In other posts, I have argued for recognizing that efforts to create sexual and gender equality equality - equal rights and opportunities for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer people - must not be limited to a focus on changing laws. Similar to changes in the law regarding race, ethnicity, and gender, words on paper do not necessarily translate into an improved cultural status of LGBT and queer people. In some ways, we have achieved equality under the law, yet we still find ourselves having to defend our existence, particularly when we are perceived to radically differ from dominant (heterosexual, gender-conforming) values. It seems, for some, they can "tolerate" LGBT and queer people so long as they do not have to see or interact with them.
For example, in covering the huge news story that our nation's capital, Washington, DC, began issuing marriage licences to same-sex couples, the Washington Post included a picture of a couple who shared a loving, yet G-rated (in my opinion) kiss. In doing so, the Post received a number of angry phone calls and emails, many that were implicitly or explicitly complaints about printing an image of a kissing same-sex couple on the front page. As the paper's ombudsman notes, some suggested that the picture was "disgusting" and unsafe for children, and should have come later in the paper - not on the front page. I absolutely love his response on behalf of the paper: "Did the Post go too far? Of course not. The photo deserved to be in newspaper and on its Web site, and it warranted front-page display." This response came even in the wake of a number of readers' threats to cancel their subscription, and 27 people actually did cancel their's noting explicitly that it was over the picture.
The image we are talking about, here, is one of two men who are dressed in traditionally masculine attire, lightly locking lips. This is not a case where we are pushing the limits of gender and sexuality, displaying an image of a glitter-covered drag queen, or hard-bodied men in Speedos, or bare-chested Dykes on Bikes. If acceptance of LGBT and queer people hindges on being queer, but still within a traditional, gender-conforming, monogamous marriage box, I have to ask under what conditions would be acceptable - if not drag kings, leather dykes, or transpeople, nor gender-conforming, marriage-seeking gay men, when are we accepted?
I borrow from a movie I recently watched, Adam & Steve, to highlight that the action that is necessary of us, as radical as it seems, is simply to exist. (In the film, Adam expresses his frustration with having to fight the world to have something as "radical and subversive as having a fucking boyfriend.") The angry Post readers said they were "okay" with the story, but would prefer to have the picture slipped somewhere in the back, not the front page. This speaks to the importance of visibility - as same-sex couples, and as LGBT and queer individuals. In a society that says stay invisible, stay in the closet, serve in the military in silence, become celibate and pray away the gay, or kill yourself, saying "no" and leading one's life is one of the most important forms of activism LGBT and queer people need. We know from research that simply knowing a gay person makes people more accepting of LGBT and queer people - the "contact hypothesis."
For those who can, my argument reinforces the importance of coming out. (Of course, I do not recommend this for everyone, especially when financial, legal, or familial harm can become real consequences of coming out.) Beyond individuals, I charge organizations and media to display images of LGBT and queer people and same-sex couples, as these efforts will reduce the stigma that surrounds these images; if people get used to seeing these images more frequently, the aversive reactions they have will decline. (This charge works for other images that people often gag when exposed to them, like the idea that people over the age of 65 continue to be sexual and sexually-active beings.) I would suggest that one of the key differences between simply tolerating LGBT and queer people and completely accepting them as whole people is being open to them as complete people: not only as individuals, but not as couples; not only as gender-conforming and ciswomen and cismen but not as transgender, genderqueer, and gender-bending; and not only as loving people, but not as people who sexual beings. Given the hostile reaction to seeing a gentle kiss between two men on the front page of a newspaper, we can see just how far we actually are from cultural acceptance, even while now closer to legal acceptance.
