Gay Liberation in Canada:
A Socialist Perspective
The Key Differences on Gay Liberation
by John Riddell
We’ve had a lively internal discussion on gay liberation, and it’s
proved to be valuable for the LSA/LSO. Sixteen contributions have been
published, twelve of them in the special literary discussion over the
last two months. They cover the three topics of the Political Committee
Statement: our position on gay liberation; the state of the gay
movement; and our intervention in it. They strengthen our understanding
of gay liberation in many ways.
A number of contributions criticize the line of the Political
Committee Statement on Gay Liberation. The critics have stressed that
they consider the Political Committee Statement a step forward, and
their contributions reveal quite a wide area of agreement between them
and the Political Committee.
In this framework, Comrades Russell, Faubert, McLean, and Bearchell
have joined in presenting a "Proposed Revision of the Political
Committee Statement on Gay Liberation," which contains a series of
proposed amendments.
This report will be limited to answering the points raised by these
criticisms and by the "Proposed Revision."
No significant disagreements have yet come to light on our assessment
of the gay movement or the strategy we propose for it. But the line of
the "Proposed Revision" is clearly in conflict with the line of the
Political Committee Statement on the third point — our position on gay
liberation. Its standpoint is developed most fully in Comrade Russell’s
contribution, "The Central Issues in the Gay Liberation Discussion."
Comrade Russell summarizes the main issues in the discussion as follows
:
"We now come to what I believe are the two main errors made in
the Political Committee Statement on Gay Liberation: 1) its failure
to reaffirm that homosexuality is a natural component of human
sexuality and its refusal to solidarize with the slogan 'Gay is
Good'; and 2) the fact that nowhere does it reaffirm that socialism
is necessary to eliminate gay oppression. In both instances this
represents a step backward from the line of the 1971 Plenum Report
on Gay Liberation."
The 1971 report, available together with other decisions of that
plenum from the LSA/LSO Central Office, was the League’s first statement
on gay liberation. It contained a valuable initial assessment of the gay
movement, together with some conclusions for our work. These conclusions
were wrong on several counts, and these errors were corrected in
practice before the April 1973 convention.
Let’s take the first point, our position on gay sexuality.
Should we take a stand on gay sexuality?
The Political Committee Statement says the following on this point:
"The gay liberation movement rejects these vicious forms of
anti-gay discrimination. In growing numbers, homosexuals reject the
fear and self-hatred they have been forced to live with, and affirm
their pride in their sexuality. They are beginning to conclude that
they are not guilty — society is guilty, for its persecution of
gays.
"The League welcomes the development of the gay liberation
movement, and unconditionally supports its struggles for full civil
and human rights for gays. We completely reject all reactionary
‘theories’ that maintain homosexuality to be an ‘illness’ or a
‘perversion’."
In other words, we start from the proposition of the fundamental
equality of all humanity. When a section of humanity is oppressed, and
denied equality, we welcome and support their struggle for equality; we
oppose their oppression, and equally oppose all the fraudulent
rationalizations put forward to justify this oppression.
Defenders of the oppression of gays put forward many kinds of
crackpot "theories" to justify denying equal rights to gays, and many of
these "theories" claim to be scientific. In rejecting these
rationalizations, however, we do not put forward a counter-theory of gay
sexuality. That would be contrary to our tasks as a revolutionary
political organization.
The Political Committee Statement explains:
"As a revolutionary organization with the goal of leading the
working class in the fight for state power, the League takes
positions on questions of program, strategy and tactics for the
political struggle. It does not adopt positions on questions of
culture, science or sexuality.
"Consequently, the LSA/LSO does not take any stand on the
essential character or value of sexuality."
We do not take a stand on questions of culture or science such as the
nature of sexuality, it continues. But, "We do not have to take a stand
on the nature of sexuality to reject all forms of anti-gay
discrimination, and to identify completely with the aims of the gay
liberation movement. This is what we have done. We welcome the entry
unto the political arena of the gay movement. We express our solidarity
with the growth of gay pride. We support all the struggles of gays for
equal rights."
Perhaps a very limited stand ...
As Comrade Russell notes, the 1971 Plenum Statement did go further
than this — though not much further. It said :
"The materialist view of homosexuality has been very dear.
Homosexuality is not a perversion, not a disease, but a form of
human sexuality. Homosexuality has existed in many forms of society
and is practiced in this one by large numbers of people...."
