Sometimes Silver Platters Just Aren't Enough

I was going to write a big rant about the state of Don't Ask, Don't Tell and how it is or isn't still legal, depending on the time of day, the current weather, and whether or not Obama saw his shadow when he woke up this morning. But then I thought about it and there's just not much to talk about.

So instead of a big rant, here's a small one with some interesting links...

Yes, it's confusing. Every day we're hearing something new: one day DADT is dead, the next it's being appealed, then we hear the order won't be stayed and that DADT might be reinstated later, and now we're hearing that some military officials are telling current soldiers to put away their rainbow bootstraps while telling recruiters to accept LGB enlistees.

That's a lot of hullabaloo! Here's the short version: shit's screwed up.

I don't get why the Department of Justice feels the need to appeal the ruling if they agree that DADT should end. Obama seems to think it should end legislatively, yet he hasn't shown the leadership to get it done even when it was introduced. I don't get the wisdom in telling recruiters to enlist gays then turning around and telling said gays to shut up or they could be canned soon-ish.

Can't we just look at this humanely for once? I mean, it's not like LGB folk are these diseased lab rats there for the bidding and entertainment of government officials. We're human beings. It seems like the judge in this case gets it, but the Administration is lost on why LGB folk are unhappy with him on this subject. He promised to repeal it sometime-ish, isn't that good enough?

Or is another one of those things that is "inevitable," like marriage equality? If so, I'm sure we've all seen how that is going, right?

Just end the policy. Let the ruling stand, give an Executive Order, then look at the legislative challenges needed for actual equality in the military (like spousal benefits). Whatever it takes. The President was handed DADT Repeal on a silver platter and he refused it because it didn't have his name all over it. That's just silly.

Change.Now Please

Lets jump back to the discussion of Leadership, if you don't mind. While on my Holiday vacation to my familial home town, I was able to hang out with my of my friends that haven't moved away from that hell-hole for one reason or another. The topic veered off in to politics, as is too often the case with my friends (OK, maybe it's my fault, but still...). While the political discussion usually seems predictable (we have one Libertarian, one socially-liberal Republican, one hard Democrat, and my crazy ass left-leaning-Democrat-by-default self), this conversation seemed more topical to me owing to my recent thoughts on Leadership in general.Two of my friends, the Democrat and the Libertarian, were talking about the general malaise that seems to be affecting our population. Their case-in-point was the recent re-election of Douchebag Council Chairman Mitch McConnell. It was their contention that there simply weren't enough people that didn't like him to force him out of office, and because of this, he can afford to completely disregard us liberals because we were an insignificant voter base. My contention, however, was that there are indeed enough people within his district to get him booted, but those people have no clear leader and therefore no direction.

The thing about these political movements is that it truly only takes a few percentage points to change things. Let's say Senator McConnell receives 1000 letters a year saying they aren't going to vote for him because of policy A, B, C, or D. 1000 letters, mostly unrelated, mean nothing to a man that normally receives over 60% of the vote. However, if someone were to organize those voters, form a strong coalition with a voice and some direction, that person could easily move from 1000 people that write letters to several percentage points of the vote. Once that happens, you have the ability to say to McConnell "We are 5% of the vote that are organized and working against you. We will vote for your opponent. Good luck making up our votes elsewhere." Then you can get his attention and affect change.

It's clear to me that it's not just the LGBT community that is dieing for Leadership. There is such a hunger for change in our country, it's just up to us now to harness that hunger and make it work for us.

Take Me To Your Leader Ship

I'm a bit frustrated. Actually, forget that, I'm extremely frustrated. Every time I've opened my RSS feeds in the past week and clicked on my "Gay" grouping to read what the gay blogosphere is talking about, I'm confronted with multiple postings about needing a gay leader. Writers whine about not having another Harvey Milk alive today, or cry about the general lack of direction the LGBT community has right now… and it's getting a bit old.

Here's a real harsh reality we have to face in the Queer world, and I'm just as guilty of it as the next 'mo: we are extremely reactionary and judgmental.

We take all of our leaders and trash them to hell within their first ten minutes of leadership. Why? Because we saw them talking to a conservative figurehead without eating that person's babies. Because they did not immediately thrash out at the latest bit of legislation that did not include free lube for all. Because they chose to attend the rally put together by the Lesbian Activist Front vs. the Gay Liberation League. We quickly assign blame and toss them aside.

The movie Milk has done a lot to show us why we need a leader in this time, and I think that is one of the many reasons we as a community are looking for that leader now. But if we all lived during Harvey's time in San Francisco, I'm quite confident that we would have chided him for even thinking about working with a person like Dan White. Not undeservingly, we've cast a martyr's halo over Milk's life and career, so we wouldn't dare criticize him now, but the point is that we shouldn't criticize our own for crossing the line in the sand from time-to-time.

Does that mean that I now think it's OK for Rick Warren to speak at Obama's inauguration? Nope, not at all. Do I think it's OK for Obama to meet with Warren from time-to-time to hear out the crack-job communities' perspective? Sure, that's not a bad idea.

My point is that if we want a leader, if the LGBT community truly wants someone to stand up and take the helm of this movement, here's what has to happen:

A - We back down from attacking our own
B - We accept that while someone may be an enemy, we may still need them at some point, if only to throw them under the bus
C - We demand the highest of expectations of that leader while also recognizing that she/he is not godly, but merely human
D - We create opportunities for someone to rise to the challenge.

How does one even become a leader in this haze of noise? If there were even someone out there who could lead such a diverse community, are we even able to hear them now? And if we could hear them, would they want to lead?