Prop 8: Austin Friday, November 21, 2008 at 10:56 am
Last Saturday I went to the prop 8 protest/rally kajigger in Austin, TX. I was debating whether or not to go until, that morning, I concocted the perfect compromise: I’ll go as a photographer, and if I find I don’t like what’s going on, I’ll distance myself through the camera lens. Besides, I don’t do enough people-photography, and this could give me the chance to practice a little. I’ve been wanting for a while to do a series on homelessness, but that would be a several-months long project (as I feel it’d be a great wrong to just take the pictures without getting to know the people in front of the lens), and I also don’t think my portraiture is up to snuff. This motivated me a bit more to start working to improve those skills. I will admit I did learn one important thing: having an SLR camera gives you amazing authority to move through crowds!
In general, there were some of the same faults with this that I find in many gay organizations, the chiefest being the loose use of ‘hate’ and ‘bigotry’, which is incendiary, unhelpful, and stupid. I don’t think that everyone who voted for California’s proposition 8 was a hate-filled bigot, and to paint the world in such clean strokes of good and evil is lazy and wrong. (You will see some of this in the pictures.) Another issue, one of the speakers was talking about how he met his partner at a Metropolitan Community Church (MCC) – at which point I tuned him out and started doing more photography (my litany of complaints about the MCC is too long to go into, but suffice it to say they are an almost-exclusively gay church combining all the worst elements of evangelical Christianity and gay pop culture). And there was another speaker from Soulforce – and I have a permanent allergic reaction to anything to do with Mel White. I also wonder how much good this actually does, separate from normal gay people living normal, honest lives in their community. Not much, I suspect – and it is why I hope one day the gay rights movement will die a peaceful, quiet death, as gay people are accepted into society at large – and this is happening, slowly.
On another aside, I am a bit astonished at the reaction to prop 8: true, it is a great first – the first time rights that had previously been given to gay couples was taken away. But there are nineteen states – Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Idaho, Utah, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Florida (new this election season) – that not only have constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage but also recognition of other kinds of same-sex unions (usually civil unions). Same-sex couples in California still have the same rights as marriage, but in many other states even those are denied. From a practical point, when gay marriage is politically unfeasible, one should be working toward basic legal protection and recognition, even if it is not ‘full’ equality – and the US does not start and end with the west coast.
Nevertheless, there was much good: one was my astonishment at how diverse the crowd was – gay, straight, young and old, religious and irreligious. A PCUSA minister talked about being a supportive, straight, religious person. And another, and one which I found particularly encouraging, is how many families with children there were (again, gay and straight). This was not some raunchy event from which children needed to be shielded (as the concept of gay pride parades which I grew up believing defined gay people – these parades which are another thing I am hyper-allergic to), but it was extraordinarily civil, and tame. The positive, palpable sense of families coming together is the best thing I will remember: kids ran up and down paths with parents in tow, keeping an eye on them, or were moved around in play-wagons, or clung to their mom or dad’s hand. It was as if the gay rights movement was growing up, and understood that it was, fundamentally, about family.
Andrew Sullivan, as is typical, has a very insightful post on the subject entitled Modernity, Faith, and Marriage. (Go read it.) Gay marriage means loosening (for everyone) what ‘marriage’ means in a governmental capacity. And this is necessary for a great number of government institutions in any pluralistic society. And my inner libertarian is happy to have the meaning of government diminished, for it is after all in the private sphere of sociality that meaning is determined for the individual.
Here are the pictures:
After a little over an hour of photographing, a friend called me and we went out to lunch (at Applebees, like the young old fogies we are). And that was that.
And that’s the last I want to talk about gay stuff for a while. Sheesh it gets old. I’d much rather be talking and thinking about virtue ethics or (the very racist) second-temple Judaism – as I recently remarked to a friend, I have looked into my heart and found a 4 Ezra-shaped hole (I need to go pick me up a Greek apocrypha – it’s a sick fascination I know). And I think this may in not very much time end up turning into a photoblog, but that’s okay with me. That is, after all, what I enjoy doing. I may retreat back into music or philosophy, but I’m finding that the former escapes words and the latter is much more fun with friends, and I have far too much thinking and researching to do before speaking. Photography is easier like that.