As a positive statement of the character of gay sexuality, this is
not much. "Homosexuality is a form of sexuality" is a tautology without
any content. It doesn’t really say anything. The present Political
Committee Statement might have tried to improve on this by saying a few
words about what kind of form of sexuality it is. Instead, it says
nothing. It limits itself to rejecting charges that homosexuals are sick
or perverted. And the Political Committee is proposing today that we add
nothing to the statement on this point. Why?
Some comrades have wondered if the Political Committee is perhaps
being rigid and dogmatic on this point. Comrade Duncan McLean suggests
in his contribution, "Problems with the Political Committee Statement on
Gay Liberation" that some kind of affirmative statement is surely
possible. "The statement ‘gayness is not a sickness’ is a sentence with
a double negative," he says. "It can be expressed also as ‘gayness is
healthy.’" He later suggests the phrase "gayness is normal." The
amendments suggest we say that homosexuality is "significant" and
"legitimate."
Comrade McLean’s point is thought-provoking. But there’s a
distinction to be made here. We defend the rights of gays, and we
therefore reject all the false rationalizations offered to justify their
oppression. But affirming that a person’s sexual orientation is a
private matter is not the same thing as expressing an opinion on the
inherent worth of their sexual orientation. Rejecting the quack anti-gay
"theories" does not require us to propose a substitute theory. Defending
the rights of gays does not involve passing judgment on their sexual
preference.
We can see the same distinction in the case of Soviet dissidents, who
are jailed as "sick" or "insane." Defense actions in Canada reject
claims that anyone with their dissenting views must be "sick." But this
does not involve passing judgment on the correctness of their point of
view.
Comrade McLean suggests that there should be some simple
non-controversial statement we can make about homosexuality. What should
we say? We could say that it’s "frequent." That’s indisputable, and it
helps show that gays aren’t "sick." But child-beating is even more
frequent. The word "frequent" doesn’t tell us much; it does not indicate
whether we approve or disapprove.
Comrade McLean suggests that we say homosexuality is "normal." This
is a modest, inoffensive word, and it doesn’t sound particularly
audacious. But when someone asks you, "What do you mean by the word
‘normal’?" — what are we to say? "Normal" means "conforming to the
standard." What standard are we talking about?
Homosexuality certainly doesn’t conform to the standard of capitalist
society. We therefore must be speaking of some other standard. A moral
standard? That would be the approach of a religious organization, not a
political one. We’re not out to pass moral judgment on forms of
sexuality. Do we mean standard of human nature? A standard of what
humans would do in a free, non-repressive society? In either case, we
will have to put forward some kind of theory of the nature of sexuality
in order to define what is normal and what is not.
Once we’ve passed a motion on whether homosexual behavior conforms to
some standard of normality, we’ve set a clear precedent. If the LSA/LSO
is going to take a stand on one form of sexuality, it will then
logically be prepared to decide whether other sexual preferences are
"normal." Many choose sexual abstention as their preference. Some might
argue that this is not "normal" at all, but rather a healthy defense
mechanism against the deformed sexuality of capitalism. What does the
LSA/LSO think of this? Is sadism "normal"— or is it abnormal, a
byproduct of sexism? Where does the LSA/LSO stand?
You see, once we begin to pass judgement on sexual behavior, saying
what forms we approve of and what forms we don’t, we are soon far from
the realm of politics. Debates may be intriguing. But it’s all in the
realm of personal speculation, not politics.
The same problem arises with other adjectives. Is homosexuality
"natural"? What then is our concept of human nature? Is it "healthy"?
All sexuality under capitalism is deformed; what is our theory of a
"healthy" sexuality? Is it "legitimate"? "Legitimate" in whose eyes, by
what standard? In each case, we must back up the adjective with
theoretical proof.
If we’re adopting a position on sexuality, we should do so clearly
and unambiguously — not slip it in under cover of an ambiguous phrase.
And if we want to stay clear of taking a position on the worth of gay
sexuality, then let’s stick to the text of the Political Committee
Statement, that carefully avoids ambiguous formulations. The task of the
plenum is to take a clear decision on this alternative.
... or perhaps adopt a stand but not vote on It
Comrade Russell proposes that the League advance and defend the
proposition that "homosexuality is not better or worse than
heterosexuality." True, he agrees that "no convention has ever taken a
vote" on scientific questions like this. But "despite this, there is no
pretense in our propaganda of suspending judgment on these points ... to
suspend judgment on the slogan ‘Gay is Good’ would be to place a
question mark over the underlying assertion of the gay movement: that
homosexuality is just as good as heterosexuality."
