I recently commented on the 30th Anniversary of the Sydney Gay & Lesbian Mardi Gras, the biggest Pride march on earth:

http://johnheard.blogspot.com/2008/02/dreadtv-john-heard-on-sydney-gay_28.html

Even in Sydney, however, the event is in deep crisis and similar marches around the globe are dwindling or dead.

Why? Do you know of (official/unofficial) Catholic groups that participate in such events? How can they justify that participation? Do you go? What is the crowd mix like? Older? Younger? Divided according to subculture and politics? What is it about Pride marches that seems so out of touch? What offends religious people, especially Catholics? Would you take your family or let your children watch one on the television?

- JH

John, if people don't like it, they don't need to participate, attend or watch it!

What maybe started as 'Pride', has turned into some carnival. Extravaganza, sexually provocative. In that sense, no one needs it anymore: sex is omnipresent in the media, besides that the point of being gay is much more than the sex thing. If a Pride March is people's idea of fun, then that's their preference and they're entitled to it, but any claim that it's the yearly 'gay people's mission statement' is complete nonsense. It has no political meaning anymore, if it ever had at all. There's also the problem in public perception: too many people still think a Pride March is a 'statement' of some sort and it's not: it's just some gays and lesbians having an outfront and debaucherous party. There is much more attributed to it than what it actually is.

Many gay folks feel embaressed by it as well. I've always felt uneasy about it and never attended any kind of march. From an emancipatory point of view, I think it's more damaging than good. It's much more effective to be responsible in all areas of your life, be good for your gay friends or lover, and for the straights too, haha. Be an individual, well-adjusted, caring, hard-working. This may sound like a cliche, but we really need other ways of demonstrating that homos are ok (not perfect, but just humans...;-) ).

Partying is fine, but you know, there are so many ways to do that.

Except, of course, if it's like it is in Sydney, NYC, San Francisco and elsewhere and the Pride march receives taxpayers funds, the route goes through residential/commercial areas and blocks off pedestrian/traffic access. Except, of course, also if the march is broadcast in primetime and marketed all over the world.

This is before even mentioning the massive drug problems, noise pollution and other ways in which a parade most people reject intrudes on their daily and (sadly) family/municipal life.

Pride march libertarianism is not so practical/helpful at describing and then providing solutions for, the real life problems that are obvious on the ground.

- JH

"but any claim that it's the yearly 'gay people's mission statement' is complete nonsense".

And, if it is some sort of statement, what on earth is the message? Sex? Drugs? Paganism? Who wants to be associated with those sorts of nasty, often viciously anti-Christian and anti-family/community messages?

- JH

Yes, I suspect sex, drugs and outrageous behavior. "We're here, and f**k the rest". Not a very uplifting message. Many of the participants are dragging themselves down without even realizing it, perhaps they think it's fabulous.

By the way, I never understood the Pride-concept to begin with. How can one be proud of a non-chosen trait? You can take pride in achievements or things you've accomplished, but not your hair-colour or your sexual inclinations.

Vincent,

The attitude of pride is incongruous for the human being. Pride is an absurd posture for a creature, because not even our good works belong to us. Consider what John of the Cross says about this:

"All the goodness we possess is lent to us, and God considers it his own work. God and his work is God."

and

"If you wish to glory in yourself, but do not wish to appear ignorant and foolish, discard the things that are not yours and you will have glory in what remains. But certainly if you discard all that is not yours, nothing will be left, since you must not glory in anything if you do not want to fall into vanity. But let us descend now especially to those graces, the gifts that make people pleasing in God's sight. It is certain that you must not glory in these gifts, for you do not even know if you possess them."

Clayton,

You cited John of the Cross:

"All the goodness we possess is lent to us, and God considers it his own work. God and his work is God."

I think this points to the eternal link between God and His creation, including you and me and everything living. Pride is a way of cutting that link perhaps.

Gay people are called to God as well. And it is through Christ we can be His again completely.

John,

Your contribution to Mardi Gras was fantastic, because you formulated a positive alternative agenda to Pride and gay marriage: HIV, substance abuse, help for the closeted and suffering, solidarity with our fellow gay brothers and sisters in other countries who face torture and death.

So the answer to the topic question is: No, we don't need Pride Marches anymore. At least for me.

One more thing... and then I'll shut up...you mentioned on your Mardi Gras presentation something very crucial: collaboration with others, people of good will, Christian conservatives, etc. Pride is a way of locking oneself up, a harnass against hurt or anger. It's the reaching out that's crucial. We must show each other our humanity, and join together and learn from each other's insights. Being 'proud' as part of the GLBTIXYZ etc. community isn't gonna help much. It's surprising and miraculous what happens when people drop their Pride.

