Hot Topics: Gay Marriage Wednesday Assignment #3

Hello everyone,

In this blog, I will talk (again) about the ideas of Dr. Martin Luther King’s and Malcolm X’s ideas of radical protest. I will apply those ideas to a couple readings from class. I will also go on to discuss how radicalism and anarchism is a valid option for social protests and if “in your face” tactics are a valid approach to a social protests through social and political means.
First of all, I would like to define the term “radical”. It is advocating extreme measures to obtain the goals being sought by a particular group. To touch on the ideas of Dr. King’s and Malcolm X’s opinions on affirmative action, they both had separate and opposite ideas. Dr. King had believed that non violent action through civil disobedience such as “sit-ins” was the proper route in a protest. On the other hand, Malcolm X felt that non violence action would not work nor would it be effective in obtaining the changes that they were seeking. To that end, he felt that a more active and, even, a violent approach was the proper route to go when protesting. In terms of looking at protests, one might see the actions of the protestors as anarchism. In the article, “An Introduction to Anarchism” by Liz A. Highleyman, she says, “In an ideal anarchist society, it is hoped that the needs of the community as a whole can be met in a just manner without unduly impinging on the free will and self-determination of the individuals within it” (Highleyman 4). In other words, an individual rights and free will not be infringed upon while the needs and benefits of a particular community are met. This applies to Dr. King and Malcolm because either one of their tactics can easily work and gain support provided that it benefits the African American community. I

Now, in terms of gay marriage, there is one tactic used on the gay community. Keep in mind that this may be an intentional or an unintentional act, but it happens on the gay community. It can be used in a positive way for the gay community, negatively being used on the opposition’s side or on the individual themselves. I am talking about the radical tactic of “outing” gay people. By this, it is a person other than the gay individual establishes to everyone that he or she is gay. I do not believe that regardless of the benefits or drawbacks of outing someone. It is a bad tactic to use. A persons sexuality is not one else’s business except for the individual. But to use radicalism in a social protest such as gay equality, I do not feel that it is a good radical tactic on the side of the gay community. Here’s how I figure it: in this day and age in American society, there is a lot of prejudice against the gay community. In some cases, there is even deliberate act of violence against the group as well as teens and young adults are committing suicide because they are severely depressed that they are gay; and that they cannot change themselves to be gay and fit in like everyone else. You are even at risk of losing your job and benefits and risk being a victim of a violent crime including murder (at any age). Despite the risks, there are some people including celebrities that have “come out”. Some of those celebrities include Ellen DeGeneres, Rosie O Donnell, and the Adam person from the hit TV show American Idol to name a few. With this in mind, they have and are doing well since they have come out. Even Ellen DeGeneres got married when gay marriage was legal during the short time in California. But there have been celebrities that have been outed, for example, like Ricky Martin. Since he became popular in North America, he has always had a high volume of fans from the gay community which have sparked rumors of his sexuality. I could be mistaken here, he never gave a straight answer to the question of his sexuality, but it is at least speculated that he is bisexual. I feel that no one should out anyone else for any reason. It can lead to many consequences including, but not limited to losing your job, being a victim of crime, or possibly being an outcast of your family and friends. Tactics such as vigils, proper education, communicating with legislators, and others are very effective tools in the fight for equality.

Also, some are wondering if there are certain circumstances that radical or anarchic protests might be a valid option for a social movement should ensue. Ultimately, I do not think that either anarchic or radicalism allows a protest to be effective because there would be complete and total chaos. If you allow radicalism or anarchy as a mean to protest something like gay marriage, then anything can happen. You can kidnap many legislators in a state not allowing gay marriage until they and the legal system legally allow gay marriage without it being reversed on appeal of any sort. You might see more violence since the gay community wants equal rights and the opposition do not want to see equality. I fear a worse society if anarchy and radicalism are used as tactics. This same logic applies to the opposition of gay community. Similarly, I do not mind “in your face” kind of tactics as long as they are legal and are not rude and inconsiderate of other people. As long as both sides are playing fair, legal, and based on the facts. In your face tactics are probably the most valid of the three mentioned in this paragraph.

Sincerely,

Steven Weingarten