He would have us defend a position on gay sexuality, and back it up
with a scientific theory.
If we’re to have a "judgment" on this question and carry a line on it
in our education, it can only be through a democratic vote by a leading
body of the League. It is therefore positive that the amendments do
indeed put to a vote whether the League should adopt a view on the
character of sexuality.
The ‘Proposed Revision’ on scientific theories
The "Proposed Revision" proposes a series of changes in the Political
Committee Statement on this point. These changes should also be
considered together with the contributions to the bulletin, particularly
that of Comrade Russell, that develop the point of view of the "Proposed
Revision" more fully.
One sentence of the Political Committee Statement reads that the
League "does not adopt positions on questions of culture, science or
sexuality." They substitute the following: "(The League) does not adopt
a hard ‘line’ and invoke centralism on questions of culture, science or
sexuality. The League does draw on and utilize bodies of knowledge on
these questions to advance the struggle for socialism." This proposal
means that the League would indeed have positions on scientific
questions, although League members who disagree on these points would be
free to advance their own views.
Later, the "Proposed Revision" proposes that we endorse the views of
some theorists : "Yet a sufficient body of scientific knowledge has been
established to which we can refer, and from which we can draw some basic
conclusions." It even names a few authors who provide the foundations of
this theory: "... Engels and Trotsky have helped in laying the initial
groundwork (along with pioneer sexologists like Wilhelm Reich) ...."
Engels and Trotsky carry a lot of weight with us, but before the
League declares that they provide the foundations of a correct theory of
sexuality, we’d better examine what they said on the subject. This is
all the more true for Wilhelm Reich, who was a Marxist for only part of
his creative life.
The "Proposed Revision" also repeats some of the phrases of the
Political Committee Statement on this question, phrases that make the
"Proposed Revision" a bit self-contradictory. What is significant
however is the changes, and they indicate a different line from that of
the Political Committee.
Our position on scientific questions
The body of Marxist thought reaches far beyond the program of a
revolutionary organization. Our program is based on the method of
dialectical materialism: our indispensable tool for a correct political
course. But dialectical materialism has been applied to many other
fields, and the conclusions reached by Marxists in scientific study are
of great value to the work of a revolutionary party. For example, study
of primitive matriarchal societies has helped undermine male supremacist
theories that justify male domination today. Another striking example is
the importance of studying the history of the working class movement in
Canada.
The League favors its members undertaking personal study in these
fields — outside the framework of their regular party tasks. But for a
revolutionary party to control, regulate, or take positions on such
questions harms the party — and it also obstructs the progress of
scientific study. The views of Marxists on history, anthropology, or
sexuality can stand on their own feet. Resolutions of party conventions
are not required and will not help establish the authority of Marxist
scientific conclusions.
How does it hurt us to take positions on scientific questions? First,
except for a small handful of specialists in the field, members of the
League have no access to the facts on which a position is based. They
cannot form an independent opinion. The best they cart do is give a vote
of confidence to this or that scientific specialist. Second, our
positions are not going to be tested in experience, so there’s no way of
resolving differences and correcting errors. So it tends to break a
political party into rival cliques. Third, taking positions like this
does not promote our goal — building a revolutionary combat party. It
depoliticizes us, it makes us less able to grow into a mass party, and
it tends to transform us into an esoteric cult. After all, you don’t
want fusion negotiations blocked by a disagreement on the views of
Wilhelm Reich on sexuality, or the shape of the primitive matriarchy, or
whether the universe originated in a "big bang." If we take positions on
such questions, we will not grow.
Everything we do aims to prepare to lead the masses to victory in
political combat. That’s our purpose, our only purpose: to prepare for
combat. Anything that doesn’t promote that goal is a dead weight on the
party, blocking our progress.
Scientific study and discussion
Comrade McLean has made some important points about the general
importance of cultural questions to Marxists. A revolutionary party
favors the free development of cultural and scientific discussions, and
we favor Marxists undertaking personal work in these fields. Sometimes
we find it useful to provide a platform for this kind of discussion, in
our forums, or in our press. Sometimes we indirectly provide resources
that help an established Marxist view gain a hearing, as we did on the
Evelyn Reed tour. But it’s not our task as a political organization to
develop scientific positions or pass judgment on scientific debates.
