(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

[smirnoffmule.livejournal.com]

Thank you.

(Edited to lol, because that post in conjunction with this icon makes it look like I'm a lover of bricks who supports gay rights. Try that as a meme, people!)

[askeladden.livejournal.com]

Really? That seems strange to me. I find it very powerful when someone says, "I'm not part of this group, but I will fight for it." Keith Olberman's recent wonderful video, for example, was all the more effective for me because he prefaced it by saying, "I'm not talking about this because it affects me or anyone I'm close to. I'm saying it because it's self-evidently true and universally important." I've also been a fan of those "straight but not narrow" bumper stickers for a long time, but mostly because I'm a yellow-bellied punsucker. Why does it feel distancing to you? It feels like solidarity to me.

[random-girl.livejournal.com]

I often want to qualify my status because a lot of people to whom the argument is made assume that if I am gay, I should therefore have more invested (and in some cases, be taken less seriously because of that investment). The fact that I'm not gay, but I'm still just as invested seems like an argument the people we're trying to convince may pay more attention to. It may encourage questions like "Why are you so invested if it doesn't directly affect you?" This leaves me open to ask them about their investment against the idea, and to tell them about the investment all human beings should have for other human beings, gay, straight, black, white, etc.

My husband and I are going to the Rally march on Saturday here in WA to support marriage in all forms. Really, I want my friend Theresa to be able to visit her partner in the hospital and find out if she's going to live or die because she's a wife and has a right to that knowledge. I want my co-worker to be able to adopt his partner's daughter, that he's been helping to raise for the last six years. I want my friends who are gay to gain that much more safety when they're alone in a crowd of people; if its ok to marry, initially a lot of folks will be upset, but it will help desensitize folks so fewer people get beat up or killed for how they were born.

My apologies if my reasoning (and therefore phrasing) hurt you in my earlier post this week.

[rm.livejournal.com]

I thought it was powerful when Olbermann did it, absolutely, but I think that has to be his job as a pop culture figure.

When I was in college, one of my roommates wrote an editorial for the school paper ostensibly about how she was cool with having a queer roommate. But the whole piece was about all the ways in which she was straight, really, and how I didn't make her gay, really.

I think for many people there's both conscious and unconscious subtext to declaring their heterosexuality before supporting equal marriage rights.

I also think that it reminds people that gay people are "different" -- if we stop starting the argument by emphasizing our differences, maybe our differences will be less important.

[winterknight.livejournal.com]

Thank you. The idea that queer voices carry less weight than straight voices when discussing their own rights as human beings is like a knife in the chest.

[rm.livejournal.com]

Nope, not at all. I'm not personally offended by it, so much as frustrated with it, because there are the good reasons -- like those you mention and what askeladden said above about the Olbermann Special Comment -- but I do think those good reasons often mask other subtexts that need to be discussed as a group, if not on an individual basis.

[winterknight.livejournal.com]

Don't you think it's offensive to suggest that queers are so untrustworthy and biased that other people can't take their word when discussing a fundamental issue like human rights? I find it very offensive that somehow straight validation of queer people's right to the same treatment as straight people carries more weight than the demands of queers for that treatment. Really, really offensive.

[rm.livejournal.com]

You put it far more succinctly and brutally than it had occurred to me to do. Yes, this.

I am not a child, and I am not an animal. But that's what so much of the discourse, even the supportive discourse does to us.

[brewsternorth.livejournal.com]

I hear you on that. I guess it's just a question of the straight people being in a hurry to say, "these bigoted straight people don't speak for me".

[rosepurr.livejournal.com]

I understand what you're saying, and there is certainly a subtext sometimes when people say, "I'm not gay..."

For many of us, it is intended to show solidarity, but I get that sometimes it just feels like we're distancing ourselves.

So:

"I support same-sex marriage and other gay rights."

And I'll repeat it all over the place.

[wyrdwriter.livejournal.com]

Wow. Shows how much I pay attention! I never noticed whether folks said one way or the other...
I vote FOR gay marriage every time it comes up here.
The whole post that I have been copy/pasting everywhere these days:

I always vote yes for gay marriage.
The bill never passes.
I don't understand people.
The only way I can wrap my head around the ISSUE with Gay marriage is that the Insurance Companies do Not want to have to pay for anything, much less "extra" folk. Period. The Religious Thang is just a Smoke Screen.
If you are "Christian" then you follow the New Test.
OLD Test is where God was crabby and hated gays and pagans...
NEW Test, after His "son" was born, he was much more "Zen"....

