IF
THE
FIGHT
for
equality
were
a
beauty
pageant,
the
movement
for
gay
civil
rights
would
win
“Miss
Congeniality.”
We
may
have
started
things
off
with
a
bang
with
the
Stonewall
Riots
almost
35
years
ago,
but
ever
since
Queer
Nation
died
out
in
the
early
’90s,
you
won’t
find
us
organizing
sit-ins.
You
won’t
see
mass
boycotts,
and
our
“protest
marches”
always
end
up
looking
like
Gay
Pride
celebrations
or
mediocre
rock
concerts.
Ours
is
the
most
polite
civil
rights
movement
in
U.S.
history.
Our
goals
couldn’t
be
more
conservative:
to
get
married
and
fight
in
the
military.
We
put
the
“civil”
and
“obedience”
in
“civil
disobedience.”
Our
civil
rights
groups
are
forever
seeking
out
political
compromises
and
incremental
measures
that
won’t
rock
the
boat
too
much.
If
“friendly”
politicians
don’t
like
the
idea
of
us
getting
married,
we
settle
for
“civil
unions”
or
“domestic
partnerships.”
When
full-fledged
civil
rights
legislation
proved
too
much
for
Democrats
in
Congress,
we
settled
for
proposing
workplace
protection.
When
the
Democrats
controlled
both
houses
of
Congress
and
the
White
House
in
1993,
and
again
wrested
control
of
the
Senate
in
2001,
we
nodded
understandingly
when
even
that
narrow
agenda
wasn’t
made
a
priority.
We
are
so
sophisticated
politically
that
we
give
gay-friendly
politicians
a
“free
pass”
almost
anytime
they
tell
us
that
supporting
our
equality
would
require
actual
courage
on
their
part.
When
we’re
afraid
our
lives
might
appear
too
different
from
the
heterosexual
mainstream,
we
“clean
them
up”
for
prime
time,
selecting
family-friendly
lesbians
to
represent
us
to
the
general
public.
SO
IT
CAME
as
a
shock
to
the
system
when
a
public
official
like
San
Francisco
Mayor
Gavin
Newsome,
a
heterosexual
apparently
acting
on
his
own,
decided
to
do
something
truly
bold
on
our
behalf.
In
the
two
weeks
since
Mayor
Newsome
ordered
the
clerk’s
office
to
begin
issuing
marriage
licenses,
more
than
3,200
gay
couples
have
lined
up
for
hours
at
City
Hall
to
tie
the
knot.
And
America
was
treated
through
countless
media
reports
to
the
sight
of
hundreds
of
happy
gay
couples,
talking
on
camera
about
their
relationships.
Newsome’s
singular
act
of
political
courage
has
already
inspired
others
to
follow,
including
the
clerk’s
office
in
Sandoval
County,
N.M.,
of
all
places.
Chicago
Mayor
Richard
Daley
has
also
indicated
that
he
stands
ready
to
do
likewise.
If
these
conscientious
public
servants
are
taking
such
enormous
strides
on
their
own,
imagine
how
many
more
would
follow
suit
if
we
were
actually
lobbying
them
to?
The
time
has
come
for
our
activists
to
put
down
their
poll
numbers
and
focus
group
summaries,
take
off
their
gloves,
and
come
out
swinging.
For
years
we
have
been
accumulating
political
chits
from
politicians
who
have
used
our
money
and
our
volunteers
and
our
votes
to
win
election
after
re-election
after
re-election.
The
time
has
come
to
call
in
those
IOUs.
In
her
debut
as
executive
director
at
last
month’s
HRC
black-tie
dinner
in
New
York
City,
Cheryl
Jacques
gave
a
passionate
speech
about
how
we
mustn’t
settle
for
civil
unions
because
only
full-fledged
marriage
affords
us
equal
treatment
under
the
law.
She
was
rewarded
with
a
standing
ovation.
Then
she
introduced
the
evening’s
keynote
speaker,
Sen.
Hillary
Rodham
Clinton
(D-N.Y.),
who
favors
only
civil
unions
and
opposes
gay
marriage.
If
we
believe
what
we
say,
then
perhaps
HRC
should
have
invited
one
of
the
three
Democratic
presidential
candidates
who
came
out
in
favor
of
full-fledged
marriage
for
gay
couples.
Locally,
the
Gay
&
Lesbian
Activists
Alliance
has
convinced
our
elected
representatives
—
including
two
openly
gay
D.C.
Council
members
—
to
defer
public
policy
on
the
question
of
marriage
to
this
small
cadre
of
individuals.
So
while
we
see
real
political
courage
coming
out
of
San
Francisco,
here
in
Washington
our
public
servants
abdicate
their
responsibility
and
gain
political
cover
from
a
small
cadre
of
activists
so
steeped
in
political
strategy
that
they’ve
forgotten
it’s
a
movement
we’re
fighting,
not
a
campaign.
If
the
D.C.
Council
and
the
mayor
back
gay
marriage,
and
they
say
they
do,
then
they
should
enact
it
now
and
let
Congress
respond
how
it
may.
IT’S
TIME
FOR
us
to
begin
drawing
lines
in
the
sand.
Each
and
every
gay
rights
organization,
at
the
state
and
federal
level,
should
state
clearly
and
publicly
—
and
immediately
—
that
we
will
renounce
all
support
and
work
actively
for
the
defeat
of
any
elected
official
who
supports
amending
a
federal
or
state
constitution
to
ban
gay
marriage.
We
cannot
work
on
behalf
of
politicians
who
would
agree
to
write
discrimination
against
us
into
the
governing
document
of
any
state,
or
of
our
country.
It
is
one
thing
to
oppose
us
on
a
policy
issue;
it
is
another
to
defy
the
judiciary
once
it
determines
that
basic
principles
of
equality
require
that
marriage
licenses
be
issued
to
gay
couples.
Our
Washington-based
gay
rights
groups,
especially
HRC
and
the
National
Gay
&
Lesbian
Task
Force,
should
publicly
call
on
John
Kerry,
the
presumptive
Democratic
nominee,
to
stop
blurring
the
lines
on
the
marriage
issue,
which
is
central
to
our
equality.
Time
and
again,
including
two
interviews
aired
nationwide
this
month
and
again
at
the
Wisconsin
debate
last
week,
Kerry
answered
a
question
about
a
constitutional
amendment
banning
gay
marriage
by
saying
he
might
support
doing
so
if
civil
unions
aren’t
banned.
On
each
occasion,
Kerry’s
aides
scurried
afterward
to
explain
to
the
gay
press
that
their
candidate
was
talking
about
an
amendment
to
the
Massachusetts
state
Constitution,
which
he
supports
in
principle,
and
not
an
amendment
to
the
U.S.
Constitution,
which
he
says
he
opposes.
Kerry
needs
to
come
clean
about
his
position
and
do
so
in
a
way
that
is
not
telling
the
mainstream
public
one
thing
and
his
gay
supporters
another.
And
it’s
time
for
...
