I hope readers will understand that for now I can’t name names. Read this post and understand why. But if you really want to know who’s who, it wouldn’t take much investigation on your part to get the details.

[See updated post on January 17, 2006. The secret's out. Org A =Family Pride Coalition; Org. B=COLAGE; Org. C=Soulforce.]

A few months ago I was perusing the website of a national LGBT advocacy organization (henceforth referred to as “Org. A”) and there was a listing of upcoming events. One of those events involves organizing a large group of queer folks to be very visible at a quintessential public “ma-and-apple-pie” event. There will be tons of national media there, so the plan is make sure that the people featured on the news coverage are not all heterosexual couples to demonstrate how same-gender couples are indeed part of the American fabric.

I love the idea. It’s creative, non-violent, completely legal, and it really could push some homo-hesitant minds closer to the edges of fair-minded. Here’s the problem: Org A fears backlash and that if their plan is publicized, anti-gay organizations will prevent it from happening. Org A. requested on its website that the announcement of its plan not be reported, re-posted on websites, or redistributed. Fine. It’s a delicious plan, and I would be happy to spread the word, but I have honored its request to not write about the event.

Last month another national organization, (”Org. B”) announced the event — without the publicity caveat — in their email communication to over 2,000+ subscribers. Org. B provided a link to Org. A’s site, so Org. B definitely knew about the request to not announce “widely.” Now this week, another national LGBT organization (”Org. C”) included an announcement about Org. A’s event in their email distribution. Org. C’s announcement requests people to be “discreet” since the success of the event depends on it happening “under the radar.”

Requesting thousands of subscribers to keep something under the radar is about as reliable as a game of telephone at a slumber party with the mean girls on a sugar high. Surely none of these organizations truly believes a leak won’t happen between now and the day of the event. Each of these organizations must know that not everyone on their mailing lists are supporters of equality. Homo-hostile individuals and organizations are no doubt monitoring the activities of these and other LGBT organizations. One of the easiest ways to do that is to sign up for their announcement using an anonymous email address. Tell the anti-gay infiltrators not to distribute widely, and you can bet they will.

Another flaw in the plan: If Org. A does not officially announce the plan for fear or it being stopped, the plan can never be “officially” stopped. So let’s say there’s a leak, and the plan is sabotaged by anti-gay opponents. Org. A cries discrimination. Opposition feigns ignorance and dismisses Org. A’s claim as a sheer coincidence since officially they had no way of knowing the plans were happening. (This strategy is why workplace discrimination is so tough to prove. A gay employee doesn’t want to “make a big deal of it” so he never officially tells his boss he’s gay. He gets fired, knowing it is because he is gay. Then the boss claims he never knew the employee was gay, so how could he fire him based on that.)

Org A. should publicize widely while it still has control over this plan and the message behind it. If the plan is officially sabotaged, then we have something to talk about. If the plan is met with no opposition, then all this need for secrecy was just a big waste of energy. Either way, Org. A will have a juicy teachable moment to share with America. Continue to request discretion and chances are high it won’t have anything.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS