The Straight Agenda

Consider this statement:

I hate it when straight people are all in-your-face about their sexuality.

It sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? Ask yourself why and you'll find the answer is because it is never stated... but it's reversal is incredibly common in mainstream [i.e. straight] speech.

Why is this? Why do you always hear corporate media discuss the ills of gays forcing their 'agenda' onto unsuspecting innocent children (who journalists often assume are all straight), but you never hear any news source discuss the ills of the 'heterosexual agenda'?

One could argue that efforts to limit the rights and legal protections of LGBT U.S.ians are part of the 'sinful' members of the heterosexual agenda. I'm not arguing that there is any heterosexual agenda, but that the very argument that creating safe spaces for LGBT individuals in the workplace is part of some vast conspiracy to limit the rights of heterosexuals is inherently flawed. Given that LGBT U.S.ians are awarded less civil liberties and protections than heterosexuals (when it is perfectly legal to fire someone because of their sexual orientation in 29 states, and/or because of their gender identity or expression in 38 states), these basic rights are not "special". Straight people are not fired from their jobs for being straight, as straight is seen as the default, or norm in this country. Many people even fail to remember that heterosexuality is itself a sexual orientation, just as so many fail to recognize Caucasian as a race (think about how white people are often baffled at the concept of white culture).

In this country (and in many other industrialized western nations) when we mention learning about race, so many of us immediately think of non-white people. When we mention learning about gender, so many of us immediately think about women. When we mention learning about sexual orientation, so many of us immediately think of gay men (lesbians, bisexuals, and other sexualities considered "deviant" are often forgotten about in addition to heterosexuals).

Heterosexual privilege #7: My sexual orientation is unconsciously and consciously considered the default sexual orientation.

As an example of not being part of the "default", let us consider the skin color phenomenon in this country, where anything "skin colored" or "nude colored" is automatically assumed to be the color of white people's skin. Anyone remember this dress that Michelle Obama wore? Fashion critics (and even the dress's designer) referred to the dress as "nude" colored... when it is obviously not the color of Michelle Obama's skin.

Here's an excellent link that points to maleness as being frequently considered the default of sex in the U.S.

And finally, the piece de resistance, Republicans (or gay oppression party, w'evs) accused Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor of being "biased" in her judicial decisions during her confirmation hearings... not realizing that they assumed white men are racially neutral in all judicial decisions. Oops!

How convenient when people who claim we live in a post-racial society (i.e. arguing "We're all color-blind") actually mean that only white people live in a post-racial society... because, you know, whiteness isn't a race, natch! (please note my excessive sarcasm).

Anywayz, back to my gay agenda. If I were an African American marching with Dr. King, would you say I had a black agenda? If I were a woman working with Elizabeth Cady Stanton fighting for Women's Suffrage, would you accuse me of having a women's agenda? If I were disabled and working with Edward Roberts to ensure that federal organizations cannot fire someone solely because of their handicap, would you say I had a disabled agenda?  If you would, then I would be proud to be part of all of these agendas (and more).

To say that Frederick Douglass wanted to limit the rights of white people or that Betty Freidan wanted to limit the rights of men (which some people still think) is absolutely false. They wanted equality for all people regardless of identity status, not just who the religious right happens to like (i.e. wealthy straight christian men... yes, the religious right hurts women).

Okay, time for me to go spread the gay gospel by converting innocent straight children into devious little gays who support heavily taxing the wealthy with my homo-socialist-witchcraft-powers. Muahahahahahahaha.

p.s. Albus Dumbledore was gay, and no one ever complained about him implementing the gay agenda!! Or maybe that's why Hufflepuff was formed... to act as a gay and lesbian task force at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry... This is obviously the most critical piece to my argument.

-Harvey Milk Jr.