Ethnicity and Group Rights: Nomos XXXIX

18. Straight Gay Politics: The Limits of an Ethnic Model of Inclusion

18 STRAIGHT GAY POLITICS: THE LIMITS OF AN ETHNIC MODEL OF INCLUSION CATHYJ. COHEN On August 24, 1995, presidential candidate Sen. Bob Dole did something rarely seen in American politics. He returned the one thousand dollar check of a political contributor. The financial donation in this case came from the Log Cabin Republicans, a conservative political group comprised of lesbians and gay men. Still attempting to explain his decision to return the money nearly three weeks later, Dole declared that "what I don't want was the perception that we were buying into some special rights for any group, whether it might be, with gays or anyone else." 1 Thus, the participation of gay male and lesbian Republicans in the political process, in even the most traditional and narrow ways, was interpreted by Bob Dole as the pursuit of special rights. On September 25, 1995, the D.C. Coalition of Black Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexuals voted to hold onto a check for $2,200 designated for the NAACP. The funds generated from a March fundraiser by the D.C. Coalition were to be presented to the NAACP at a May reception. However, it was reported in The Washington Blade, the local D.C. gay and lesbian paper, that "an NAACP representative canceled at the last moment and the 572 Straight Gay Politics 573 NAACP did not return many phone calls about rescheduling." 2 In this instance, a mainstream black civil rights organization, in deep financial trouble, apparently decided to forgo financial assistance and association from a group thought to be more tainted than the NAACP itself. Both of these cases point to an interesting and continuous phenomenon in the politics of oppressed groups: specifically, the attempt in this case by lesbians and gays, but also other marginal groups of different political orientations, different cultural backgrounds , and different economic means, to acquire formal rights and inclusion not through street activism but increasingly through established and tested mainstream politics.3 In both of these examples, lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, and transgendered (l/g/b/t) individuals came together attempting to use financial incentives to "buy" influence, recognition, and acceptance. And while this is a strategy that many before them, in particular white ethnic groups, have engaged in to achieve equal opportunity and results, in the case of gay men and lesbians such a tactic has been met with repeated failure. Whether it be the proliferation of antigay ballot initiatives or the increasing number of reported hate crimes against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered individuals , mainstream America seems to be saying that no matter how well behaved gays and lesbians are or how much money members of this community can offer, they will never be fully embraced. In neither of the cases mentioned above are we provided with the familiar images of oppressed groups engaged in protests, demanding the special rights of equality and protection given to other groups in society. Instead, at least in these examples, each group has chosen to pursue their equality through the more traditional and less disruptive tactics of financial contributions, voting, and adherence to dominant norms and values. This strategic decision is not new but represents a discernable trend in the writing and thinking of many gay activists/organizers/intellectuals /leaders receiving attention today. Turning away from the liberal /radical politics of liberationists who sought social change, and not merely inclusion, these individuals "preach" a new gay political ideology. This approach promises that if gays and lesbians present themselves as legitimate and deserving citizens, then 574 CATHYj.COHEN equal status will be bestowed on all those deemed "virtually normal .,,4 It is this type of political understanding that has pushed the issues of gays in the military and gay marriages to the front of the gay political agenda, where such topics are seen as putting forth those images and members of "Gay America" that most citizens can at least tolerate and hopefully one day accept. It is this mainstreaming of gay and lesbian politics, as an illustration of the political choices of all marginal groups, that is the focus of this chapter. Labeled the ethnic model of inclusion (or what I deem integrative or advanced marginalization), this strategy is based on the experiences of white European ethnic groups and assumes that, over time, as groups prove themselves to be diligent and willing contributors to American society, they will become fully integrated and assimilated into...