Oh, please. People are throwing this thing way out of proportion. One single person fucked up and BAM apparently one single person can set a whole movement back for 10 years. Please... It was very rude of her to do considering everything, but the article is making a huge mess out of nothing. At least in my opinion
Why did they send some yahoo who was going to flip off dead presidents? Also isn't this the first time a President has invited lgbt members to the White House to discuss lgbt issues, pretty fucking sad that they managed to fuck that up.
A little decorum and respect for the office of the president. I personally, having seen the consequences of the type of facisem that Reagan's era of republicans heralded into american politics, have little respect for what Reagan did to corrupt and distort american values... but flipping him off is childish, and just plain disgusting. Living or dead, you can disagree with a president without being an asshole sinking to a level far lower than any president living, except perhaps nixon, who was an asshole himself.
It's a big deal when you've got Republicans who are on the verge of supporting or not supporting gay rights, and they are the same people who hold high respect for Reagan. If you piss them off, you hurt the chances (especially in the Senate) of any major LGBT bills being passed by Congress.
I'd like to agree. But unfortunately that's not how public relations and popular opinion works. The majority who are on the periphery of the issue will paint all of us with this.
I tried to find it in me to care about this, but I just couldn't. People haven't had any respect for the presidency in decades. So some activists hate Reagan. They have good reason to hate him. How many people in our community died because Reagan refused to act during the AIDS crisis? I would have done the same thing to Bush's portrait. I'd do it to his face. Honestly, to act like this is any different or worse than someone throwing shoes at a president, or to think that this is any worse than faslely calling our president a kenyan-born socialist/moaist/fascist/communistic Muslim, or to say that this is any worse than calling the president a liar during his state of the union address, or whatever, is being deliberately obtuse. This isn't anything special. Just another day.
Trust me, if someone is going to be anti-gay because of this one single incident then there is nothing that you, me or anyone can do to convince them otherwise. They shouldn't be pro-gay because we are cute and perfect people. They should be pro-gay because we are human beings and that is that. Having to keep every single gay person in line so every single person out there "likes us" is not going to help, and its also not going to happen. She is not a politician by any means. She does what she does out of pure passion and is what got her invited to the White House to begin with. The same passion got her to flip a portrait. Maybe not the best place to do something like that, but its also not the worst crime in the world.
This sort of activity is the same kind of thing that the Folsom Street Fair promoters did a few years ago in doing their promotional poster for their annual event (not something for the faint-of-heart). They made an elaborate reenactment of the Last Supper with a bunch of people dressed in leather, drag queens, S&M props, dildos and lube on the table, and so forth. It was a huge "fuck you" to the Christian community, and I personally found it deeply offensive. I know a few people who are involved in FSF, and I asked about it, and, in particular, the issue of it offending people who might be otherwise supportive of the community. The attitude that came back was, in essence, "Well, these people have been nothing but contemptuous of us, so why should we show any respect to them? No matter what we do, they'll hate us so we might as well rub it in their faces." I strongly disagree. Reagan sat by and whistled Dixie while tens of thousands of gay people died of AIDS on his watch ignoring pleas from practically everybody to put funding into understanding what was going on. According to C. Everett Koop, MD, his surgeon general at the time, the reason Reagan did nothing about AIDS was not because he was ignorant about the issues, but because of a deep hatred of gay people. So while I understand the sentiment that gay people have toward Reagan, I don't think a childish act such as taking a picture of yourself giving him the finger does anything positive. I also don't think it's going to be the smoking gun that's going to bring down the progress the gay community has made on these issues, and as Gus said, if it does, then the people who were so tenuous that one photo does that weren't really supportive in the first place. I do think that organized activities like the FSF poster are in a different category, because it's a planned, organized, and orchestrated "fuck you" from a group representing a large portion of the gay community. A single photo is in a different category.
I could be wrong, but I seem to remember reading about how the attacks on Reagan for the Aids crisis were somewhat off the mark and that funding for Aids research did in fact pick up under his Presidency. I believe he refused to discuss the issue much, but behind closed doors his administration did begin ramping up funding for Aids research.
I don't really see anybody being swayed over this. Respect for the presidency? Presidents are just people like you and me. Some are good, some are bad. Its refreshing to me to see someone go in and vent. I hope they got the satisfaction they were looking for. They were just expressing their free speech. Perhaps, not in the most mature or responsible way, but sometimes when it comes to the death of thousands of people you can't worry about being offensive. And if anybody wants to judge a whole community of people based on the actions of one person, they probably deserve a good middle finger too.
I agree with Chip and TheEdend. Those involved should be barred from attending future events to prevent similar mishaps from occurring. I don't disagree with her sentiment, Reagan was silent during the AIDS Crisis, and only spoke publicly about it near the end of his Presidency. The anger is not misplaced. Neither is the anger misplaced at their behavior, however. It was immature. It is a problem, not because it sets us back, but because it undermines the message we were trying to send. When you step on the message, you're undermining the purpose of the event in the first place. It's a privilege to go to these events, not a right. If someone has to take you aside as if you were a child, and explain to you to act like an adult, or worse - hold your hand to keep you out of trouble - then you don't need to be there in the first place. The names of everyone involved should be taken and barred from future events. Revoke their privilege, condemn their actions, and move on.
I think this is the most important point here. This is the sort of incident that I bet will be used in conversation with people who have already made up their minds to try to block LGBT legislation, but won't actually be effective in convincing others to follow their point of view. In addition, I think any remotely thoughtful person would understand that this sort of action by a few doesn't represent everyone interested in LGBT equality, or every LGBT person.
Childish and disrespectful, and also woefully inadequate. We can condemn the pathetic response of the Reagan administration to the AIDS crisis in far more effective ways.