There were a million people at the march in '93. The “+” is 700,000. Do not listen to the Park Service on numbers. It with the controversy they caused in so willfully undercounting the '93 march that prompted them to stop releasing “official” counts of DC events. Every other group that estimated numbers in '93, including the DC police, put the number at around one million.
“And I loved how they reported the March on Washington… ‘Yea, there were four hundred people there. And they were using mirrors.’” - Kate Clinton
{hee hee} Otto, you’re such a rabble-rouser. I post such a long, thought-provoking post about the ups and downs of the march, and you comment on the last sentence. 
Yes, I’d heard the 300,000 figure and the million figure, and I remember all the hoo-ha about the difference between the numbers (even this year some said 200,000, but Donna Redwing said a million). Suffice it to say this year was dramatically lower than '93.
Esprix
My thoughts? That dammit, I should have had you swing by so I could finally get to meet the one, the only GAY GUY. Darnit.
Since all anyone commented on was the last sentence, how thought-provoking could it have been? :::ducking:::
I went to the March in '93. As soon as I heard about it I had a burning need to be there. There wasn’t anything that was going to stop me, not if I had to trade my body to greasy truckers in exchange for rides. My parents paid for the trip for my birthday, darn the luck, so no greasy truckers for me. Anyway, that march was something of a defining moment for me. It was something that came from the community, something that we were doing for us. We had just elected a president (exit polls showed that 7% of the voters identified themselves as openly gay and that vote went almost 100% to Clinton and was his margin of victory) and he was already backsliding, and Amendment 2 had passed, and we as a community had to go there at that time and do what we did. We were, for perhaps the only time in our lives, the majority. Everyone you saw was queer. That time bouyed me for years. “A Simple Matter of Justice.”
I heard about this march, as presented to the community by a series of corporate sponsors including, not coincidentally, major media outlets who published glowing puff pieces about it. And my reaction was “who cares?” I had no interest in it and I don’t know a single person (other than you) who went. There was no theme, no agenda, no purpose, and I did not trust the organizers.
I’m glad the march went off without a hitch, and I’m glad in the mainstream press we weren’t embarrassed. But had this march not happened, I don’t think anyone would have missed it.
Maybe next time, Falcon. There are several DC Dopers who are trying to convince me to attend the next gathering, so you never know… 
Esprix
Otto wrote, re: the events leading up to the 1993 March:
I thought the 2nd Amendment was ratified all the way back in 1791.
Otto wrote:
Yeah, you better duck, faggot! {throwing high-heeled shoes and jeweled tiaras} 
Damn them!
The March in '93 was more important for me, too, but I think it had more to do with the fact that I was younger and more activist-minded, plus there were some pretty big issues on the table that we thought we might just lose (versus Vermont, where we actually won for a change right off the bat). I also went down with the UU’s, so it had some serious spiritual underpinnings for me as well. I just went down this time to see Dr. Boyfriend.
Actually, the organizers were the Human Rights Campaign Foundation. Is it them you don’t trust, or the corporate sponsors you don’t trust (the largest were, as far as I could tell, PlanetOut.com and gay.com)? Personally, I think this new GUPpy-ish trend is just par for the course, and maybe even a sign of growth, for better or for worse.
I think the big difference between previous marches and this one was that this one seemed to be more of a celebration of victories rather than a mobilization against losses. Gave it a very different tone. I think, though, that we were due - every 7 years is a fair timespan, I think.
Esprix
tracer
Sorry, I forgot not everyone speaks queer. “Amendment 2” was an amendment to Colorado’s state constitution, which repealed those civil rights laws which forbade discrimination on the basis of a homosexual orientation (but not a heterosexual orientation) and forbade any entity within the state from outlawing such discrimination. It passed in November 1992, just a few months before the '93 march. It’s fair to say that gay people around the country were terrified of what this could mean nationally. The anger at Amendment 2’s passage fueled the '93 march. Amendment 2 was struck down by the USSC in Romer v. Evans 517 U.S. 620 (1996).
Esprix
You call that a tiara? I wouldn’t put my dog in that underjeweled chink of tin.
I didn’t trust the whole process. I didn’t feel the organizing committee had any real vision or agenda, I don’t feel like they were responsive to community input, and I get enough junk mail, thanks, I don’t need to give HRC my name yet again to pass on to more advertisers desperate for my queer dollars. And in general, no, I don’t trust or respect HRC, for reasons I choose not to delve too deeply into here.
I would rather have seen the time and money spent organizing this thing into building local grassroots networks. HRC seems to think that once ENDA passes all of our problems will be solved, and it just ain’t so. ENDA would be nice, but I’d just as soon see broader protections on state or even local levels. ENDA will, I think, make it harder to get state laws passed because opponents will point to ENDA and say the state law isn’t necessary, despite the state law probably being broader in its protections.
