« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »
04/10/2007
Wherein we channel our inner Darlene Conner
Last Friday, during her show on California's KCAA radio, Roseanne Barr made the following comments about politically-minded gays and their push for marriage equality:
But I think [gay marriage] has backfired on you and people who think like you. I think when it started in San Francisco, puttin' gay marriage on the ballot, that's what made the Republicans win. I mean, it's actually the gay people's fault that they won because gay and lesbian people definitely practiced a divide and conquer mentality where, you know, it always has to be about them. And I have never once --and I say I have gay and lesbian people in my family -- never once in my 54 years have I ever once heard a gay or lesbian person who’s politically active say one thing about anything that was not about them. They don’t care about minimum wage, they don’t care about any other group other than their own self because you know, some people say being gay and lesbian is a totally narcissistic thing and sometimes I wonder.
I’ve never heard any of them say anything except for “accept me ‘cause I’m gay.” It’s just, it’s screwed. It’s no different than the evangelicals, it’s the same mindset. They want you to accept Jesus and you guys want us to all believe it’s ok to be gay. And a lot of us, a lot of them, I do, I don’t give a damn who anybody has sex with, as long as they’re not underage and an animal. I don’t give a damn, it’s none of my damn business. I’m just sick of all the divisiveness, it’s not getting any of us anywhere.
Okay, so we aren't gonna snap on Roseanne and imply that she's a foe to our community. She's always been a friend and an ally, and we don't think that has changed. However, that being said, we do want to respond to these comments, as they raise several issues that we feel need to be addressed.
First up: The idea that those pushing for marriage equality are to blame for their efforts is a bit enraging to us. Yes, it can be argued that pushing for marriage equality leads more social conservatives to the polls. But what's the alternative? Are we supposed to stop righteous battles for decency because we fear it will lead to a defeat of candidates who are often afraid to stand with us in the first place? And if we don't fight for our lives and loves, who is going to? We are a little tired of being pointed to as a liability for the Democratic party (a party that our community has, by and large, supported wholeheartedly) because we have the fortitude to stand up for what's right!
In many states, there was never even a large, coordinated pro-marriage effort until there was a coordinated anti-marriage one. As soon as the idea of possibly allowing gay couples to marry scratched the brains of this country's leaders, the effort to ban such unions began. And again -- what are we supposed to do, let them demonize us in the public arena and keep bias propagated for yet another generation? No! It's very easy for a heterosexual progressive to tell gays and lesbians to just pipe down about this whole equality thing until we gets some nice Dems in power. However, it's far more difficult for us -- many of whom have the reality of marriage inequality thrown in our faces every single day -- to just quiet ourselves and hope that Clinton 2.0 will make everything better! For those of us who know the issues, know the opposition, and know the actual stakes, we know what we must do. There should not be LESS pro-marriage arguments being made -- there should be MORE. And not just from gay folks, but from anyone who values decency.
Second: This writer hears the "Oh, you're only focused on gay issues" thing all the time. After I appeared on national TV to discuss gay issues -- many of which were extremely personal to my own life -- a popular response from my opposition was that I should just "get over it" and "move on." But the thing is, the television program on which I appeared was a GAY TV SHOW! This website -- dedicated to gay issues and politics! That doesn't mean that these are the only issues that are important to me or that I even dedicate the majority of my day to being gay. However, gay rights are the issues for which I publicly fight, so they are the ones with which I am associated. That doesn't mean that those are my only concerns. In fact, in the grand scheme of life, there are many other human ills and societal matters that are far more important to me than gay marriage. Privately, I dedicate time, energy, money, and plenty of intellectual capital to a whole slew of concerns. Unfortunately, gay politics and my various endeavors dedicated to the fight more than takes up my allotment of professional time.
It's short-sighted for Roseanne to make political gays look one-note simply because that's all she sees or hears. Never has this writer met a political gay -- and I deal with many on a daily basis -- that cares only about gay rights! Nobody, especially political geeks, are that narrowly focused! But people pick and choose which fights they are going to dedicate their lives, as none of us have an unlimited amount of time or energy. Political battles are mentally and physically draining, so if we want to enter the public spectrum and fight them, we must focus on certain issues. Would you accuse Gloria Steinem of being too wrapped up in the woman thing? Would you say Martin Luther King should get over the whole racial equality fight? Hopefully the answer is no. The same goes for gay activists, who are fighting a fight in which FAR TOO MANY are engaged!
Third: Gay rights activists are no different from the Evangelicals in terms of mindset? Uhm, except for the whole part where they condemn us to hell for living our realities and tell us that if we repent for our sinful ways, we can "change." We simply want our government to stop legislating morality; they want to marry Judeo-Christian church with state! We are fighting for true religious freedom, where our opposition is fighting for the freedom to use their personal religious views to demonize and discriminate! It is beyond ignorant for Roseanne to make this linkage!
