Ian Goldin, Guest Writer
Ideology: Left-Independent | Writing from: Washington, DC
On October 11th, the largest mobilization for gay rights in nearly a decade converged on the Nation’s capital. 
Time magazine estimated the crowd to be at least 200,000 strong. The Politicizer was there, reporting amongst the thousands of demonstrators who marched from McPherson Square, around the White House, down Pennsylvania Avenue towards the Capitol. The march culminated in a rally that filled the west lawn of the Capitol, spilling out onto the National Mall and the surrounding areas. While the crowd was diverse, there was one simple demand that brought all of them together: “Equal protection for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender people in all matters governed by civil law in all 50 states. Now.”
This demand was the subject of the multitude of speeches given at the rally, by a multitude of speakers who highlighted the diversity of the LGBT community and its allies. Speakers ranged from students, to spoken word poets, to veteran activists like Julian Bond, who has been chairman of the NAACP for over a decade. Even Lady Gaga gave a speech, which, for many, was reason enough to attend. After saying, “Obama, I know you’re listening,” she screamed at the top of her lungs: “Are you listening?!” This, of course, resulted in thunderous applause and screaming from the crowd, which continued as she raised her fist in solidarity with the LGBT community.
Despite the jovial mood of the rally, not everyone was supportive. Congressman Barney Frank, the highest ranking gay official in the US government, said the march would be “a waste of time at best,” and that “The only thing they’re going to be putting pressure on is the grass.” He said the LGBT rights movement should forget massive demonstrations, and should instead concentrate on lobbying members of Congress, like the NRA and the AARP.
To many, however, the march gave new energy to a movement that has lately been dealt with difficult setbacks. Most of the demonstrators (and even the organizers of the event) were under 30 years old, a generation seen by many as notorious for its political apathy. This is my generation – a generation that, while acknowledging the inequality between the LGBT community and the rest of the country, wasn’t doing much about it. Most of us assumed that eventually things would work themselves out, and that if we waited, equal rights would be given to us. Last year, however, those of us who thought that way were given a rude awakening by the passage of Prop 8 in California. Our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters had the right to get married, but those rights were taken away by a simple majority of voters.
The success of the massive mobilization this weekend is, in part, a direct result of what happened in California. Call us Generation Prop 8: we are young, we are many, and we have energy. The National Equality March provided us with a vital network of new activists ready to organize, and the organization behind the march provides us with the critical infrastructure we need to win.
From the hate crime legislation already passed by the House, to HR 3567, which would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Congress
can be sure that they will be hearing from us. During the rally, the crowd was asked to send their email addresses and their zip codes in a text message, which added them to a national registry of activists. Even if only a fraction of the 200,000 people actually did this, there will still be a list of thousands of people waiting to mobilize. Equality Across America – the organization that planned the march – says their goal is to set up an action team in each of the 435 Congressional districts in the US.
To Rep. Frank, I say this: we’re not going to be like the NRA or the AARP. We’re going to be better than both of them, because we have two things that neither of them have. We’re young, and we’re positive. Perhaps Gaga said it best: “We are putting more than pressure on this grass. Today this grass is ours.”
Watch a video montage of the march here. Watch the full C-SPAN coverage of the speakers at the rally here.
“Externality of permitting gay marriage: When the fundamentalist Islamic horde impose Sharia law, and judging by the UK its about 15 years out in the US, such lassitudes as gay marriage, hot & cold running porn, and a good bit more in modern America, will get all the married couples slaughtered medieval-style, and quite a few of us others who’ll be defending other things we cherish. Damndest thing it’s the liberals who want gay marriage, but they’ll kill them first. I really don’t like that.”
This is getting stupid.
I’m done with this circle jerk.
