OP/ED
Should We Be Taking
it To The Streets?
OP-ED
Should We Be Taking it To The Streets?
by Ernie McLeod
When to quit being polite and take to the streets?
In the aftermath of California’s passage of the Knight Initiative — which prohibits recognition of same-sex marriages legally performed in other states, never mind that no such marriages exist — activist-writer Eric Rofes drafted a manifesto titled “Life After Knight: A Call for Direct Action and Civil Disobedience.” In it, he outlines possible strategies “to directly confront mainstream resistance to same-sex marriage.”
Among them: Until same-sex marriage is legal, we should openly protest mixed-sex weddings. We should demonstrate against newspapers that celebrate only heterosexual unions, and against heterosexist TV shows like “The Newlywed Game” and the vile “Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?”
Following the lead of clergy who have risked their careers to perform same-sex marriages, we should organize mass same-sex couple registration attempts at town clerks’ offices. We should chain ourselves to buildings and be led off to jail singing songs of liberation. We should strongly encourage our heterosexual allies to refuse participation in marriage until we all have access.
When Rofes’ essay was posted on the Vermont discussion list, my immediate response was: Yes! It tapped right into my escalating anger and sense of powerlessness. I quickly reminded myself, however, that Vermont is not California, an unfortunate fact in some respects, but a lucky one in regard to same-sex marriage. At least our lawmakers—with some notable exceptions—are working to extend rights rather than pre-empt them. Our uninformed masses don’t yet have the power to control minority destinies through regressive initiatives. And we do have that Supreme Court ruling in our favor.
Yet anyone who sees only matrimonial bliss on our horizon is—to borrow a favored ornithological symbol—a duck with its head underwater. Remember that veneer of civility at the first marriage hearing, back on that blizzardy night when it seemed our side’s eloquent testimonies could not go unheard? By the time Town Meetings hit some seven weeks later it had been pretty much stripped away.
Despite the fact that the civil unions bill passed by the Judiciary Committee swept gay marriage off the table, the opposition’s rhetoric has grown only more rabid. In a futile effort to soothe foamers-at-the-mouth, the debate has increasingly shifted to the hetero-center. Real gay lives—the lives actually affected by whatever bill does or does not pass—are being shoved back in the closet. There, we’re supposed to wait patiently for whatever bone gets tossed our way.
For those who have been off on swank vacations (according to “Who Would Have Thought, Inc.” 26.5 percent of us are frequent travelers!), let me cite a few examples of how we’re being represented in the media.
First, the ads… Funny, the opposition can’t talk enough about the all-powerful “homosexual lobby,” yet they’re snapping up radio and newspaper space like oceanfront property. The “It’s a Duck! Protect Traditional Marriage” ad, eye-catching in its simplicity (though it does make one want to holler: “Quack!” followed by: “From?”), is sissy stuff compared to the “fact”-packed “Civil Rights—Who Says?” ad which explains in detail how “Homosexuality Hurts Everyone.”
Summary: We’re disease-ridden smarty-pants trapped in a chosen lifestyle of special rights, continuous sex—preferably with children—and pricey vacations.
Then there are letters to the Editor. Same-sex unions will lead to the acceptance of incest, polygamy, bestiality, and, finally, to the extinction of humankind. In seeking rights we are trying to force our beliefs on society and, if anyone dares to object or lovingly suggest we let God lead us from relationships which are “a danger to the common good and stability of the state,” we have the nerve to accuse them of being intolerant homophobes. Besides, we have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as everyone else.
At one town meeting a former state senator stood up and described us as “disease-spreading cornholers.” At another, with TV cameras rolling, a plea for tolerance was congratulated with: “I think that was a very good pro-faggot speech.” VPR aired the comments of a woman who predicted gay marriage would turn Vermont into another Provincetown, where naked men stroll hand-in-hand through the streets.
While only a handful of towns held non-binding votes on the issue, the next day “The Free Press” headline read: “Gay marriage loses at ballot box.” In other words: Your lives were entered in a straight popularity contest and—guess what?—you’re losers!
It’s tempting to dismiss some of the more outlandish lies—most recent example, a guy who’s “no bigot” distributing flyers claiming anyone who favors gay marriage also supports sexual abuse of young boys by older men—as the work of crackpot outsiders. But, in fact, most of the garbage is being hurled by our neighbors.
In slightly subtler but no less harmful ways, some religious leaders and legislators are working madly to overturn the Baker decision. Bishop Kenneth Angell’s anti-gay marriage letter was read in Catholic churches throughout the state. Rep. Nancy Sheltra, quaking with furor, said the civil unions bill would—gasp!—legalize sodomy (memo to Nancy: it’s been legal since 1977). Representatives from the town I grew up in—one of whom sat in my parents’ living room last year—are at the forefront of the kill-any-bill campaign.
Personally speaking, I don’t relish the idea of engaging in civil disobedience. I hate confrontation. I’ve no desire to be chained to my bedpost, much less the Statehouse. Seeing my portrait lit by police station fluorescents would surely depress me for years. I passionately loathe public sing-a-longs. On the other hand, there are only so many dishes in the house.
Within the gay community, marriage has oft been tagged—wrongly—as a conservative issue. An issue incompatible with confrontational activism. In Vermont, the issue was transported to the foreground by a very traditional vehicle, the justice system.
That vehicle has served us well. Trading it in for a new model would be foolish and disrespectful to all the heroes at the wheel. But, at some point, we may need a second vehicle. An eighteen-wheeler with a kick-ass diesel engine and a horn that’ll blast them quackers clear out of the sky.
What form civil disobedience might take in Vermont is currently being debated by many of us who won’t let our voices go unheard. Our actions will certainly be influenced by what happens in the weeks and months ahead. If a bill that truly fulfills the Court’s mandate is passed without opposition sabotage, I will stay home penning thank-you notes.
I will not sit home if the bill is killed, watered down, or otherwise de-gayed; if hateful rhetoric is tolerated in the name of “balance;” if straight discomfort continues to rule the day. I’ll take to the streets. I’ll even sing, if required, and pray there are lots and lots of people singing with me, because if there aren’t—well, consider it a threat.
Oh yeah, I’ll vote, too.