Not Gaga For A Simple Definition of American Gay Culture

Two days before the National Equality March in Washington D.C., a gay friend — who belongs to a gay and lesbian organization — called me up and said, "You're going to the Equality March, right?" "No," I said, "I have things to do." He gasped, "What? Don't you care about your rights, as a gay man?" "Well, of course I care about rights. Did you read that today Congress voted to expand hate crimes for gays?" "No. I haven't been reading the news lately. Anyways, I still think you should go the march. Lady Gaga will be there. She's our new voice."

"Our new voice?" I thought. Lady Gaga is my voice? As a gay male who listens to ‘70s punk and jazz, I wonder: what do I have in common with the live-action Leather Barbie? Am I supposed to rush out and buy her album (she only has one) just because she's openly bisexual? Just because she might just possibly be a hermaphrodite? To be honest, Frank Zappa — a straight rock artist who made an anti-censorship statement to Congress in 1985 — has done more for gay rights than Lady Gaga. Though Zappa is not homosexual, I recommend the gay community buy his albums. Notice the plural: albums.

What is disturbing is the overwhelming ignorance of the actual course of gay rights within the gay community. I've been through numerous conversations with similar problems. I've given up using the terms "Stonewall Riots," "Matthew Shepard," and "Twinkie Defense" in conversations with young, gay self-proclaimed activists, because they have no idea what I'm talking about.

But these same voices have told me to stop using the term "gay community," as it's both heteronormative and chauvinistic, and to use the much broader umbrella term: "L.G.B.T.Q.Q.I.A. (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Questioning, Intersex, Allies) community." I should also henceforth consider myself "queer" — something which, in my hometown in the American South, is used in the same derogatory context as "faggot" and in a more traditional use means "strange" or "odd."

I think the leaders of the L.G.B.T.Q.Q.I.A. community — whom I can't seem to find — are queer (odd) for not picking a more congenial acronym such as G.L.O.W. (Gay, Lesbian, Other, Whatever) to describe a-group-of-people-with-nothing-in-common-other-than-sexuality in addition to choosing the term "queer," which I personally find estranging and masochistic. The other option could be to just stop lumping ourselves into one group and just consider ourselves human beings — who happen to have diverse sexualities.

Even the term "community" allows subcategorization of people based on personal traits — something the movement would seem to go against. But, if we stopped using the term, would it prevent an elite minority, who throw around genderless pronouns and the word "fierce," from telling you to go to an Equality March and listen to Lady Gaga? Because you are gay? Because it's your responsibility?

Okay, okay. But what about Proposition 8 in California? Shouldn't we march against that, because even though it doesn't directly affect our rights if we don't live in California, we should care regardless because we are a Movement, right? Shouldn't we stand up for others? The problem is not marching or standing up for rights. The problem is the word "should." The problem is a small group imposing nonexistent, societal responsibilities on others, while marginalizing members of the diverse group it claims to maintain if they don't, say, idolize Lady Gaga.

So what's the solution? When should you march? Well, march for things you actually believe in, not because "your community" told you to, not because it makes you feel better than Such-and-Such in Somewhere, Middle America, not because you want to see Lady Gaga (though, I admit, if Frank Zappa were still alive and speaking at the Equality March, I'm not saying I wouldn't go.) Write letters to Lady Gaga's PR agency and tell her to address Congress. Or just write letters to Congress yourself.

Then, if the L.G.B.T.Q.Q.I.A. community wanted to deter the iconoclasts, it would be forced to adopt a card system. To become a member, you would have to post a video of yourself dancing to Lady Gaga's hit single "Poker Face" to YouTube, and you would get in the mail a shiny, rainbow-colored membership card to the L.G.B.T.Q.Q.I.A. community, along with their monthly newsletter and discounts on Lady Gaga albums to come (if they ever come). And I would happily not submit a video, and therefore not become a member and not have the privilege of criticizing this group without being considered queer-phobic. But I would do it, regardless.