Where do I start?

You might wonder why someone who tries to understand the dilemmas of Australian Senator Penny Wong would be less charitable about a gay and lesbian rights organisation (like the UK’s Stonewall) being weak on marriage equality (their defence here).

The first difference is that Penny Wong isn’t paid to promote gay rights; Stonewall is. Secondly Penny Wong answers to millions of constituents who really don’t support equality. Secondly Stonewall answers only to gays and lesbians who – across all known data – do support marriage equality. Thirdly if one pitches oneself as “the” gay and lesbian charity, as Stonewall do in their slogan, then one has to represent properly.

As Stonewall co-founder Michael Cashman MEP puts it: “what part of equality doesn’t Stonewall understand?” And just as importantly, how did they put themselves in this corner?

It might be out of a sense of duty to protect the other good works they do.  That’s fair enough in one respect: no one wants anti-bullying and suicide prevention work to stop, for example.  But the problem with Stonewall’s pathetic position is that it doesn’t need to make this choice.

It costs nothing to say ‘I support equality’ and Stonewall chief Ben Summerskill could have done this at any point in recent weeks.  Stonewall could legitimately say “we need to consult our members on whether it’s worth spending thousands of pounds on a marriage campaign when we already have civil unions.”  But it can’t reasonably defend failing to speak out in favour of equality. This is especially relevant given that marriage equality would help build a culture that treats gays as normal and includes them in ways that reduce risks of bullying, suicide and other pressing problems.

So what else does Stonewall have to lose?  Firstly, it’s not exactly a democratic organisation.  Paid staff and a core of volunteers take almost all the significant decisions. Stonewall is no more a democracy than a corporation with an annual general meeting is a democracy.  So they can stop the crocodile tears about the need to get members’ permission before speaking.

What people like Ben Summerskill really have at stake is their heads.  They fear ejection by the elite inner circle that informally runs Stonewall like as such elites tends to run any NGO.  Ben Summerskill actually fears a small minority of lesbians (who may not even exist) and their supposed problem with the patriarchal history of marriage. He might also fear a small number of older activists to whom marriage is a foreign concept – who suffered so much in their younger years they can deal only with the prospect of civil unions.  There are certainly one or two big donors and celebrities – like Elton John – who subscribe to the view that we should have only a separate institution.

What’s the problem with all that?  Well, it’s elitist.  Most people don’t have the time or inclination to develop lengthy critiques of marriage versus civil unions. Instead they have a gut instinct that separate isn’t equal and think it’s about time we are made equal. The problem is that this majority is not so much a silent one, as an apathetic or less connected one.

In a strange way this situation with Stonewall reminds me of exactly how the old Sydney Mardi Gras organisation collapsed in 2002. It was run by a bunch of very nice and very clever queers who developed their own little A-list and their own disconnected views and simply fell out of touch with less involved and younger gays and lesbians. They ran expensive parties with VIP rooms and VIP grandstands and old-school political parades centred around their gaybourhood of decades past, instead working with the 21^st century reality of gay Sydneysiders and others around the country who looked up to Mardi Gras. They presided over an organisation that collapsed not under debts, but under its own delusions. The debts were a symptom only, just as Stonewall’s red face on marriage equality is a symptom.  Stonewall needs to get back in touch with gay reality or risk the same outcome.

My final complaint is that so much of Stonewall’s attitude is inward-looking and born of selfishness.  You know what: just because you don’t want to get married it doesn’t mean you have a right to deny other people the right to marry. And just because you don’t want to get married it doesn’t mean you shouldn’t campaign for the right of others to marry. I don’t think black people should have to the right to vote because I am black. I didn’t campaign for an equal age of consent because I want to sleep with 17 year-olds.  I did it because it is right.

Today if you ask the average Briton, or the average British gay, what they think about this they will say they support marriage equality.  It’s about time Stonewall started listening.

Tags: Ben Summerskill gay marriage, David Cameron gay marriage, Ed Miliband gay marriage, gay marriage UK, marriage equality, Michael Cashman MEP gay marriage, Michael Cashman Stonewall, Peter Tatchell gay marriage, same sex marriage, Stonewall gay marriage

This entry was posted on Wednesday, October 6th, 2010 at 12:47 am and is filed under Australia, Civil Union, Europe, Global, Marriage, Rights. You can follow any comments to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a comment, or trackback from your own site.