Comrade McLean’s contribution "On the Guinea Pig Speech," LSA/LSO
Discussion Bulletin, Vol. 11, No. 11, asks if League members can
express their views in public discussions on questions like the nature
of homosexuality, provided that they make it clear where the League’s
position ends and their purely personal views begin. Of course we can.
The relevant paragraphs from the Political Committee Statement make the
line of distinction absolutely clear, and therefore assist comrades who
want to participate in discussions like this.
In all this, a sense of proportion is required.
First, on some questions, like the Marxist theory of the matriarchy,
Marxists have long ago reached many conclusions whose authority is well
established. We can gain from working to ensure that these views get a
hearing. This is not the case on the question of sexuality, as Comrade
Russell has agreed. Scientific study is in its infancy; there is no
developed Marxist view. It would be dead wrong for the League to become
identified with this or that view.
Second, we’re a very small movement. We don’t get chances to speak
for the League in new arenas very often; we need to use them to get the
maximum hearing for the League’s program. In other words, as members of
the League, our political tasks are our prime concern.
Third, our resources are very limited. We aren’t leading a workers
state, as the Bolsheviks were under Lenin and Trotsky. We don’t have an
active publishing house like Pathfinder. We don’t even have our first
weekly paper. We have to center our limited resources on the most
immediate tasks.
Problems with Comrade Russell’s proposal
The general problems of trying to take a position on sexuality are
underscored by the difficulties of the view proposed by Comrade Russell,
the view also put forward by the "Proposed Revision." His thesis is that
homosexuality is rooted in human instincts, and that it is "just as much
a part of basic human sexual behavior as heterosexuality." He points to
a range of scientific evidence to prove his case.
Comrade Russell cites evidence of the widespread extent of
homosexuality in North American society, of its prevalence in other
human societies and the considerable degree of toleration it enjoys in a
good proportion of them, and finally, to the existence of homosexuality
among the primates: our closest biological relatives in the animal
world.
He concludes:
"...homosexual behavior is not unique to human society, but is
rooted in the evolution of animal to human, and exists in most human
societies and among animals. This form of sexuality is as natural as
heterosexuality. In short, homosexuality has been a significant
aspect of human sexuality ever since the dawn of history, primarily
because it is an expression of capacities that are basic in human
beings .... The idea that homosexuality only exists when
heterosexuality is denied free development is equally false."
But as a scientific view, this theory is not self-evident. It is open
to question on several points. Comrade Russell has proposed a theory of
what human instincts are in the area of sexual behavior. But among
psychologists, theories of human instincts are generally discredited.
Specialists have not been able to determine what is "instinctual"
behavior. Data on behavior of animals is also questionable. Most of you
have read articles by Evelyn Reed debunking the view that we can draw
conclusions about human society today by studying primates.
Marxists pose an additional question. Even if it can be proven that
something has existed in every human society that ever was, this does
not convince us that it will exist in the future. It does not prove that
it’s instinctive. We think that socialist revolution will open up an
incalculable transformation of society. We think that all human society
until now is only "prehistory", with the end of class society the real
free and creative history of humankind will only begin.
Comrades must examine Comrade Russell’s view care-fully. The range of
debate will extend from the animal world, through primitive and class
society, into the communist world of the future.
But it would be wrong for the LSA/LSO to adopt or defend this view.
We all reject the deformation of sexuality under capitalism. It’s
natural that we try to imagine what a free sexuality would be like — and
we speculate about the society of the future. But we must remember how
little we know.
Will future humanity evolve toward developing sexuality and infuse it
into every aspect of life? Or will it find that when sexual liberation
is achieved, sexual expression begins to decline in importance as a form
of human activity? Will future humanity maintain some kind of
distinction between males and females in social life, or will this
differentiation between the two sexes begin to wither away? Who knows?
All we can say is that the speculations of present humanity, deformed as
we are by capitalist oppression, carry no weight. We must be careful not
to mistake our hopeful speculations for scientific conclusions.
Of course we utilize the evidence of scientific studies in refuting
reactionary "theories" about homosexuality. Some of the ways we can do
this are indicated in Comrade Russell’s speech at a public forum in
Winnipeg, reprinted in the Discussion Bulletin, Vol. 11, No. 5.
He cites the evidence of the Kinsey report on the extent of
homosexuality, evidence of its extent in other societies, and evidence
that gay oppression has not existed in every society. Other comrades
might make their points in other ways.
But these are all ways of challenging the scientific validity of
anti-gay "theories." We show that they are not logical deductions from
established fact. We give examples of where their facts are wrong, their
logic is wrong, their thinking displays gross irrational prejudice,
their "theories" are motivated by crude prejudice, not scientific
impartiality.
