The
introduction of gay marriage in 2014 was the death knell of the gay
rights movement, and rightly so; now that we can finally get married,
just like our SBFs (straight best friends) what is there left to
fight for? We can all settle down in our little right-to-buy, with
our cat familial, debating the pros and cons of adopting a Korean vs
Hungarian orphan, while sipping premium brand
artisan gin & Fever Tree tonic.
Antipathy
to our cause has naturally been on the rise after the activism of the
late 20th century waned – as social attitudes towards
homosexuality changed, there was less need to be so vocal, or
radical; in short, we no longer needed to be so angry. Pride parades
today are less about the struggle, and more about the party;
angry marches demanding rights replaced by gyrating hot pants and
dancing all night. We can’t be sacked for being gay, and now we
can marry – but two thirds of of us are likely to experience mental
health problems, LGBT youth are still more likely to find themselves
homeless compared to straight counterparts, with 77% believing the
family rejection and violence
was because of their orientation or gender identity.
There
have always been gays in the Tory party, some secret, some out, but
through the ages they’ve been there – they had their hypocritical
hands on levers of power, and they worked against their own because
they themselves were protected. Brian Coleman writes in the New
Statesman that droves of gay men flocked to Thatcher, which I find
hard to believe given Section 28.
But then, the gays do have a tendency to idolise strong women, and as
we internalise a lot of homophobia, we’re not above acting against
our own interests – so it’s not beyond the realm of possibility
that he’s right. Is it once
again another strong woman in
power and pearls
which attracts our kind to
the nasty party?
I’m
not old enough to have seen
the introduction of Section 28, and neither are the young gays
flocking towards the Tories,
but that doesn’t mean it should be ignored – it is apart of our
history. An
Act introduced by then PM
Margaret Thatcher, prohibiting local councils from ‘promoting’
homosexuality or ‘pretended family relationships’ cited
by many to be responsible for high level of homophobia.
Of course Section 28 was
repealed in 2003
(but only after Baroness
Young [Tory Peer] died, leaving no one to lead the opposition). In
fact, Tory-led Kent Council has its own version of Section 28 still
on the books.
When
it comes to the 80's AIDS epidemic the Toy government were slow to
start in offering their help with the epidemic, some
even going so far as to say they were indifferent to the scores of
men dying from the disease. Mrs
Thatcher even denied
a ministerial broadcast on the matter, despite the idea having
cross-party support. By this point, ‘quite enough’ had already
been done because of a few
PSAs. Tell that to the
dead.
Maybe
it’s a side effect of the vapid
and vacuous narcissistic era
we find ourselves in, the
notion that if it doesn’t
effect me, it doesn’t matter.
Let history be resigned to
the books, they say,
the world’s no longer like that, they
say, after all, we can marry
now.
Maybe
history is irrelevant for these young
new Tories, perhaps it was
the great moderniser, David Cameron that
brought them to fold - he managed to more than double the their
youth vote (10% to 20.5%).
Because of this great and glowing Tory, we have same-sex marriage,
hooray!
Of course, it would be unfair to give the PR PM all the credit for
gay marriage, after all, more than half his party opposed the move,
with the motion passing only because of Labour votes, but
still, with just one of many policies picked from the Labour
manifesto, he will be remembered as the PM who introduced gay
marriage, or he would be, if it wasn’t for that other thing...no,
not that one, the other thing.
It
seems that for every bit of
equality we get, we become more homogeneous.
We will get married, we’ll
emulate the whole straight thing. We’re going to be gay, but
we’ll do it on your terms, because you were nice enough to let us
get married it would be a shame if we all didn’t settle down, get a
dog that can fit in a carrier bag, and resign ourselves to the same
dreary existence as our straight brothers and sisters.
It
seems strange that after what
is usually a torturous adolescence, there would members of our own
ranks that would seek out the opposition (at
worst) or apathetic (at best).
Is it a weird
manifestation
of Stockholm Syndrome, or is
it an extension of
this modern need for constant validation and approval? We
always want what we can’t have and always crave that which kills
us.
Perhaps,
dear reader, I am simply bitter and holding firmly to a grudge I
should let die. But I can’t easily reconcile recent history and a
reluctant reception to the party. A fiscal outlook, it isn’t enough for me to betray the years or
hardship caused by a nasty party.
Years
or hardship still caused, only now they're directed at someone
else.
No comments:
Post a Comment