Honestly, In My Experience, Gay Unions last longer than MOST male/female ones. What does that say???
Love is Love.

And the whole WWJD? Jesus, IMHO, would say: Love is Love...
of course, I am Pagan and my opinion of Jesus, in most circles, doesn't count for shit.

[winterknight.livejournal.com]

Getting further into it, I really, really hate the "I'm straight and my marriage isn't threatened..." meme. It's like in order to make a point, a person has to immediately OTHER queers, and then their voice is valid. I understand, but equally hate the "straight, but not narrow" stickers and badges. Because what would be so bad about just supporting queer rights? You might get mistaken for being queer? Well, guess what? Imagine BEING queer.

I think people who are straight who grab for those forms of solidarity still aren't totally getting it. They want to be open and liberal and maybe they really, deeply, believe in queer rights, and maybe they feel like they're being respectful by not impinging on the queer identity... but the message in the end is still, "I'm Privileged, and I'm using my Privilege to validate this message."

ETA: I understand Olberman's point, and I did not find it insulting. He was trying to set himself up as an example that pulls down the very thing I'm complaining about. You don't have to be queer or to even care about queers to respect the concept of HUMAN rights. You just have to admit that queers are human.

[these-3-remain.livejournal.com]

Great point.

[rosepurr.livejournal.com]

It's always been this way.

I don't say that to make it seem like "this way" is right because it ISN'T.

I say this to say that I understand, as I watch mostly men make decisions about the legality of my body, as I read about women marching for the right to vote, so that men would change the laws, as I hold my breath and watch the Supreme Court, made up of people not like me, make decisions about me.

As a woman, an atheist, a progressive in a blue state, I understand. You are not a minor and your voice deserves adult, human weight.

[rm.livejournal.com]

Olbermann also got a pass from me on this one, because for whatever reason he seemed near tears, which certainly removed any possibly distance that was contained in his words.

[random-girl.livejournal.com]

No. I don't think its a queer/straight thing.

Psychologically speaking, human beings who believe you have more invested tend to believe you have a bias and therefore are less trustworthy. It doesn't matter if you're seniors lobbying for more privileges in High School or Women asking for the Vote.

I'm not actually trying to convince the queers that they should have rights. You guys seem pretty on board with that idea. I'm usually trying to persuade idiots who think they shouldn't. This is a method I've found that kind of works to try and make that happen. I'm sorry that, as a race of people, we're still so ignorant that some of our arguments to try and get equality acknowledged has to address that fact that some of the people who are fighting against that equality might not believe in it. Therefore, stating I have nothing personal to gain by the process may sway them more than my silence on that matter.

It is not intended to be offensive.

[lordrexfear.livejournal.com]

I'm totally down with what you said here.

I also find it strange that Keith Olberman being an internationally recognized news personality has no ties to someone who gay rights would help.

I mean I know above you're all for how Olberman did stuff, but really? He's not just straight... none of his friends or family or gay, bi, trans, confused???

Does it have to be a meme though? Can't it just be a thing? Whenever you feel like it, for whatever reason, you can state that all people should have equal rights, period. (and yes, that actually opens another can of worms... but I actually feel that all people should have the same legal rights...okay, except for self-admitted child molesters, those people can go to hell)

[askeladden.livejournal.com]

Hm. There's definitely truth in what you say, but for me the "I'm not gay, I swear" factor is trumped by the "you pick on my friend, you answer to me" factor. Assertions of rights are doubly strong if they're made by both interested and disinterested parties. If you're not sure what you think about the issue and you only hear gay people (or people you assume are gay because they don't state otherwise) saying, "Give me what's mine", it's easy to write it off by saying, "Well, of course they're going to say that, but what do normal people think?" When advocacy is coming from all sides, it's harder to dismiss out of hand. The converse of this is seen in disability issues, where frequently self-advocacy was overshadowed by external advocacy. Disability rights leaders rightly adopted the "nothing about us without us" creed, which made sure that external advocacy wasn't their only recourse, but without rejecting it altogether. With respect to gay rights, I think it's important not to project too insular a front, and I think letting our straight allies identify themselves only strengthens the message. It all comes down to Niemoller for me. I don't think acknowledging difference is the root of the problem. What we need is a universal precept that would overrule perceptions of difference when necessary to preserve human rights, but which would otherwise allow for as much diversity as possible.

Playing the devil's advocate...

