Views
Queer Delusions
Queer Delusions
by Robert M. Vanderbeck
Many
queers woke up on November 3 feeling like they had been stabbed in the
gut. As pundits rushed to submit their analyses of the latest Democratic
party crash and burn, the media frenzy began to resemble a morbid competition
to see who could pour more salt in queer people's wounds. Without Ralph
Nader to scapegoat for this election cycle' thumping at the polls, it
became clear that pushy queers - who had the audacity to seek equal marriage
rights - would be the new Naderites, publicly reviled by Democrats for
their candidate's loss. Sure, a strong majority of queers marched in lockstep
behind the Kerrycrats, but how could they be so selfish as to don those
tuxes and bridal gowns and dance around like a bunch of fairies on the
steps of San Francisco's city hall? Couldn't they see they were ruining
it for the Dems? We deserve your votes, they say, and you should be grateful
for the crumbs we might just throw you.
Here's our 'friend' Senator Dianne Feinstein's
(D) post-election analysis of the struggle for gay marriage in her home
state of California: "It gives [conservatives] a position to rally
around. The whole issue has been too much, too fast, too soon." In
typical self-loathing queer mode, Representative Barney Frank (D) of Massachusetts
opined about the gay marriage movement, "I think it hurt.... I wasn't
willing to pay a price for a lot of hoopla that didn't accomplish anything."
Too much, too fast? Hell no. This is not
the moment for apologies, nor to let this scapegoating demoralize us.
Here's the news that those playing the queer blame game won't emphasize
when telling you to sit down and shut up. CNN exit polls showed that while
only 25 percent of voters expressed support for gay marriage, a further
35 percent supported civil unions. Now we here in Vermont know well that
civil unions fall far short of full equality, but 60 percent of people
expressed support for extending more rights to queers. One certainly doesn't
find this in the mainstream discourse, as commentators remind us repeatedly
that voters cited "moral values" as their top concern (chosen
from a list by a whopping 20 percent of people, while a measly 80 percent
identified things like the economy, Iraq, the 'war on terror,' and education
as their main priorities).
It's a delusion to think that had a Democrat
been elected president, the trajectory of queer rights would have been
much altered. Remember Bill "don't ask, don't tell" Clinton
and the Defense of Marriage Act? But Kerry voted against DOMA, right?
Newsflash from Kansas, Dorothy: someone who repeatedly says, "This
is a matter for the states" (isn't this what apologists for slavery
used to say?) is not your friend. And while Republicans will continue
pushing a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, Kerry was never
going to work too hard to oppose it, and certainly wouldn't have fought
for federally recognized civil unions.
It seems to me that many queers' lemming-like
march behind the Democrats is symptomatic of how queer people have been
conditioned since birth to accept the lesser bully as their friend. As
young, closeted queers, many of us quickly learned to accept any situation
that didn't involve getting pounded into the locker room floor. I knew
that many of my high school friends harbored homophobic views, but as
long as I stayed closeted and kept quiet, they didn't call me 'fag,' and
I thought that was good enough. While hanging out with them was slightly
preferable to being mocked by the football team, most of us eventually
realize that this isn't a productive way to live. As adults, however,
we still flock to the lesser bully come poll time.
As queers discuss how to proceed now, here
are a few things I hope we keep in mind. First, it's a waste of energy
to campaign for candidates who won't support our issues in hopes that
they will change their minds once elected. Politicians almost always give
us less than they promise, not more. Second, victories rarely come without
strong social movements. This is not the time to play dead, but to organize
to protect our recent gains and to push for more. Otherwise, our position
will be even further eroded. Third, now more than ever, queer activists
need to align themselves with other struggles for social and economic
justice.
While marriage equality can be one goal
of many, we should also remember that if we had a universal health care
system, marital status wouldn't matter when allocating the right to be
healed. We wouldn’t have to worry about winning access to our deceased
partners' social security benefits if we had a system that adequately
supported all elderly people. And we mustn't forget that the culture of
war feeds the cult of masculinity that seeks to oppress queers, control
women's bodies, and generally punish the weak. There's zero evidence that
our rights will be extended through unwavering support of either major
party - it's time to think hard about the alternatives.
Robert Vanderbeck lives and writes in Burlington, where he also teaches
university level geography. He can be reached at rmvanderbeck@
hotmail.com