Design. Build. Challenge.

The Civil Rights of the 1960s are associated primarily with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. His image looms over the struggle of blacks in America fighting for their equality. Also in the 1960s, the familiar name of Gloria Steinam evokes female liberation. But when one thinks of gay rights, one doesn’t necessarily remember a person is embodying the whole spirit. Sure, you can bring up the name of Harvey Milk, the openly gay mayor of San Francisco, though as a national figure, his impact really isn’t as widespread. Though he was the first openly gay mayor, he is not considered to be a leading figure for the movement.

When you consider the fact that we don’t have a national figure, we must ask ourselves why? And also if it is necessary for there to be one. Could this be why marriage equality has taken so long? No uniting figure to look up to, to aspire to? What’s going on in this movement that no one has risen to become its leading figure. Is this absence saying something about marriage equality in general, or about the times we lived in. The 1960s is known for its political strife. It seems like once the 1980s came, even though national protests have occurred since then, we really haven’t seen anything ongoing. Peoples lives and careers would be centered around civil rights, and now it’s become something to possibly get involved in during the weekend. Perhaps the new lifestyle of most Americans doesn’t permit one to be able to get as socially involved like decades before. This is not to just political activism is dead, but marriage equality is still missing that extra kick from the people. Waiting on politicians to get things started is not the way for these things to get done. Never has been.

Some have jokingly referred to Lady Gaga as the representative. The young lady does a lot of good work and deserves credit for what she achieves. If her commitment remains just as strong, who knows, she may be that voice. But for now, we seem to be experiencing spurts of progress here and there, especially now since we have a Democratic President. One thing is for certain, if we expect any more progress, we certainly cannot afford to have a Republican President.

There is an argument, rather a discussion, amongst gays about pride marches. The question that arises is: do we still need to have them? For those who oppose the marches, they see them as distractions. The detractors point out the half-naked men dancing on the floats and the drag queens strutting down the street in flamboyant costumes. Those who believe pride marches are no longer needed think that these visible features of the marches are hurting the cause for equality. It is suggested that the moderate heterosexual who can swing either way when it comes to supporting equality will be turned off by the images, and will have a narrow definition of what makes a homosexual a homosexual.

For those who support the marches (including yours truly) turn that argument on its head. First of all, displays of extravagant decadence is not solely on display at pride marches. You see it all the time down in New Orleans during the Mardi Gras celebration. If someone takes issue with it when gay men are dancing about with their shirts off, they are likely to be prudish anyhow, even when it comes to heterosexual people doing it while at a party or celebratory event.

Not only that, but it is believed by the supporters of these marches that the detractors are missing the bigger picture, which is pride and acceptance about who you are. Many of us have been reared to treat homosexuality as a sin, or as something that should be shunned and somehow discouraged. But the momentum continues to build where we are no longer accepting those old notions. Also, if those who abhor pride marches paid attention to anything but shirtless men and drag queens, they would notice that it is a very diverse crowd at the marches. The marches include friends and family of those who are gay to voice their support of equality.