Connect with us

Opinions

Actually, I’m gay and I’m queer. It matters

Matthew Vines in New York Times argues ‘queer’ identity prompting anti-LGBTQ backlash

Published

on

(Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Yesterday, on the last day of Pride month, the New York Times published an opinion piece by Matthew Vines where he argued that the push to identify as “queer” is a contributing factor to modern backlash to LGBTQ+ rights. In the piece, he argues that “being gay is not a rebellion against ordinary life.” As a queer public historian, I disagree — being LGBTQ+ is a revolutionary act because American society was and continues to be built on heternormative, cisgendered standards. We need only look at yesterday’s Supreme Court decision upholding bans on trans athletes to realize that LGBTQ+ rights are still greatly under attack. 

Vines and other white cis gay men and women who refuse to use the term “queer” or understand their bodies, identities, and relationships as political fail to recognize what secured their rights protecting them against discrimination and to marry the people they love. 

Remember your ancestors

The Stonewall riots, largely considered the birth of the modern LGBTQ+ movement, was a reaction against a police raid that began in June 1969. It was groundbreaking pushback against systemic police brutality and state-sanctioned incarceration of and violence against LGBTQ+ people, and by and large, these riots — which mobilized the larger LGBTQ+ community — is the reason that lesbian, gay, and bisexual people have the right to marry the people they love. 

It is because of Black queer and trans people — people who recognized that queerness is a political act as much as it is an identity — that Vines’s rights were secured in the first place. Denying the identity of “queer” not only perpetuates the very stigma surrounding this word but that which surrounds queer and trans people as a whole, and it denies the rich legacy of our queer and trans ancestors who fought for the rights we have today. When queer and trans people reclaimed the word “queer,” previously a slur against us, it was a call to resist the very gender and sexual assimilation that made the weaponized the slur itself. 

Because at its very core, the United States remains a nation that enforces and exalts a heterosexual, cisgender majority. To be queer, to resist and reject standards that normalizes and essentialize gender and sexuality, is a countercultural act, whether or not people like Vines are ready to acknowledge it. Historically, there has been a contingent of the LGBTQ+ community, largely those with the most privilege, who have historically and presently attempted to sanitize the community’s image and its events — to exclude trans people, kink and BDSM, and drag — on the grounds that they infringe on a family-style event and “give the community a bad name.” 

Freaks Are family

Back in 2000 the Millennium March on Washington pushed for gay and lesbian assimilation, arguing that they — we — are like everyone else. Vines appears to copy and paste this language into the piece he published yesterday. But in response, the “Freaks Are Family Contingent,” a group organized by the DC Radical Fairies and Bi Insurgence, marched as an alternative to the main group. This group, which purposefully included witches, trans people, people practicing kink, and people who are poly, called out assimilation as perpetuating the same marginalization that gay and lesbian people faced 50 years ago. To this day, “Freaks Are Family” remains a rallying cry for radical inclusion and resisting assimilation in Washington, D.C., and beyond. One of my dear friends — Rev. Eric Eldritch, a long-time Radical Faerie and community leader in Washington, D.C. — was part of this groundbreaking movement. 

Maybe Vines has a point. There are members of the LGBTQ+ community that remain settled and complacent in their privilege and refuse to recognize the fragility of their and others’ civil liberties. As historians and political scholars have argued, attacks on trans people’s rights will likely proceed threats against same-sex marriage, which itself was secured just over 10 years ago. 

Risking his and our rights

On the 10th anniversary of Obergefell v. Hodges, Oklahoma senator Dusty Deevers said that gay marriage is not law because “there is just no right ot gay marriage in the constitution.” Deevers made this comment during a conversation with Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, who believes that the Bible justifies Christians killing gay people. The news was first flagged yesterday by Right Wing Watch, a watchdog group for far-right action, and further by LGBTQ Nation voicing concern for his inflammatory statements about drag queens and LGBTQ+ books in elementary and middle schools. 

