'Gay right' debates strategy
By Heidi Pegrem
SYDNEY — There has been increasing debate in the gay and lesbian press here over how to relate to the Liberal federal government. Two conflicting right-wing positions have been prominent.
Larry Galbraith argued in the Sydney Star Observer before the March 2 election that it was "time to start talking" with the Liberal Party, regardless of the election result. Since then, Galbraith has talked of the potential power of the "rise of the gay right", claiming that increasing numbers of gays and lesbians are "coming out" as conservatives.
Galbraith's stance seems contradictory. On the one hand, he argues for an "assimilationist" approach and, on the other, advocates a pro-"community" position.
Assimilationists want homosexuality to be seen as "respectable" by mainstream society and argue that the gay and lesbian community has unnecessarily isolated itself. However, assimilation would work against the economic interests of lesbian and gay, or "gay-friendly", business owners who profit from the "scene" — or "ghetto", as it has been described by Galbraith.
In an Observer article titled "Beyond the Ghetto", Galbraith cites the English writer/editor Andrew Sullivan as an example of one of the new breed of "gaycons" or right-wing gays.
Sullivan argues that gays and lesbians should demand two legal rights — the right to marry and the right to serve in the military. He believes that the granting of these two rights will mean that gays and lesbians have nothing left to fight for. He sees the military ban as dealing with the heart of what it is to be a citizen, and the marriage ban with the core of what it means to be a member of civil society.
Social justice?
Galbraith uses the example of the Labor Party in an attempt to prove that the Liberals can be swayed by lesbian and gay lobbying.
In a later article, he cites the ALP's "philosophical commitment to social justice" as one of the reasons for the lessening of homophobia in the party over the past 20 years, and argues that the Liberal Party's emphasis on the individual and civic values means that it is possible to shift its attitude to homosexuality and gay law reform.
However, the ALP's record in federal government showed it had anything but a strong commitment to social justice. Nor did it display any significant commitment to gay law reform. The ALP had the opportunity and the means, under the external affairs powers, to introduce national anti-discrimination legislation encompassing areas such as employment and education. Instead it opted for a privacy bill even the Liberals could agree to.
But as other voices in the debate have pointed out, "true equality is broader than equal rights before the law" (Peter Grogan). The Howard government's commitment to user-pays health care and its policy of leaving health matters up to the states will not make life easier for people living with HIV and AIDS.
The right-wing rivals to the assimilationists argue that the "pink dollar" reflects a growing awareness by gay and lesbian consumers of their commercial, and therefore political, power.
Chris Woods, in his book State of the Queer Nation, disputes this. He says that although "this 'phenomenon' is sold as a tool of empowerment for the individual, in truth the only shift in awareness has come from the businesses themselves which have exploited the need of most homosexuals for a sense of community by packaging and then selling to gay men and lesbians real or imagined aspects of their identity or lifestyle".
He believes the commodification of homosexuality has less to do with the politics of liberation or community than with the creation of a highly profitable niche market.
Lex Watson in the Observer examined the power of the gay vote and concluded that the recognition by the major parties of a gay and lesbian vote would mean a better deal for gays and lesbians. But numbers plus parliamentary democracy don't equal liberation. If they did, women in advanced capitalist countries such as Australia would have nothing left to fight for.
Family morality
Right-wing "solutions" to the oppression of gays and lesbians ignore the fundamental causes of that oppression.
The fundamental reason that lesbians and gays are oppressed is that homosexuality challenges the prevailing heterosexual family morality. The capitalist economy relies heavily on privatising the social tasks associated with raising the next generation of workers. Without the institution of the family, women as wives and mothers would not be forced to take primary responsibility for the unpaid domestic chores — estimated to constitute the equivalent of 60-80% of GDP.
In the federal election campaign, Howard declared that the family was society's "key welfare unit". The Coalition's cuts of $8 billion to welfare, aged care, education, health and other social services will have its greatest negative impact on women, through job losses and the further privatisation of these services within the family.
Aware that social dislocation will worsen as a result, the Coalition has already started to bolster pro-family ideology.
Given this, it is highly unlikely that the Coalition will prove to be the gay-friendly party that Galbraith and others hope for. The basis for homophobia will not be legislated away by either the Liberals or the Labor Party. But then, is this what the gaycons want anyway?
Sullivan boasts that his "solution" means that homophobes retain their freedom. It's true you can't legislate away homophobia. However, implicit in Sullivan's argument is that it doesn't matter if children are brought up to believe that heterosexuality is the only normal, natural sexual preference, or that young gays and lesbians often face condemnation from their families. But it does matter.
Community and movements
Assimilationists argue that we should go "beyond the ghetto". This may be a valid argument if the strategy is to try to transform the way society treats gays and lesbians with a mass movement. However, this is not what the assimilationists have in mind. Their strategy is for a few select gays and lesbians to lobby whichever party is in power. This is not the way to win democratic rights and law reform or to eradicate homophobia.
The political limitations of relying on the gay and lesbian community for protection, affirmation and identity are obvious. Many gays and lesbians feel that they don't belong to that, either because of geography or for other reasons.
A lifestyle cannot substitute for a political strategy that unites a majority of gays and lesbians in a movement for their rights, along with their supporters, and which can force legislative changes. The Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras had its foundation in such a movement.
Chris Woods, reflecting on the shift in emphasis from movement to community, argues that "many are alienated from the current scene, whether for aesthetic, political, financial, health or personal reasons. They form part of the group in danger of becoming isolated from their former identity, people who can no longer identify with the dominant homosexualities — or who are excluded from them."
There is no reason why men should not be involved in the movement for women's liberation or why heterosexuals should not be involved in the movement/s for gay and lesbian liberation. What is important is that the feminist movement should be led by women, and the movements for the liberation of lesbians and gay men should be led by lesbians and gay men, and that these movements should not be subordinated to the interests of either of the two major political parties.
The biggest gains for democratic rights were made when the social movements were at their peak in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Having a few friends in the Liberal Party isn't a substitute. A movement has to be made up of people who agree with and are willing to act on the political aims and demands of that movement, not on a shared lifestyle.
Andrew Sullivan may be satisfied when he has gained the rights to his partner's superannuation package and to serve in the military. However, it is in the interests of the majority of people, regardless of their sexuality, to live in a non-homophobic and non-sexist society. This is the strength of a strategy that relies on mobilising the broadest possible support for gay and lesbian rights.