I’m phoning this in from my vacation:
Colin: From yours: “As to hate crimes legislation, I can understand your opposition. However, the reason that hate crimes (whether based on race, sex, religion, gender, nationality, sexual orientation, gender identity, or socio-economic background) should be punished with a longer sentence is that the direct victim is not the only victim. The crime negatively affects an entire demographic group and as such makes an entire section of the community into victims. If I rob two people, I do more time than if I rob one. It makes sense.”
I’ve never heard of such a thing, and if this is the real basis of the “hates crimes idea” it must be overturned. It’s unworkable, and I’ll explain why.
Let’s say I always hated Irish, was well known to. One day my Irish neighbor was rude top my wife and I struck him and killed him. I’ve committed murder, for which I’ll pay before the law, for murder of another human being, regardless of his race creed or color. If I must do more time because he was Irish, too, because I’ve also “committed a crime against all Irishmen” I just don’t see how that’s gonna work.
I don’t like people who pronounce words that end in “s” who whistle it. Are they gonna organize a victim group then, and if I slug one of ‘em sometime, are they going to add time on my felony conviction because I was mean to “s” whistlers?
It can’t work, and it diminishes my rights as a citizen if I don’t join as many “victimized” groups as I can.
This is why hate crimes proposals piss people off.
And Art: C’mon. One thing the Mullahs whip their crazies into a frenzy about is how dirty our XXX culture is; didn’t you know that? If we could be a little more restrained, they would want to kill us so badly.
Do you seriously think Mullah’s are going to stop preaching the downfall of the Great Satan if we tone down our “XXX culture”?
Om: Whatever it takes. Their natural enemies are the Saudi Royal Family, who use the madrassas and the terror camps like Jackson and Sharpton use our public schools.
The Islamic terrorists should be plotting to take down the Saudi family jets, but instead they’re over here.
So, yes, if we did less XXX, they might choose a more fitting target.
Let’s wait ’til someone posts on our putrid culture, or the war in Islam. I want to enjoy my cruise.
Nice to hear from you. Om.
O&D’s sentiments expressed above are consistent with the dilemma Strauss foresaw in a society defined by absolute relativism and “egalitarian permissiveness.”
I’m not necessarily agreeing with him–I think, in the context of our legal system, there is a valid construction of a separate class of “hate crimes”–but I recognize the larger argument inherent in his criticism.
The point is thus not whether or not hate crime legislation is futile/worthwhile/valid, but that issues like this are not only inherent, but also bound to become more rampant as a logical extension of modern liberal democracy.
How we combine pluralism and equality–if possible or even desirable–is the intellectual burden of our generation.
First, an interesting and insightful article, Ian. Thanks for taking the time to write and post this.
Now, to all who have misgivings about hate crimes legislation: be careful not to accept the utterly false premise that people like O&D have been so successful in spreading. There simply no such thing as a standard punishment for the same act, independent of motive. We routinely punish murder, eg., quite differently if the exact same act was motivated by passion versus premediation, for hire, to escape responsibility for another crime, to disrupt the legal system, and, most essentially, if it was motivated by a legitimate form of provocation. Hate crimes legislation is nothing more than a means of recognizing that hatred of certain groups is not a legitimate provocation. Rather, it is the sort of motive that is so offensive and potentially socially harmful that it ought to be punished more severely — just as we already punish differently based on a variety of motives.
There are lots of sociology-backed and other reasons to believe that hate crimes are more socially harmful than the same act committed for other motives. The DC-area sniper was put to death just the other day. Part of what so terrorized the community was the sense that anyone could be next. That is the way members of protected groups feel when they hear about a bias-crime.
Hate crimes laws do not punish people for holding prejudices; and conviction of an illegal act while holding a prejudice is not enough to make it a hate crime. The crime has to have been motivated by prohibited bias.
Again, this is nothing strange or unknown in our criminal justice system. We /always/ punish people differently based on motive. However, the system needs updating. Hate crimes legislation is just a means of making clear that hurting someone because you hate their sexuality, eg, is one of the many motives that should be seen as an aggravating factor.