Deevers clarified that “Obergefell isn’t settled law. It’s besetting immorality imposed by judicial decree, and court opinions can be referred to as ‘settled law’ only if they are rooted firmly in the Constitution and the heritage and the tradition of the American people.” This is pointedly incorrect, but it is an argument that is increasingly being used by far-right leaders to argue that precedent-setting decisions are not set in stone. 

What largely kicked off this moment was the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade in June 2022. The pivotal ruling handed down in 1973 ensured federal access to reproductive justice, and yet nearly 50 years later, it was overturned and followed by a number of states instituting their own laws banning abortion, even in situations of life and death. People have died not only because of these bans but because of medical professionals’ hesitancy to provide vital, lifesaving care for fear of losing their medical licenses or being sued. 

Thus, it made sense to many LGBTQ+ activists in 2022, that same-sex marriage legal protections, especially those from the landmark 2015 Supreme Court Case Obergefell v. Hodges would be the next to fall. 

Right after the U.S. overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, Justice Clarence Thomas released an opinion stating that the court should also reconsider the decisions in other landmark cases, such as Griswold v. Connecticut, Lawrence v. Texas, and Obergefell v. Hodges. These rulings protect access to contraception, LGBTQ+ relationships and marriage. And like Deevers’s call today, Lawrence also argued three years ago that the Due Process Clause in the Constitution does not secure any of these rights. Calls to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges is rising day by day, and distancing himself from queer people and the wider movement will not protect him. 

In truth, Vines’s opinion piece reveals that he is pointedly not “queer,” but as many queer people have called out in the last 24 hours, that is not a good thing. When he and others fail to be not only support but participate in the revolutionary movement to liberate all LGBTQ+ people, to stand and fight in solidarity with trans, nonbinary and intersex people who are repeatedly targeted by the government, stripped of their identification documents and access to public spaces, and killed for who they are, they are part of the problem. 

They become the very marginalizers that 50 years ago targeted people like them — the white cis gay men and women — who lost their jobs and their lives for who they loved. Truly Vines is not “queer,” but in doing so, he not only compromises the strength of the very community that secured his present rights to live and love authentically but the rights to do so in the future. 

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Opinions

Black Educated Lesbians: A movement rooted in community

Organization’s annual conference is part of a much larger mission

Published

on

When people hear the word “conference,” they often imagine a weekend event that begins on Friday and ends on Sunday. For Black Educated Lesbians (BEL), our annual conference is only one part of a much larger mission.

BEL was founded because Black lesbians deserve spaces intentionally created with us in mind. Too often, we are overlooked in conversations about health, leadership, philanthropy, education, and community. We exist at the intersection of multiple identities, yet organizations and institutions frequently assume our needs are being met by broader groups. Our lived experiences tell a different story.

BEL is a national nonprofit organization dedicated to creating opportunities for Black lesbians and Black queer women through leadership development, wellness programming, research, education, and community building. While our conference has become one of the few events in the country centered specifically on Black lesbians, our work continues year-round.

Throughout the year, BEL hosts virtual wellness sessions, leadership development opportunities, financial education workshops, community discussions, and mentorship programs designed to help our members thrive personally and professionally. We are also investing in the next generation through our EmpowerHER initiative, connecting Black queer youth with mentors, resources, and leadership opportunities.

Research is another critical part of our work. We are committed to ensuring Black lesbian voices are included in conversations about healthcare, mental health, economic opportunity, and overall well-being. Data drives policy, funding, and services. If our experiences are absent from the research, our needs often remain invisible.

Our annual conference, taking place Sept. 18–20 in Hapeville, Ga., brings this mission to life. Attendees will participate in conversations about physical and mental health, healthy relationships, financial literacy, entrepreneurship, leadership, aging, women’s health, and sexual wellness. The conference also creates opportunities to build meaningful relationships, support Black-owned businesses, and connect with professionals and organizations that understand our community.

