Last night I attended the back half of a long meeting of [1] Act Up Now (morphing from [2] Unite the Fight), as they continued to organize themselves into a new movement for direct action for equal rights for lesbian and gay people. Specifically: marriage rights, but they may not stop there. The meeting, involving about 25 women and men, was primarily a double committee meeting gearing up for the next big thing:

Next Thursday, their first [3] Town Hall meeting will be held December 11, 7:30 p.m. (at Hollywood Lutheran Church, 1733 N. New Hampshire Avenue, Los Angeles 90027, the No On 8 Church).

What was interesting to watch was the dynamics of a new movement being born, and the temper of today’s activists. This group in Los Angeles (”Son of Act Up”) has a new mission; these are new times, and they are finding new energy.

Although it might seem that “direct action” is highly confrontational or angry or violent, this group of thirty-somethings and older were hardly any of that. They have careers after all, even [4] SAG cards. And they peaceably used their basic knowledge of Roberts Rules of Order to make and second motions, allow for discussion and then vote, for example, on their mission statement. Some were concerned that “direct action” tends to sound violent to the media, and in its coverage of recent street marches, we were portrayed as angry (correct) and dangerous (not correct). “Carry candles,” I whispered. “You always look peaceful carrying candles.”

Another snag was whether to speak for the rights of Queer people, or should that be Queer folk? Or Lesbian and gay people?  Or gay and Lesbian people?  What words are inclusive, specific, not too cumbersome, not alienating? Passed over were acronyms like LGBTQ.

The man next to me wondered what “Q” meant in that string. “Questioning,” I whispered, temporarily feeling like I am very much “in the know,” enchufado. Truthfully, where has he been?

But why use the word “questioning” as part of the beneficiaries of direct action to secure equal marriage rights? Would a “questioning” person have to propose to another “questioning” person in order to enter a same-gender marriage?  The group more or less reached consensus that they are ready to fight for equal marriage rights for Lesbian and gay people because those are the people who have lost their equal rights with the ballot “victory” of Proposition 8 one month ago.

Not that bisexual and transgender, queer and questioning people haven’t also been set back by ballot box bigotry. The folks on the other side, who pretend they are protecting or preserving traditional marriage are still the same people who wanted and have fought hard for two decades to deprive all of us of all of our rights: the right of a gay/lesbian person to teach in California schools (the [5] Briggs initiative), the right to secure housing and employment.  They could hardly have used a “preserving traditional employment” argument, for example. When [6] Anita Bryant mounted her successful campaign in Dade County Florida more than 30 years ago to rescind the rights of Lesbian and gay people, it was to deprive them of their inherent right to work. “Homosexuals will wear dresses to work,” she cried with her sweet Florida orange juice smile, as if that should be self-evident to all decent people.

As if to illustrate what “decent people” (my term) might mean to activists in 2008, the term “all sexual minorities” was also rejected by consensus. Why? Because, as one person ventured, that could imply we were fighting for all kinds of sexual fetishes. Others nodded in recognition of a dangerous semantic opening for our enemies to slam us again.

There are a lot of fringe people out there, like the men of NAMBLA who want to legalize “inter-generational” sex (sex with underage kids), or who simply pursue sexual expression through fantasies and acts that I can’t fully imagine let alone want to describe (including heterosexual ones). Is this avoidance of such fringe populations another sign that an oppressed minority in willing to step on other oppressed minorities below them in order to climb higher?

Hardly. For years in this so-called culture war, our detractors have successfully been able to portray all Lesbian and gay ~ and bisexual and transgender people (although those categories are hardly on their radar) ~ as twisted sexual perverts who want to carry on all kinds of really depraved sexual acts. Well, today’s activism for marriage is not an effort to decriminalize the statutory rape of minors, or to legalize sex acts in public parks and restrooms (sorry, [7] Senator).

Activism for marriage is a movement toward accepting responsibilities for another person and seeking equal civil rights to protect one’s own relationship from the harsh realities of the world.  We aren’t trying to protect marriage in general, in the abstract (and not in the imagination of Christian conservatives).  [8] Marriage can take care of itself. This movement is fighting to protect our own commitments with the equality to which we are entitled under the law.

As to these other groups? If they have serious civil rights issues, they will have to light their own candles.

— Pastor Dan Hooper, Los Angeles