We're as sick of all of the divisiveness as anyone. However, we are not trying to deny those who oppose us of anything other than the right to infuse their personal faith-based condemnations into the public sector. Presenting the fight for and against gay rights as if the two sides are equal in terms of principle is exactly what our opposition wants! They have cleverly coordinated their words and campaigns (pro-life, pro-marriage, marriage protection, pro-family, sanctity of marriage, traditional values) to make them seem righteous. However, their works on political issues are simply NOT equal in merit! Behind all of that code wording are attempts to deny people of certain freedoms and liberties on the basis of one-sided Biblical interpretation. This is wholly un-American and deserves to be opposed (no matter your personal religious views)!
Fourth: So the whole final season of "Roseanne" -- seriously, what was the thought behind that? The Conners win the lottery and all of a sudden their doing things like hanging out with Patsy and Edina in New York!? Did it sound good on paper and just fail in execution? As fans, we continued to watch until the whole "it was all sort of in my head" finale, but that '96-'97 season was a toughie.
See, we have other interests.
Roseanne says gays don’t care about the minimum wage [Left in SF]
Roseanne Barr on KCAA Fri, Apr 6, 2007 [KCAA Podcast (comments come around the 29:00 mark)]
*ALSO: The Victory Fund has weighed in on the matter: Victory Fund condemns Roseanne Barr’s anti-gay comments
***UPDATE: If an episode of her series, this would be the sweet bedroom chat with Becky [G-A-Y]
Technorati Tags: Roseanne Barr
Your thoughts
Though a brilliant comedian, Ms. Barr has always been a little half baked, so this ridiculous statement comes as no shock. With it, Ms. Barr has forgotten all of the years gay men and women fought for the equality of women and for ethnic minorities, a woman's right to choose, fair housing and other issues. She has forgotten that gay people have been very active in putting forward the rights and needs of others at the expense of our own fight.
Times have changed and we are realizing that it is our turn to have a piece of the pie and Ms. Barr needs to realize that some of her contemporaries are tired of waiting for their turn. So, yes, Roseanne, you may hear a lot about gay issues lately, but we've been more than quiet while we were helping you out of your kitchen and on to your show.
Posted by: PTBoat | Apr 10, 2007 2:27:54 PM
Roseanne's comments are ignorant and insulting, especially coming from someone that the gay community has considered an ally. If she's still bitter about Bush getting re-elected, she's blaming the wrong people. The gay community did not lose Kerry the election, Kerry lost his own damn election.
If being concerned with making sure you're not a second-class citizen is selfish, then I must be selfish. If you wake up every morning next to the person you love, who happens to be of the same gender, and wish you could marry him means you're narcissistic, then I'm a narcissist. How dare I worry about my civil rights and being equal under the law? I guess I should just shut up until some noble heterosexual comes along to save me.
Roseanne needs to shut it. Maybe this is just another one of her personalities talking and not her?
Posted by: Johnny M | Apr 10, 2007 2:42:52 PM
Ditto what PTBoat and Johnny M said.
Posted by: Zeke | Apr 10, 2007 9:33:05 PM
You know, her comments are a little half-baked but I think we would do well to listen, because even if what she's saying isn't true, she is definitely talking about a perception among a lot of non-gay people, not all of whom are half-baked and not all of whom are our enemies. I have noticed that there are a significant number of us who glaze over when the conversation turns to; reproductive rights, school bond issues, the environment, or any number of issues which seemingly don't concern our own human rights and quality of life.
I think that's a shame, not only because it's a very narrow view of our own issues (do we really think the battle will be over once we're "allowed" to marry?) but because it also squanders a valuable opportunity to forge important alliances. I'm not assuming that all gay people support the same things I do; in fact, I'm far to the left of most gay people I know, but there is a great deal of value in getting involved in other causes as an openly gay person.
I know a gay man who wouldn't dream of voting for a school bond issue because "Why should we have to pay for other people's children when we don't even have our rights?" Fair enough, I say. But don't you think an educated populace is more prone to reasonable action than an ignorant one? And further, were we not all children ourselves once? Interestingly, I find that attitude far more prevalent among the "haves" than the "have nots."
When we were younger, my sister and I had a deal: She'd show up at my Gay Rights marches if I showed up at her Reproductive Rights marches. That deal had an interesting effect on our relationship. I was really proud to be able to show my sister off to my friends and comrades at a gay march (as in "what a great, supportive sibling I have") and, her being there only increased my concern that she never lose her right to manage her own life and her own body. And me showing up for her only increased her committment to ensure my own wellbeing.
I'm talking about a snowball effect, here, folks. You want to help people who help you. Showing up for others makes our own cause seem less abstract, seem more real, and immediate.
Roseanne may have been off base, but I think there's some food for thought in, if not what she had to say, the fact that she thought it bore saying.
Posted by: mcquaidla | Apr 10, 2007 10:54:21 PM
You know, her comments are a little half-baked but I think we would do well to listen, because even if what she's saying isn't true, she is definitely talking about a perception among a lot of non-gay people, not all of whom are half-baked and not all of whom are our enemies. I have noticed that there are a significant number of us who glaze over when the conversation turns to; reproductive rights, school bond issues, the environment, or any number of issues which seemingly don't concern our own human rights and quality of life.
