Jul 17, 2009   | COMMENTS     

To the Editors:
Re: “Alas, poor activism, we knew her well” (editorial by Kevin Naff, June 26)

I am a human rights activist who participated in the rallies, protests and demonstrations that have come to be known as the “Three Days of Rage” following the Stonewall Rebellion.

Though Naff and I may disagree on movement priorities, such as the proper place for the same-sex marriage issue in the struggle, I agree wholeheartedly with his point about the need for LGBT activists to show some backbone in holding Democratic as well as Republican “feet to the fire.” But given a lifetime in a human rights movement that spans struggles far beyond those of LGBT people, I can understand the reluctance of others to do so — if for no other reason than the avoidance of attacks by those who claim to be comrades-at-arms.

For stating my opposition to the Vietnam War prior to the station of troops, I was called a traitor to my country; for stating my opposition to Viet Cong torturing American prisoners of war, I was called a traitor to the peace movement. For standing in opposition to segregation in housing, education, transportation and public accommodations prior to the 1963 March for Peace, Jobs and Freedom, I was called a traitor to my race; for standing in opposition to the “selling out” of genuine affirmative action for quotas, I was called a traitor to the Civil Rights movement. For fighting against homophobia at Stonewall, I was called a traitor to my species; for questioning LGBT progressiveness and priorities, I have been called a traitor to gay rights.

I read the recently published New York Times article on the subject of leadership — or lack thereof — in the national gay rights movement. While some of the offered explanations sound reasonable, others do not. In any case, all miss the mark. 

Among the requisite characteristics of a national movement leader are his or her having a farsighted vision for the specific civil rights struggle as well as a good understanding of how that struggle fits within the broader human rights agenda in general. With respect to the former, Harvey Milk cried, “You have to give them hope.” Regarding the latter, Martin Luther King observed, “an injustice anywhere should be an injustice everywhere.”

There are few LGBT activists who meet the first qualification for the job; still fewer who meet the second. Even in the absence of national leadership, the LGBT movement could be much more successful if only its constituency would not only come out of the closet but look beyond its confines. A founder of the Mattachine Society, Harry Hay, was a Marxist labor organizer; founders of the Daughters of Bilitis, Del Martin and Phyllis Lyons, were feminists. The aforementioned so-called “Civil Rights” march was conceived and coordinated by a gay, black Quaker named Bayard Rustin.

A Pacifist, unionist and integrationist, Rustin brought anti-war activists and big labor as well as civil rights activists to the cause. Rustin appreciated the old adage: “In unity there is strength.” If LGBT people care so much about marriage and family, they might want to ally with feminists who care about reproductive rights. If LGBT people are serious about immigration, they might want to ally with Latino and Asian Americans who have their own interests in such. When LGBT people seek employment nondiscrimination protections, they might want to ally with labor unions that organize around such issues. If LGBT people wish more research and treatment for AIDS, they might want to ally with Jewish Americans, Irish Americans African Americans, Latino Americans, Asian Americans and women who have also found often ignored their respective illnesses: Tay Sachs, alcoholism, sickle cell anemia, diabetes and breast cancer. When LGBT people would like more attention paid to the mental health of their youth, they might want to ally with those who suffer in silence from schizophrenia and depression. When LGBT would like more attention paid to care for their seniors, they might want to ally with straight senior citizens who have similar needs.

Instead, the closest thing to a national gay rights movement is focused primarily on same-sex marriage. Don’t get me wrong, I am totally in favor of marriage equality for sexual minorities; where I disagree is on movement preferences. Whatever the analogy between same-sex and interracial marriage, the Civil Rights Movement made a conscious decision not to make anti-miscegenation a major issue. Movement leadership made that determination for three good reasons: We did not believe inclusion would further energize existing activists; we did not believe that ...