THE BUSINESS OF
PRIDE; The Saga of Seattle Pride
by Dennis Cavalier
Editors Note: The Seattle Out & Proud Committee has been the subject of intense scrutiny for their 2006 decision to move the Seattle Pride Celebration from Capital Hill to downtown. While the event was a huge success, the organizers are still facing over $100,000 in debts to the City. This and other instability has derailed the planning for the 2007 Seattle Pride events. As of this writing, Seattle Pride plans are still up in the air, changing weekly from no events, to parade only, to parade and nominal festivals to be held in both downtown and Capital Hill.
By classic definition, the word Pride is most well known to mean “an unduly high
opinion of oneself; exaggerated self-esteem; conceit”. If we are to look it up
in a dictionary, this is the very first explanation of the word. Uncannily,
this seems to fit quite well when used to describe the persons responsible for
leaving us a legacy of debt, indecision and embarrassment.
News reports widely distributed around the country recently claimed that SOaP
(Seattle Out and Proud) had succumbed to the idea of bankruptcy, in order to
remove themselves from culpability for [over $100,000.00] in unpaid debt. There
has been thread after thread after thread of blog responses, ranging from
outrage (no pun intended) to emotional support for their predicament. Now,
rumor has it they are backpedaling from that plan, and intending to make an
attempt to pay the debt.
What are we to believe, and at what point are we to believe it?
Our community was divided civil war style, over where the Pride 2006 event
should occur. During the 2005 celebrations, the group that became known as SOaP
announced that they were moving the event to the Seattle Center in 2006, and
sparked a debate that seemed never to end. The result was that Pride
celebrations took place in both locations.
A Capitol Hill Pride Festival happened, at the request of the community at
large, and the downtown and Seattle Center event took place as SOaP had planned
it. One was a success, the other was a financial and PR disaster. There’s
little doubt that both events had their merit, and the downtown event was a good
time for all. Nobody is attempting to claim it was a disaster by “party
standards”. It was fun and it was well attended; kudos for that. But this year
we need a better plan.
The latest breaking news is that the Seattle LGBT Community Center (The Center)
has indicated they will be bringing us the opportunity for a “fantastic Pride
Celebration” on Capitol Hill by bringing forth a plan for a well-organized,
financially accountable, and community inclusive event. Thank G-d!
As long as SOaP continues to issue statements and press releases that contradict
one another, the chance our community being seen by the rest of the world as
respectable and responsible may very well continue to elude us. In this
political climate, where LGBT persons are being scrutinized on nearly every
level, we can not afford this reputation we are being saddled with.
The second definition of Pride you may encounter in a dictionary is; “proper
respect for oneself; sense of one’s own dignity or worth”. It is to this
definition that I believe we wish to aspire. By taking back the reigns for our
festival, and showing the world that we can look to the future with
responsibility, accountability and direction, it is possible that there may once
again be a Pride celebration at the Seattle Center. Until then, Soap needs to
figure out what it is doing, and the rest of us need to just get on with it.
Dennis Cavalier is an activist and writer, based in the Puget Sound area.
Reverend Mohler and the Genetic Excuse by James Grossmann
For many centuries, most Christian churches have labeled homosexuality a sin, in other words, a freely chosen, willful violation of God’s law. In recent decades, the gay community has defended itself by insisting that homosexuality can’t be a sin because it isn’t even a choice. Gayness, we claim, is genetic, something determined before birth—a fact of nature for which we can’t be blamed.
As an observation about reality, this idea may hold water. After all, most of us gay people know that we did not choose our sexual orientation.
As a defense of the gay community, the emphasis on the inborn nature of homosexuality accomplishes nothing. Confronted with the fact that people don’t choose to be gay, homophobic demagogues simply change their classification of homosexuality from sin to sickness.
Case in point: Reverend Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary at Louisville. According to a recent Associated Press article by David Crary, Mohler admits that the sciences may establish that biology plays a role in causing homosexuality. However, the Reverend goes on to say that homosexuality would still be sinful even if it is a product of biology. On that basis, he would support genetic testing for homosexuality in unborn babies, and any medical procedure, short of gene therapy, that would change the sexual orientation of unborn babies from homosexual to heterosexual.
The possibility of such genetic testing seems remote. The same AP article cited above contained statements by biologist Paul Myers, pointing out that sexual orientation is probably due to a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental factors, and that the multiple genes that play a role in sexual orientation may also play a role in the development of other social and emotional traits. And the therapy for unborn babies? It’s still science fiction.
But suppose that Mohler’s sci-fi technologies existed. How could the gay community respond? The usual pundits would express the predictable outrage, but on what basis?
If we believe that homosexuality is nothing more than biological baggage, and that homosexual behavior should be permitted because we just can’t help being this way, then there is no basis for criticizing Mohler. Why shouldn’t a parent-to-be have the reproductive freedom to alter her unborn children if it will make them more popular, give them an easier life, and all but guarantee grandchildren?
If, on the other hand, we see homosexuality as a positive intrinsic good—every bit as good as heterosexuality—then we do have a reason to tell parents to let their children be born gay. Just as it would wrong for prospective parents to deny the world a diversity of temperaments and aptitudes, it would be equally wrong for them to deny the world all the different forms of genuine love.
Love is too precious a thing to be subjected to cookie cutter conformity. Just as there is nothing like the love between a man and a woman, there is nothing like the love between two men, or between two women, and the world would be poorer place if these branches of the family of love were cut off in the name or dogma or popularity.
No, we don’t choose to be gay, but it wouldn’t matter if we did. Same-sex love isn’t something that we have to defend with biological excuses. It is a treasure, as every form of true love is a treasure, well worth nurturing both now and for generations to come.