Creating spaces like this is not easy. As a small nonprofit, every workshop, meal, scholarship, and resource requires fundraising, partnerships, and countless volunteer hours. Yet we continue because our community deserves spaces where they can simply exist, learn, heal, and grow without explanation.

What makes BEL unique is not simply that we serve Black lesbians. It is that Black lesbians lead every aspect of our organization. We understand the importance of creating programs that reflect our lived experiences rather than asking our community to fit into spaces never designed for them.

Community is not built during moments of crisis. It is built through consistent investment, authentic relationships, and showing up year after year. That is the work BEL is committed to doing.

Whether someone joins us as an attendee, sponsor, volunteer, donor, or community partner, they become part of something much larger than a conference. They become part of a movement dedicated to ensuring Black lesbians are seen, heard, valued, and supported.

As we prepare to welcome attendees from across the country this September, we invite readers to learn more about BEL, support our mission, and help us continue building spaces where Black lesbians don’t just survive, they thrive.


LaJoya Johnson is founder and executive director of Black Educated Lesbians, a national nonprofit dedicated to advancing leadership, wellness, and education for Black lesbians and Black queer women.

Continue Reading

Opinions

I respect AOC, even though I often disagree with her

She should work toward House leadership role and skip presidential run

Published

on

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

There is a column in the New York Times asking, “Is Ocasio-Cortez ready for the glass cliff?” The author thinks it’s a great idea for her to run for president. I believe it’s a bad idea for her personally, and a disastrous idea for the Democratic Party. However, that is not the only column written recently about Ocasio-Cortez, discussing her options and private life. I think it is cringeworthy what social media, and even some mainstream media, are focusing on these days. 

Politicians have become fodder for what were once just stories about Hollywood, and loud showmen like the felon in the White House. Now, like the showman, those like AOC, can’t claim they aren’t asking for it by striving for the biggest online following possible. They obviously see that as a way to validate themselves; politicians use it as a way to raise money, become influencers, and get their message out. 

But they also open themselves up to even more intrusion into their private lives. Those who do that also open the door for all politicians to have their private lives made public. Running for president, which the column suggests AOC should do, and which she herself has said she isn’t ruling out, is a great way to grab a headline, and leads to reporters digging to find every little fact about her. AOC is trying to get ahead of the curve by talking about a breakup, and then about harvesting her eggs — topics once considered private that should stay that way. There was once just the National Enquirer, but today every news outlet incorporates what the Enquirer did, as it makes for great clickbait.

I feel for her, thinking all this has to be public, when a single woman wants to run for higher office. We have seen married women, including Geraldine Ferraro, Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton, and Kamala Harris, run and be subjected to dealing with questions about their husbands, their former boyfriends, and in some cases, more reporting about those things than what they stood for. Maybe for AOC, that would be a good thing, as the country is far from ready for a candidate who up until now, proudly represents the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). Yes, she is trying to step away from them a little, but I don’t think that is possible, which is why I feel it is a disaster for her to run, both for herself, and the Democratic Party. She could decide to run for the Senate if Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) understands it is time for him to retire. Even that could be a difficult race. She might win a primary, which another progressive representative, Bella S. Abzug (D-N.Y.), tried and lost in 1976, if she gets a big enough New York City vote. Should she try, we would see how much change there has actually been.

Back when JFK had women in and out of the White House, Ronald Reagan got Nancy pregnant before they married, and George H.W. Bush allegedly had a mistress traveling with him, those were not the headlines. I think we were all better off. Gary Hart asked for it when he told the press to follow him, and they caught him with a woman not his wife. Again, he asked for that. Then we got to the Clinton era and the right wing, actually David Brock, got the information on Paula Jones, and it all exploded, eventually cascading down to harm Hillary. They tried to find anything they could on Jimmy Carter, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama, but couldn’t find the salacious bits they were looking for. But I bet they will find some things that sound salacious on AOC, even if they have to make them up. She appears to be a normal, highly intelligent, motivated, single woman. 