This is how we handle "theories" that Blacks are inferior. It’s not
hard to debunk them. It doesn’t require you to develop a "socialist"
theory of racial differentiation. If we give the impression that you
must adopt some other theory of sexuality in order to reject the
anti-gay theories, it weakens our case.
We have a simpler, and surely a very convincing case to present. We
start from the proposition of the fundamental equality of all humanity.
We reject all the rationalization for denying equal rights to gays. We
hold that homosexuals are equal in rights, capacities, in human worth,
and we combat the oppression that denies them full equality.
Is socialism necessary?’
Comrade Russell points out the second major problem he sees in the
Political Committee Statement as follows:
"... nowhere does it reaffirm that socialism is necessary to
eliminate gay oppression ... this represents a step backward from
the line of the 1971 Plenum Report on Gay Liberation."
The 1971 Plenum Report stated: "Sexual repression and the oppression
of homosexuals is part and parcel of the system. It will take a
socialist revolution to lay the groundwork to eliminate this form of
oppression." Since 1971 we have moved toward greater caution and greater
precision in statements like this. This is reflected in the 1972-73
discussion of the fight for the right to abortion, and in the evolution
of our position on Quebec, as well as gay liberation.
The Political Committee Statement points to the evidence that ending
gay oppression requires gays to join in the struggle for socialism. It
shows how gay liberation challenges key institutions of capitalism. It
points to the fact that decaying capitalism in general tends to
rein-force oppression in all spheres, to deepen human misery. This is
why the struggle for democratic rights as a whole cannot be won without
workers’ power. The Statement says that anti-gay hysteria is an
important prop of reactionary and fascist ideology. It also mentions
that gay oppression is related to sexual oppression in general, which is
a general feature of capitalist rule. And it says gay liberation will
require quite a fight, and that gays must look to the working class
movement as a potential ally in a showdown struggle.
It’s an overwhelming case that gay activists should "throw in their
lot with the working class in the struggle against capitalist rule."
It is true that the bourgeoisie can be forced to grant concessions.
Under certain circumstances it can go very far in granting concessions —
at least for a time. We sometimes say that "the only concession it can
never grant is to concede power." Could it dismantle the apparatus of
discriminatory practices against gays, without giving up the patriarchal
family? It has not been proven that this is impossible. Comrade Russell
shows how homosexuality has been tolerated in other societies with a
patriarchal family structure. Tolerating homosexuality would not force
capitalism to free the housewife from compulsory domestic labor or
childbearing, or free children from the tyranny of their parents.
The family is certainly a barrier to gay liberation. But this does
not exclude the theoretical possibility that discrimination against gays
could be ended without destroying the patriarchal family.
Would this mean ending gay oppression? We’ll see in a moment that
there’s a disagreement about what constitutes "gay oppression." Of
course, if "gay oppression" includes the general oppression of sexuality
that everyone suffers, you can’t end it short of socialism.
But if you view it as the specific disabilities and discrimination
suffered by gays, then you cannot prove conclusively that capitalism is
incapable under any conceivable circumstances of ending this problem.
But isn’t the whole debate here sterile? It’s like Mandel’s position
that capitalism can hypothetically accept the liberation of Quebec.
Rather than discussing what might happen in a hypothetical capitalism,
shouldn’t we discuss what is happening in the real capitalist society we
live in? That’s what the Political Committee Statement does, and it
makes a convincing case for gays to support the struggle for socialism.
The aims of gay liberation
The question of the definition of gay liberation bears on the same
question. The "Revised Version" changes this definition to encompass
goals that clearly can only be achieved after a socialist revolution.
Where the Political Committee Statement reads, "The gay liberation
movement is a movement for democratic rights," the "Proposed Revision"
deletes the sentence. It substitutes this:
"The gay liberation movement of today is focused around the
concrete struggle for democratic rights." The changes are obvious.
It continues by adding, "Full gay liberation will only be realized
with the elimination of sexism and all forms of sexual oppression,
including the forced imposition of the exclusive heterosexual norm
which requires the repression of homosexuality in everybody."
The comrades proposing the amendments are clearly worried that
calling the gay movement a struggle for democratic rights will lead us
to underestimate its importance. Comrade Bearchell says, "If democratic
rights were all that was required for (gay) liberation, none of us would
be fighting for socialism." Comrade Russell writes, "... gay liberation
has a revolutionary potential — it is not solely a movement for civil
rights." On the face of it, these sentences underestimate the
revolutionary potential of democratic struggles. But the question before
us is the dynamic of the gay movement.
