"Let's break some of this down:
"I miss the gays of the 1970s.
Before AIDS made them fearful.
When they were wild. On the fringe. A threat to decent society."
First of all, AIDS didn't just make The Gays fearful; it also made many of us stronger and braver and more politically active. To imply we simply dissolved into a mewling mass of assimilationist scaredy-cats insults the memory of those who died, those who survived, and those who fought valiantly in those truly terrifying times. Secondly, this celebration of the "wild" and the "fringe" and a "threat" to "decent" society is an option that never went away; if anything, creating a mainstreamed opportunity for same-sex marriage gives those who want to rebel, be wild, even "threaten" the "decent" even more of an opportunity to do so by comparison, no?
If some folks wanna be a "70s gay"? Go for it. But are you preferring, or even advocating everyone should return to that? Are you arguing for limitation, for fewer choices? How is that "diversity"?
"Decent society sucks."
So this is not about rights, or access, or equality, or diversity, or even tolerance--it's about rebellion merely for the sake rebellion, and reflexive anti-establishment rancor?
Good luck getting that "decent society" to expand its tolerance and access to those who attack it. Or is that ultimately what is being advocated here--constant contrarianism?
"Gays and lesbians may not all realize it yet, but adopting the cultural trappings of America's hegemonic majority culture is a tragic, disastrous, suicidal move."
Uh, not for the thousands of gay men and lesbians who actually WANT to get married and have the opportunity to choose that relationship, regardless of whether some want to tar-and-feather it (and them) with names like "hegemonic" "majority" "assimilationist" or the like. And they have been waiting for years, and they have been working for years—much of that work in grassroots, far-from-conservative-conclave groups.
Marriage equality means an expansion of choices--and we can still choose NOT to get married, NOT to ape the majority culture, and NOT to partake of all that civil and legal rights and benefits of that particular institution. Marriage equality also offers the option to get the piece of paper (and the many benefits) and then “define” or create our own individual take on whatever we want that partnership to be, and be as Indecent or Wild or Rebellious as we can express in the process of that redefinition.
“Gays didn't want the "right" to kill the Vietnamese. I don't get it. The big advantages of being gay were that you didn't have to get married or go to war. Why give that up?”
You’re right—you don’t get it. We aren’t arguing for COMPULSORY marriage and there hasn’t been an active draft in decades. You still have the choice to NOT get married and you still have the choice to NOT sign up for military service. But the key word here is CHOICE—we’re fighting for the access and options to be open to everyone, not just those who don’t want it. In fact we’re fighting for those who DO want to marry and/or those who DO want to defend this country, regardless of how some of us might feel about marriage or the military.
In conclusion: who here is actually advocating more diversity, more options, and more freedom to choose them, and who is insisting on limitations, and that "gays" be a certain way that the author thinks is "wild" and entertaining?
By all means, Mr. Rall, you have every opportunity (dare I say privilege) to act as 70s Gay as you like. Now, may we please move forward on expanding access for those people who don't want to go back to the 1970s?"