrities and journalists mingle.
...
"I literally had a half-dozen Republicans come up to me and say they agreed with what I was doing. It was amazing,'' Newsom said, declining to name names.
Source: Today's S.F. Chron:
...
"I literally had a half-dozen Republicans come up to me and say they agreed with what I was doing. It was amazing,'' Newsom said, declining to name names.
Source: Today's S.F. Chron:
For more information:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...
Perhaps not entirely irrelevant to current discussions, for being so British...
For more information:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gayrights/story/...
maybe "grateful" was the more precise word.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$230.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network