First of all, the gay movement is obviously many things. The
Political Committee Statement defines it to include gay churches. There
is a lively gay press that encompasses art and poetry. And so on. The
phrase of the Political Committee Statement, that it is "a movement for
democratic rights," was talking of its political dimension.
The desire to be free of sexual suffering, for sexual liberation if
you will, is surely one of the most pervasive feelings of modern
capitalism. Among youth, it can lead to demands for freedom in sexual
expression that the Young Socialists include in their general program.
But Comrade Russell’s summary of the gay movement’s program — a list
of demands that expresses our general position — touches on sexual
repression as such on only one point: the demand to end all "age of
consent" laws. It is purely a program of democratic rights, for equal
treatment for gays — not a program for sexual liberation.
The comrades proposing the amendments seem to grant much of this, in
saying that equal rights is the "present focus" of the movement. But
even if this program were granted in full, they tell us, the gay
movement would stride forward to do battle against sexual repression in
general, "not just civil rights." They advance no evidence to back this
up. It seems utter speculation. The same is true of the claim that the
gay movement aims to end sexism.
Comrade Russell can explain the meaning of the phrase "ending the
exclusive heterosexual norm." If it is just another way of saying "end
discrimination against gays," it’s already contained in the statement.
If it means something more than that, it shouldn’t be in the statement.
There’s a danger that the definition of "gay liberation" could be
arbitrarily expanded to encompass aspects of the gay movement that we
should not take a stand on. For example, many in the gay movement argue
the benefits of gays "coming out" — that is making no secret of their
sexual preference. Comrade Chris Bearchell says that we should take a
stand on this question, that we should explain "the need for gays to
‘come out’." We have a rule in the League leadership: the League must
not give anyone advice on their private lives — how they should live and
who they should live with. If we did, we’d have to take responsibility
for the consequences — for how things turned out. We do better when we
stick to politics. Comrade Bearchell’s position is contrary to our
policy. It also shows, I think, the dangerous logic of taking a position
on the "legitimacy" of gay sexual preference. It takes us out of the
realm of politics.
There’s another danger here. A concern not to underestimate the
importance of gay liberation could lead us to ascribe to it features,
and an importance, that are not really there. If we take the example of
the family, the women’s liberation movement clearly has a program
directed against the heart of the patriarchal family structure. Demands
for women to control their bodies, for liberation from compulsory
responsibility for child-bearing and for domestic labor, and for equal
rights at school, work, and other activities — these demands, if fully
won, would dismantle the patriarchal family beyond repair.
This is not true of the gay movement. Gay oppression is closely
linked to the family; it can be viewed as an outgrowth of the morality
established to buttress the family — like the prohibition on sexual
expression among youth. Demands for gay liberation come into conflict
with the family, as well as other capitalist institutions. But they are
demands for equal rights, democratic demands, that do not necessarily
require the destruction of the family, or of repressive sexual morality,
as a whole, for their achievements.
It’s in that framework that the gay movement has grown, and assumed
all the importance that we recognize, and that is noted in the Political
Committee Statement.
The amendments contained in the "Proposed Revision of the Political
Committee Statement" have been helpful in focusing attention on the key
points in this discussion. They also include suggestions by the critics
of the Political Committee Statement that are in line with the
Statement. Critics of the Statement are correct to point out that the
League utilizes the conclusions of science to help convince people of
our views — and this is quite obvious in every issue of Liberation
and Labor Challenge.
They are right in pointing out that "Gay is Good" is, among other
things, an expression of gay pride. However, as Comrade Russell’s
contribution indicates, "Gay is Good" means other things as well, and we
can best maintain the clarity of the Political Committee Statement by
not changing its formulation on gay pride.
Finally, the critics are correct in saying that League members
participate — as individuals — in scientific or cultural discussions in
the gay liberation movement and elsewhere. Where these and other points
raised in the literary discussion require changes in the text of the
Political Committee Statement, this will be done when the Statement is
edited.
The task of this plenum, of course, is not to vote on the wording of
the Statement, but on its line. The "Proposed Revision" of the Political
Committee Statement presents a line counter to that of the Statement on
several essential points. This plenum should vote to reject the
revision, and to adopt the general line of the Political Committee
Statement and of this report.
[ Top ] [
Next ] [
Documents Index ]