I think that's a shame, not only because it's a very narrow view of our own issues (do we really think the battle will be over once we're "allowed" to marry?) but because it also squanders a valuable opportunity to forge important alliances. I'm not assuming that all gay people support the same things I do; in fact, I'm far to the left of most gay people I know, but there is a great deal of value in getting involved in other causes as an openly gay person.
I know a gay man who wouldn't dream of voting for a school bond issue because "Why should we have to pay for other people's children when we don't even have our rights?" Fair enough, I say. But don't you think an educated populace is more prone to reasonable action than an ignorant one? And further, were we not all children ourselves once? Interestingly, I find that attitude far more prevalent among the "haves" than the "have nots."
When we were younger, my sister and I had a deal: She'd show up at my Gay Rights marches if I showed up at her Reproductive Rights marches. That deal had an interesting effect on our relationship. I was really proud to be able to show my sister off to my friends and comrades at a gay march (as in "what a great, supportive sibling I have") and, her being there only increased my concern that she never lose her right to manage her own life and her own body. And me showing up for her only increased her committment to ensure my own wellbeing.
I'm talking about a snowball effect, here, folks. You want to help people who help you. Showing up for others makes our own cause seem less abstract, seem more real, and immediate.
Roseanne may have been off base, but I think there's some food for thought in, if not what she had to say, the fact that she thought it bore saying.
Posted by: mcquaidla | Apr 10, 2007 10:55:22 PM
Roseanne needs to be educated, not condemned! Why eat our own (allies)!
Posted by: InlandEmpire | Apr 10, 2007 11:54:00 PM
First Up:
Marriage historically was the selling of daughters (usually underaged in modern parlance) to whoever had money. Do you really want to be associated with that? It's tantamount to endorsing rabbits as a symbol of Christ being resurrected.
Second Up:
Gay marriage equality to the aforementioned historical use of marriage (see burkhas and clan enforced rapes as righting wrongs against another clan) means you are focused on some middle age concept. So if you think gay marriage is to be the main focus, let's rub rats on our bodies too in order to get the full experience of the middle age.
Third up:
Gay conservatives with (like aforementioned differences based on historical issues) reasonable disagreements are called self-hating or outted as if Pat Robertson did it himself - even Mike Rogers actively tells Pat Robertson who is gay in the hopes they will shun the "GAy." Good job being post modern.
Fourth Up:
Well, using a review of a program in order to justify ones point on political issues that are indefensible, well, that's why "bait and switch" was coined.
Good on ya, cheerio, pip, pip, and all that rot.
Posted by: Jeff Barea | Apr 11, 2007 3:24:44 AM
Rosanne has posted the following:
Posted by: Kevin | Apr 11, 2007 3:34:53 AM
InlandEmpire, are you implying that we condemned Ms. Barr? I'd say what we offered up was far more an education than a condemnation.
And yes, she has offered a mea culpa, Kevin. We posted an update here:
http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2007/04/if_an_episode_o.html
Posted by: G-A-Y | Apr 11, 2007 7:20:21 AM
Jeff Barea:
1. It's absurd to frame the marriage debate on the basis of its middle age roots. We are living in the present, and fighting for access to marriage as it stands today.
2. Your arguments would actually seem only apropos to the modern conversation in terms of refuting the "protection of traditional marriage" argument. After all, you are right in asserting that the earliest "traditional marriages" were something quite different. Marriage has evolved and can continue to do so.
3. Gay conservatives may be shunned as self-hating bu some, but that is an argument we never make on G-A-Y. If you have a problem with Mike Rogers' arguments, then please take those up with him.
4. Please don't tell me you thought we were being serious or using an actual tact by mentioning the last season of "Roseanne." It was just a bit of levity to end the post.
Posted by: G-A-Y | Apr 11, 2007 8:36:04 AM
Loking back on my 28-year participation in 3 anti-war campaigns; donations and signing of petitions for clean water, stem cell research and raising the minimum wage; voicing my concern over global warming; warning friends about my view of the U.S. Constitution in crisis; worrying and arguing about the influence of religious institutions on the secular government; marching to keep abortion legal; sending news clips to friends who live deep in Fox territory; working to end racial and gender inequality; and writing on the media (their lack of coverage for questions about the war; their ridiculous concern with celebs; and the juxtapositioning of articles about the working poor and minimum wage in the same publication that has a feature spread on men's clothes that cost more than a lot of people earning minimum wage gross in a month or three) Roseanne has made me question my actions: Was it all just to get dick?
Yes, I had some great sexual encounters in my protest activities, remet a man (at an antiwar rally)who has now been my partner for 16 years, and discuss all sorts of political issues at my gay book discussion group and with my gay lunch buddy. But thanks, Roseanne, for telling me I am too single issue. Thanks too, for showing how those of us who often agree on issues can be made less effective when we turn to infighting while the real problems continue.
By the way, the apology is accepted. Now can we face the real issues?
Posted by: gleeindc | Apr 12, 2007 6:54:19 AM
Thanks for sharing
Posted by: Doodee | Jan 31, 2008 9:45:20 PM
I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:
Posted by: RiptsteetakeF | Feb 9, 2008 1:01:30 AM
comments powered by Disqus
