Dear Equality California:
I recently received your solicitation for a contest whose prize is a role as an "extra" in a TV show to be filmed in Whistler, British Columbia – noting that the minimum bid in the silent auction contest is $5,000, and that "The 'walk-on' prize does not include airfare, hotel, transfers, or any other expenses."
This prompts me – a 56-year-old seasoned activist and journalist of limited means, living in Oakland – to alert you to your abuse of the goodwill of your "base" community, and to communicate some long-simmering concerns and fears (as well as my ire) regarding your inappropriate political tactics and increasingly ravenous consumption and squandering of this community's precious resources.
In the past election cycle, I was subjected to a barrage of e-mails from you folks, urging me to vote your way on a set of non-gay-specific ballot measures. Though, coincidentally, my votes were consistent with your own positions, I resent your evidently obsequious role as queer ward-heelers for the Democratic Party – and (as an anarchist-minded independent who never votes Republican and often Democratic) I'd urge you not to dismiss my alarm as merely that of a crank who's "in your pocket" anyway – and to eschew the mindset by which you might view any of your constituents in that way.
Though I'm all too aware of the parochial nature of our opposition, and of the arguments in favor of coalition-building, I also believe that we're too diverse a community – and too limited, overall, in our resources for philanthropy – to tie our fortunes to any particular sector or political tendency within the larger American polity.
Perhaps the very fact of my limited means makes me especially leery of dissipation – particularly sensitive to an overemphasis on opulence as a form of self-validation. I would hope, nonetheless, that you – as an organization ostensibly devoted to rectifying a social inequity – would give strong consideration to the egregious consequences of the prime source of inequity in this society – namely, stratification. I'd urge you to honor and heed the sorts of wisdom and understanding available to those whose experience with the vagaries of American capitalism makes us less than enthusiastic supporters of that system.
An underlying problem may be your apparent dedication to the dubious proposition that queers as a community have overwhelmingly been champing at the bit for "the right to marry." In practice, that "right" pertains to a tiny sliver of our community. The "marriage equality movement" is, in fact, primarily a response to tactics (and a larger political strategy) chosen by our adversaries. We'd do well to remember that, and to avoid allowing our enemies to define our identity and priorities for us.
The movement to defend equal partnership rights didn't arise as a priority from within our community, but as a response to our adversaries' efforts to roll back our existing or potential rights and (only secondarily!) to prohibit the sanctification of our relationships. The message we present to the public should reflect this – and should be geared to emphasize our need for equitable socioeconomic treatment as partners (when we're in such relationships), and to highlight the real-world consequences of being denied such equity.
In particular, we'd do far better to emphasize our opposition to the rollback of domestic partner benefits than to promote the prospect of our imposing new definitions on "marriage," per se. Such a message will undoubtedly fly (politically) far better than the notion of marriage equality, which (like it or not, in the world of realpolitik) a fair number of straight people will likely regard as a trivializing and intrusive redefinition of long-established notions of family. In fact, a fair number of us are likely to find such retrofitted "family values" irrelevant and unnecessary (or even repugnant), given the day-to-day actualities (and genuinely renegade aspects) of our own lives.
This shift in emphasis may seem highly nuanced, but it's crucial that we present ourselves honestly and appropriately (and, only then, appealingly) – or we risk being set back for decades, losing even gains we've thought by now were well established. Such a setback – along with a larger right-wing agenda – is precisely what our enemies are seeking.
As an individual, I recognize how the right to sanctify my involvement in same-sex relationships might help to buttress my self-esteem. For that matter, I've personally congratulated (and applaud) Assemblyman Mark Leno for pushing his marriage equality bill through the state Legislature. Nonetheless, I believe your tactics and overall strategy as an organization are flawed, perhaps fatally – and out of line with the real-world interests of the queer community, and of lesbian and gay individuals – at a time when our existing rights and our overall social and cultural standing are jeopardized and in crisis.
Given your already large budget (and presumably ample salaries) – and the notorious creativity of our own community – I'm sure you can find suppliers and experts sufficiently skilled to present the appropriate nuances creatively and effectively.
You'd better get cracking, and do it right!