As a kid I fell desperately in love with Judy Garland while watching “The Wizard of Oz.” Living in blissful oblivion to any “gay” connection, I taped her movies, bought some cd’s (cassettes at first- I’m older than that. To make a long story short, I still have a bunch of stuff that now would cause many an eyebrow to raise questioningly, and I don’t even know what the damned connection is! I’ve heard the “friends of Judy” remarks and the jokes on TV, but what the heck is it about Judy Garland that makes her some sort of gay…icon? Rallying point? I don’t even know what to call it. I’ve read two biographies that were utterly silent on the phenomenon.
Which two biographies? I’ve read seven of them (yeah I know) and they all make some reference to her gay following.
Jeez this was years ago. One I have in a box somewhere at home. Its cover is pink with a headshot of her, taken when she was about 30. I know that’s not much help. The other, whose title I don’t recall, was from a college library back in the mid 80’s. That one though, was written by her last husband. I don’t remember his name, but I’m sure you do after reading seven of them!
Hi Esprix, have you noticed you’re all the way up to 9 now? wink wink
Ptahlis wrote:
The cover was PINK, and you still don’t get the gay connection?! 
Actually, I don’t get what makes her appeal to the gay community so specifically. What is it about her style/career/life that makes her such an icon for them? Madonna, I get. Judy Garland? No.
Ok: a joke, a comment, and some questions.
Alan Turing was gay - I’ll never think of “the halting problem” in quite the same way.
matt_mcl said
Yes and no: it means that critical mass has been reached, and it means that someone will be inclined to be in your corner irrespective of their opinions, because there’s a buck involved.
Questions:
This has been running a while now, so it is time to ask the gay guy and his minions what they think of what has been asked.
Are you surprised at what has been asked?
Do you think the general tone of the questions is representative of the SDMB?
If not, why not?
How representative are the members of this board with respect to the general public (of your country, the developed world, or generally)?
Assuming that they are not representative, what is the effect of anonimity of posters versus the demographic?
picmr
Otto wrote:
Bad faggot! No condom!
These seemed to be common complaints - no specific agenda (i.e., no one issue, but rather a blanket statement of the usual stuff), not enough grassroots involvement, and too much commercialism. But, like I said, I see this as growing pains - we’ve gotten big enough to be recognized, for better or for worse, as a demographic.
Pity - I’d love to hear your thoughts. Personally, I greatly admire the HRCF.
An interesting thought, but doesn’t a national-level recognition make a bigger statement than on a state-by-state basis? And remember, ENDA an always be beefed up later, as the community and its recognition seems to be on a roll. My thought here is, we have to start somewhere.
Esprix
I was in DC last Sunday as well. I feel horribly cheated that the ONE time I actually make it to a NATIONAL event, it’s relatively lame.
I and two of my bi friends wore t-shirts I made…a circle, divided in half horizontally, with the top half divided vertically. One half of the top said “50% Gay”, the other half said “50% Straight” and the entire bottom half said “100% Queer.” People loved 'em. I’m thinking of selling 'em, money-grubbing little capitalist pig that I am.
The overall tone to my little ears was sort of, “It’s great that all these people are here to show their support, but…what are we supporting?” There didn’t seem to be much direction. AND…it seemed as though people were wandering around in tight little cliques. I was sort of hoping to meet a few new people. You know, exchange email addresses and suchlike, just make a CONNECTION…but no one seemed remotely approachable.
FEH. I hope there’s another one in less than 7 years…I’m already almost 30, dernit. Oops, another one that’s NOT AS LAME in less than 7 years. There.
Judy had/has just as much of a straight following as a gay following. She was a beautiful woman in her youth, so don’t feel bad about falling in love with her. (Heaven knows Mickey Rooney did in how many films? :D)
“Icon” will suffice.
The subject of gay diva icons has been discussed here a couple of times, so you might actually want to go back and read some of this thread. (Hmmm, perhaps I need to post a page-by-page summary? Good idea, Esprix!)
My take on it all is the pathos - gay men, having their own internal and external conflicts and turmoil, empathise with those on-screen legends that have fought through and triumphed over their own problems, both on-screen and off. Judy’s life was full of contradictions - brilliant childhood star, but her personal life intruded and brought her career to a crawl, and her tragic death was used as a rallying point to iconify her.
I might also point out that it was Judy’s death that sparked the Stonewall riots, which is the watershed event of the modern gay rights movement.
Esprix
It’s not the size of a thread, it’s the… oh, never mind!
Esprix