(no subject)

[rm]

While there are a hundred reasons why straight people openly specifying that they are straight and also support the rights of GBLTQ people to marry their partners is a useful thing, think of the power of this:

Just saying that you support it. Without mentioning your own damn orientation.

Because I know it's not always or even often distancing when someone says, "I'm straight but I support gay rights," but trust me, trust me, trust me, trust me, when I tell you that's what it can feel like from over here.

Just try saying it without qualification. Picture _that_ as an LJ meme. You know?

Comments

[juniperus.livejournal.com]

When I've used the qualifying statement, it's been part of a message that was not specifically intended for the GBLTQ community:

It's a message for those bigots in the straight community who think they speak for me - because they do not.

It's a message for the ignorant who believe the ridiculous lies told using 'protecting children' as an excuse for hatred, because they too easily can (and will) discount a voice of dissent who has no children.

It's a message for those who think that the only people interested in, and fighting for, equal rights are queer.


I don't make claims of 'straight', although I did choose to repeat that meme as written (as it explicitly stated that the wording was important, and the message bore repeating to the audiences I described, above). I simply state the logistical facts: I am female, I am married to a male, we have children. Period. I am not (I am not, I cannot speak for any other individual who might use similar verbiage) making an effort to dance on the edge of a subtext nor send secret coded messages. I, quite honestly, think that the most important voices are the ones that come from the GBLTQ community - but the most virulent opponents automatically discount, ignore, and twist those voices. And I realize I'm likely going to get my ass kicked for saying so, but it seems to me that the message, however ethically correct or powerful it is in its own right, has got to be communicated with the audience in mind - if I want to convince the people who choose to (or are told to) discount your voices, I need to circumvent their automatic selective hearing.

And I hope you realize that I post this not to discount what you feel, and why, nor to disagree with your statement about those feelings. But if I had marched for civil rights in the 60s my very physical appearance would have made the point that I was not a member of the group and yet I fought for, and side by side with, members of the group... but it would also have separated me from them. The words would not have been necessary for the former, and there was no way to avoid the latter. In a text-based medium, if the (former) argument is made then the words are needed: if the words are used, there runs the risk of the latter repercussion. I don't see a way around it - I think that fighting against and solidarity with are two very different actions, and I don't know how they can be simultaneous. I am not discounting the need for both, by any means, but I don't know how to achieve that.