[these-3-remain.livejournal.com]

At every point in the various struggles for human rights, hasn't someone in the empowered group had to speak for the oppressed? Ultimately, whites had to speak for blacks and men for women. It's the straights-who-hate-queers (at least, that's how I see it) that want to deny gays the right to marry. If someone opposes gay marriage it's because on a fundamental level he/she does not consider gays people. Or the "right kind" of people, just as women were (are) not considered the "right kind" of people. And if straight bigots don't think of queers as human enough to give them human rights, will they ever listen to queer protests? We hear the words "homosexual agenda" coming out of James Dobson's mouth about 20 times a day. Saying, "I'm straight and I support same-sex marriage," is one way to say, "STFU, it's not a homosexual agenda, it's my agenda, too, it's a human rights agenda."

[winterknight.livejournal.com]

I'm well-aware of the mechanics. I don't have to like it. Your intent doesn't make knowing that your voice is more valid than mine, and that you are preserving your position as being more valuable every time you say something like "I'm straight", less painful. Knowing the mechanics doesn't change the fact that that is the message that's being carried. It's especially troubling to me that it is the default statement. Even if the point must, in theory, be made at times to gain ground, the fact that it is made all the time, without thought, is deeply problematic.

Can you honestly say that you only use your privilege as a lever when it's absolutely necessary? Are you sure you're not using it as a way of protecting yourself? Do you think about it? How often are you willing to base an argument for the rights of others on your status as someone who already has those rights?

You may be a well-intentioned straight person invested in gaining rights for queers. That in and of itself is reason not to say "It's not intended to be offensive." and "I'm only doing it for you." That's reason to say, "I'll remember that next time I want to say something like that."

There's a big difference in having an investment in changing the State Bird, say, and an investment in obtaining equal status as human beings. I also find it offensive that men's voices carry more weight in abortion arguments. This sense that women/queers/POC/etc are trying to lie/manipulate/cheat their way into having the same rights as men/straights/whites/etc is deeply ingrained into the privileged class. That's something that has to be confronted for the real work to progress.

[rm.livejournal.com]

As to Olbermann, I think everyone who's a fan watching went "RACHEL MADDOW, YOU ASS" all at once.

But anyway....

Also, I loathe the LJ meme machine, but after seeing 800 versions of "gay marriage will not harm my straight marriage" I figured those were the terms people were going to understand this week.

[weirdquark]

Several years ago I would argue with people who opposed gay rights over the internet. My profile didn't have any personal information in it, and I put effort into phrasing things so that my gender and sexual orientation remained unclear.

Most of the reason was because I felt that my gender and sexual orientation was utterly irrelevant to the conversation -- I support the right of GBLTQ people to marry their partners because it's the right thing to do. Whether or not laws that discriminate against people who aren't straight affect me? Irrelevant. I found the thinking of the people who didn't want gays in the military to be completely incomprehensible back when I wrote a paper on DADT in junior high, when I had never had a crush on another girl and never considered that this might change in the future. When we had a mini lesson in health class on how to be supportive of a friend coming out to you, I found the necessity of telling us to be supportive incomprehensible. Because why should it matter if someone was gay? I did figure out that not everyone thinks that way, but it's still my gut reaction: why does it matter?

I also kind of enjoyed seeing what assumptions people would make about me based on what I said and how I said it, and whatever they assumed, I never denied or confirmed anything. My gender was irrelevant. My sexual orientation was irrelevant. (And after a while, I found "irrelevant" to be a useful descriptor of both, but that's something else entirely.)

Re: Playing the devil's advocate...

[rm.livejournal.com]

At every point in the various struggles for human rights, hasn't someone in the empowered group had to speak for the oppressed?

Yes, but here's the deal, up close and personal:

Do you have any idea how it fucks with my sense of self not just to know, but to be told over and over again that I have to have someone else fight for me? That I'm not ever going to be strong enough or good enough to fight for myself?

Just because it's pragmatic, doesn't mean it's not awful.

And in the matter of gay rights, it creates an added layer of complication especially for gay men, who get a double whammy of society's bullshit about what men should be in there too.

[nekosensei.livejournal.com]

Hey. Did you hear that they're organizing a national rally against Proposition 8 on November 15th? Hmm...

[popfiend.livejournal.com]

I hear you, although I admit to doing it myself. I'm trying to recognize and be better though.

It reminds me a lot of the "I have [fill in the blank] friends" preface to any issue regarding said group.

Why I have a familiarity with this issue, I wouldn't know. ;)