In Defense of the White Ribbon

Maybe I'm a sucker for a revolution... or maybe just for the accessories of one.

Shortly before Christmas, I attended a gay-marriage equality rally here in Midtown New York, "Light Up the Night," hosted by Join the Impact NYC and spearheaded by a group of infectiously passionate college kids. It was one of those rare, impossibly cold nights we get in Manhattan, and there weren't many of us. I was underdressed; I jiggled my toes while I shouted progressive pith and imagined some disfiguring frostbite taking hold. (Things weren't looking good for gay marriage, and they looked even bleaker with amputated or discolored toes.)

"Hey, hey, ho, ho, Rick Warren has got to go!"

This rally introduced me to the revolution's newest accessory, one most people haven't heard of: the white ribbon tied in a double knot. When I started wearing it, I expected, and hoped, it would inspire comments from my few conservative friends or evangelical relatives. I couldn't have been more wrong. From these people, I got questions such as, "What does that represent?" and after I explained it, respectful, if bemused, nods.

No... the real eye rolling came from other gays: "GIRL... what is that?" or "Did you burn your bra at the protest again?"

You don't need to scour the blogs to find more of this sentiment: Be happy with civil unions. Marriage is just a word. Marriage is a heteronormative institution. It will all happen in good time. Bob Ostertag's blog from December 21 typifies these sentiments:

"Is this really where decades of struggle for sexual freedom ends? With the state granting its blessing to homosexual nuclear families emerging from City Hall, husband-and-husband or wife-and-wife, with the photographer and the rice and the whole bit, finally having become just like them?"

I just don't get it.

Camp is an extraordinarily effective way to combat inequality; there's nothing like watching a master drag queen dish out a good "reading." Of course, there's a place for camp to work some of its magic for gay marriage, as demonstrated in Prop 8: The Musical. What frightens me is when camp becomes self-directed: no longer used to parody a hegemonic culture but to deride anything and everything sincere.

And you can't get much more sincere than marriage.

I wasn't around for the civil rights movements, and I'm not black, but whatever self-hatred was stirring in the U.S. black communities during that era, I have to wonder: Did black people roll their eyes at equality? Did black people argue about whether the right to sit anywhere on the bus was passé or beneath them or beside the point? Certainly, black people didn't worry about becoming too "white" when they finally achieved equal rights.

I will accept that these two movements are apples and oranges, but I imagine the problem of sincerity transcends their differences. Maybe it's not so much Rick Warren I should be directing my protests toward as all the gays and lesbians who titter at the very serious idea of equality.

Although the overwhelming support from straight people is an empowering testament to just how far we've come, I think it's a mistake to let them fight this battle alone. Indeed, I went to the rally with two heterosexual girls, while most of my gay friends, as far as I could tell, were staying inside, away from the elements.

Comments

[SunDriedTomato]

I've given out hundreds of White Knot ribbons at church outreach events. They get very positive responses from straight supporters of equal marriage rights. I haven't had any gays say anything bad about them yet.

(yes, I said "church outreach." There are 4,557 churches in California fighting Prop 8 in the supreme court. I'm doing what I can to -metaphorically- make that 4,558! The citiation for the suit is: California Council of Churches v. Mark D. Horton.)

[ReardonMetal]

As a gay man who has been partnered for a very long time in a monogomous relationship, of course, I support 'marriage.' However, I do not think that the state has any role in marriage -- churches do, and they can marry or not marry whomever they choose. The state should only be concerned with granting a license for a 'union', heterosexual or homosexual shouldn't matter.

As far as 'camp' demonstrations and protests go, the promiscuity, pride parades with outlandish behavior, exhibitionism, etc., that seem to go along with these events have done much harm to the mainstream gay/lesbian core. It is one thing to be open, and live openly, but another to go for shock value in an effort to further the civil rights issue. We do more harm to ourselves by invading churches, beating up those who preach in the Castro, and acting out socially than we would if we adopted a more moderate tone. If we desire acceptance and inclusion, then we need to practice it as well. Hence, I am one of the few who think that Rick Warren giving an invocation at the inauguration is not such a bad thing ..... Obama is just doing what he said he would do all along -- including ALL Americans in this administration.

The gay/lesbian movement is to blame for much of the discrimination and phobia that is out there, and the sooner we see that and admit it, the sooner we will achieve true parity.

[Johnathan Wilber - Huffpost Blogger]

I agree with your comment in part, but I am more hesitant to blackball gay people who are promiscuous or behave "outlandishly," for several reasons. For one, who's to say what is outlandish... or even what constitutes promiscuous behavior? Promiscuity in one culture may look very different in another. This kind of thing seems like a very slippery slope.

I also disagree with the idea that camp has done harm to the gay and lesbian mainstream; in fact I don't think the gay and lesbian mainstream would be possible without camp.

But that issue aside, gays and lesbians' rights must not be won at the cost of disparaging less mainstream culture, of letting the oppressed become the oppressor. I think it would be foolhardy to ostracize the fringes of the LGBT community, just as it is a mistake for bigots to let those fringes represent a larger community.

What I hoped to convey here was that it seems many gays and lesbians are concerned that by gaining marriage equality they'd also be losing a unique cultural place or identity... and it's profoundly sad that these people think our inequality and oppression are what unite us. Adopting marriage equality and maintaining a vibrant and diverse queer culture are far from mutually exclusive pursuits.

[PlaceboStudman]

I have to take issue with your use of the term "less mainstream culture". Who is to say what is more or less mainstream in any culture? The fact of the matter is, we are ALL hated, mistreated and misunderstood, simply because of who we are, regardless of whether we fit more or less into mainstream culture. It's a fallacy to me to believe that there is a "gay culture", just as many would argue against a black or latino culture, because we are all unique and different, even when we share many similarities. that's why I believe all minorities should adopt the LGBT rainbow flag, to represent the differences within each of us, all unified under one purpose, to be seen as equal, not just despite our differences, but partly BECAUSE of our differences.

[Johnathan Wilber - Huffpost Blogger]

I won't harp on the Rick Warren issue, because that's already taken up a lot of space in the blogs. I will iterate what many people are saying, though, and that is that inclusion--to me--is not about reaching out to bigots, and it's been pretty clearly established that Warren's a bigot when it comes to gays and lesbians. Medical Insurance is an issue. Homosexuality and equal rights are not "issues" to have opinions about, just as it's ludicrous to have an opinion about black people, or about women, and so on.

[Sam Ciraulo - Huffpost Blogger]

I sometimes don't get it either, Johnathan. Making a private commitment public is a necessary and important part of the process of building a relationship. In American society, we do that through the civil institution of marriage. While many opposite-sex couple choose not to take advatange of that, the point is that they have a choice that the majority of same-sex couples do not have. But, marriage is the legally and socially recognized institution in which that essential step of relationsh­ip-buildin­g takes place. That some of us would choose not to take advantage of that institution does not lessen it's importance for those same-sex couples who would choose to - if they had the choice.

Marriage has been a heteronomal institution because only heterosexuals have had access to it.

The website to which you referred is www.whiteknot.org - and I'll be wearing one on January 20th.

[AnotherTry]

The internal struggle is always more difficult and personal than the external one. We have to fight on two fronts. Thanks for reminding us.