I too, wonder why prop 8 has had such national backlash. Though I am happy our generation finally has a fire under their butt and I don’t want to question a good thing too much!
My theory is that its what California represents. The nations looks at us a gay-friendly progressive state. And if rights can be taken away HERE, then a stand has got to me made. Plus I think the heavy involvement of the Mormon church and the HUGE amounts of money raised all make it the perfect storm of sorts.
What is deeply troubling is what you pointed out that many states have bans which don’t even pretend to be about equality. They deny any marriage-like substitute to gay marriage. Thats pure bigotry! That IS second class citizens. Saying people can’t even share health insurance or visit each other in the hospital or adopt. I believe the reason these atrocities are not leading to public outrage is because there’s no way in hell gay marriage is going to pass in the south if left up to the vote of the masses.
Which is why ultimately the supreme court of the US is going to need to deal with this issue.
Not to pick on you, Pomo, but that kind of use of ‘pure bigotry’ is exactly the sort of thing I find unhelpful. It only adds to the impression that gay people are by nature angry and resentful toward all those who think differently. I understand that it’s unfair and it’s unjust. I just want people to realize that harsh rhetoric is just that – and should be reserved for exceptionally harsh circumstances. No one is won, or wooed, or impressed by it.
I just wanted to let you know how very much I enjoy your blog.
Hmm…while I do feel that the immediate reaction of some in the gay (and straight) community to call the passing of Prop 8 a symbol of hate was a gross mischaracterization of the actual problem, I have to agree with Pomo’s comments that some of the out and out bans in some states are “pure bigotry”. There is a difference between bigotry and hatred. Bigotry is intolerance of the views, lifestyle, beliefs, etc. of an individual, group, etc. Hatred is well…hatred. Creating a law which bans non-married couples from adopting children, as was done in Arkansas, with the express purpose of preventing same-sex couples from adopting, IS an expression of “pure bigotry” in my opinion.
I am a fan of bridge building. It’s difficult, but I think it’s important and the only way we can start the conversations which will one day hopefully allow us to truly agree to disagree, instead of just saying that we do. However, sometimes if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it’s a duck! Sure. The other side of the coin which is in favor of banning same sex marriage, adoption, and civil unions may not appreciate labels like prejudiced and bigoted, but that doesn’t mean that some of their actions aren’t in fact prejudiced and bigoted. Now are they acts of hate? I don’t believe that the majority are. But if I can accept that granting someone a different set of rights because of the color of their skin is bigotry, then I must accept that doing the same because of ones sexual orientation is bigotry.
- Bryan
David,
I appreciate the way you encourage civility and discourage encendiary name calling. Peace is more associated with prosperity and happiness than war is!
As you know, I am old enough to give a historical perspective, haha. Seriously, though, in past decades gay-bashers were hate filled and sometimes even resorted to Matthew Shepherd type violence. It is too easy to remember the past and jump to the conclusion that present day critics fit the old patterns. We all know that gays don’t all fit the old stereotypes!
We need to intelligently discuss the issues with critics, dealing with each as an individual. Of course there will be some extremists who will deserve that tougher treatment, but let’s not be too quick to label others and call them names. Most of us know all too well how bad it feels to be the object of that!
David, no deep thoughts from me. Only that I thoroughly enjoyed reading your post.
“I don’t think that everyone who voted for California’s proposition 8 was a hate-filled bigot”
I completely agree on your statement and I think this is a bigger problem than most people realized. The creation of this middle position where people feel comfortable being against equality without feeling “hate-filled bigots” is disturbing. When prop 8 was on vogue a couple of months back, I watched this propaganda explaining that you can still be friends with gay people even if you vote Yes on Prop 8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zbpDe_QhS0
I was quite upset when I watched this little video as this type of line of thought appears to be reasonable when it is not. It lacks empathy and compassion — it basically makes the division between the ‘them’ and the ‘us’ and this is not just selfish, but plainly wrong.