Recent primaries in Michigan and Wisconsin, and general election results, will clearly impact what she decides to do. DSA candidates are not an easy sell to most Democrats, let alone the general electorate. We will find out how Dr. El-Sayed does in the general election. While I didn’t support him in the primary, I do in the general election. Those results, and looking back at other women who have run, may give AOC second thoughts about giving up working toward seniority in the House. I predict she could be much more impactful than one of her idols, Bernie Sanders, has been. He has been there for 40 years and accomplished nothing. I think AOC could accomplish a lot.  


Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist.

Continue Reading

Opinions

Will Michigan save the GOP?

We must stop fighting each other as Democrats and rid country of Trump

Published

on

(Photo by SSilver/Bigstock)

Last week in Michigan we saw how dramatically wrong, and misleading, political polling can be. Because of that, and the media hype, it might have made a difference in the Democratic primary for the United States Senate. Haley Stevens lost by about 16,000 votes, and the second Democrat closest to Stevens’s views, withdrew from the race, but her name was still on the ballot, and she received 61,000 votes. So, what would have happened if she had withdrawn in time to keep her name of the ballot? We will never know. 

The media have been hyping the few wins the DSA, and far-left Democratic candidates, have had, to the point you might think they are winning hundreds of primaries around the country. I think they have won fewer than 15. But those 15, and the hype, could actually make a difference in the general election. They could make a difference because they clearly divided the Democratic Party, and we don’t know if it will come back together in time to rid ourselves of the control of the felon, his fascist advisers, and their sycophants in Congress, now running our country. 

While strongly opposed to parts of the platform of the Democratic Socialists of America, (DSA), and those who would espouse them, I am even more opposed to the felon in the White House who has proven he has no redeeming values. The DSA platform is a mixed bag. In my view there are some frightening parts such as calling for total defunding of the police, for workers to own every business, for the abolishment of the State of Israel, telling their endorsed candidates they may not meet with any Zionist organization, and now, elimination of the United States Senate. Before you respond telling me about what is not in the platform, please just read some of it. But then I am for the parts calling for universal healthcare, a higher minimum wage, strong union support, and working toward affordable housing, and a decent life for all. 

So, what do the candidates who won with the support of the DSA do between now and Nov. 3? They must be very clear which parts of the DSA platform they believe in, and tell voters clearly, how they will govern and legislate. Make clear their priorities. That is the only way we will unite Democrats in time to win the general election.

Then those who lost to them should do what Rep. Stevens did in her concession statement in the Michigan U.S. Senate primary. It was a classy statement responding to the election results. She said: “I want to congratulate Abdul El-Sayed on winning the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate. He is a doctor, a community health official, a Rhodes Scholar, and a dedicated Michigander. I am proud to offer my support as he takes on Mike Rogers in the general election. This was a thorough and rigorous campaign that brought out the full span of views within the Democratic Party – and that is why we have primaries. I am proud to have put up my hand to serve, and prouder to continue to work together to make sure this Senate seat remains blue, that we flip the United States Senate and continue the work for MichiganNow I hope Dr. El-Sayed will run a campaign understanding which voters he needs to appeal to in order to win, and to keep the Michigan United States Senate seat in Democratic hands. When a vote is split 50/50, which was basically the case in this race, reading the 50% who voted against you correctly, is the key to winning. Many of those voters didn’t trust Dr. El- Sayed for a multitude of reasons. But he must now convince them, even with what they didn’t like about him, he is still a better choice than the Republican candidate. This is no different than in so many races around the nation, although it might be harder for a very far-left candidate to sway more moderate voters.” 

I would say to the voters of Michigan, “While I did not support Dr. El-Sayed in the primary, I would definitely vote for him in the general election. The goal is saying to the felon in the White House that we will not let you continue to destroy our country. We Democrats may speak with a host of different voices, but they should all say to the felon: you are a loser, and we will see you, your fascist government, and your sycophants in Congress, defeated.”  

We must stop fighting each other as Democrats, at least long enough, to accomplish this goal.


Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist.

Continue Reading

Popular