"It's surprising and miraculous what happens when people drop their Pride."

Yes, we open ourselves to flourishing and community!

- JH

Interesting that in that Cohen piece he writes about "...the free exchange of ideas".

I doubt many people access porn sites for their scholarly value.

As for "legislating public morality in the case of pride parades" - we must be careful when assuming that positive/public morality is aligned with the Catholic/Christian ethic.

In many cases, especially in neo-Pagan or apparently post-Christian countries like the UK, this is manifestly not the case.

It is harder to discern where people line up in Australia and Canada, but in the US - I think - decency laws and public morality arguments and statutes seem to have high level and influential defenders (Scalia, Alito, Roberts on the SCOTUS, Bush in the WH, even many in the House and Senate).

However, the US is also the place par excellence for free speech as a precious and fundamental, positive right. There is a natural tension.

One way out of the bind, perhaps, and leaving aside the desirability or otherwise of any authoritarian or paternalistic projects, I've always been impressed by the dry, tempered approach liberal democracies take to cranks.

Sometimes an unworthy ideology/speaker/movement, etc. will thrive under more restrictive orderings, but free things up - provide enough rope, as the saying goes - and good people, even only basically informed citizens, will pick the most harmful things apart. At least, they tend to reject them when it comes to election time.

I argued along those (perhaps more libertarian) lines, albeit briefly and on a Muslim Mufti's comments, here:

http://johnheard.blogspot.com/2007/01/dreadpublishing-john-heard-in.html

Doesn't seem to work on abortion (yet), but that might have something to do with the content and delivery of the pro-life message (i.e., for too long, too many pro-lifers treated women as the enemy, not as another putative victim of the sort of society that forces women to make a false choice for her child or for other, apparently mutally exclusive, basic goods).

Does this mean pink-haired lesbians should parade down Christopher St with their breasts out? The answer must be no, but there is great instructive value in letting people see what is so wrong with that sort of morality (or lack, thereof) and certainly the marches seem to be dying out.

How much more desirable that a thing collapses under the weight of its inherent superficiality, immodesty and moral/political vacuity, than having to force/coerce change; and potentially put otherwise sympathetic libertarians, etc. off-side?

- JH

I think that as humans, we're always looking for things to be proud of. There are the usual inferiority (as a result of social or personal pressure) prides - gay pride, black pride, ... But there are also the rest - medical doctor pride, wealth pride, ...

I would go further and say that pride in achievements is just as shallow as being proud of inherited traits. Below the surface, it's all the same.

Saul,

I think you're right that even pride in achievements can be shallow or superficial. But there is something called self-esteem, a healthy sense of self other than pride.

Doesn't a person need some kind of self-esteem? Or is even that Pride?

Here in Los Angeles there is a major event in [West] Hollywood. We can imagine the convergence of spectacle and commercial "persuasion" (product placement/advertisement in its full,shameless, and unadulterated glory) along with floats and cars to rival our Rose Parade. It's difficult to disconnect the particular L.A. "flavor" of Pride parades from consumerism. I'm sure this is a growing trend elsewhere, with commercial sponsors grabbing free TV time in the daily news for such events. Many Southern California gays freely and openly revel in this mindset, from fashion on their bodies, to fashion in their "decaf grande, half-soy, half low fat, iced vanilla, quad shot, gingerbread cappuccino, extra dry, light ice, with one Sweet & Low and one NutraSweet to go" shall-I-dare-to-call-it-coffee cup.

Still, some are wary (and I don't just mean the "closeted" types), or at least try to convince themselves it's worth going to anyway, turning a blind eye to the gaudy glare of glittering speedos and hair-dos. There is an outpouring of support by local churches such as St. Monica's in Santa Monica. Here they have an "excursion" by an LGBT ministry group to this parade every year, as a show of solidarity and what they consider deeper, "human rights" issues.

I always found it difficult to understand how a rowdy, liquor-and-energy-drink-ad-laden parade is a human rights issue, however.

You have anywhere from middle-schoolers to septuagenarians, to whole famiilies, both with parents of the opposite sex, and "parents" of the same sex, either eagerly joining in the festivities, or at least secretly enjoying the spectacle from the sidelines. Never forgetting, of course, the token hard-right evangelical with blaring signs about eternal damnation for "sodomites, unsubmissive wives, and Catholics," among many others (with "unloving husbands" in 10-point font).

Each "sexual subculture" has its own "space", or place separated by some meaningful gap between the former and then next: "bears, twinks, drag-queens (the tallest I've ever seen, even without their platforms!), etc.," grace each section of the parade's segments, turning it into a unique species of giant caterpillar (fuzzy protrusions and all).

To me, it is a spectacle, rather empty in its perpetual, commercial nature. Whatever Pride parades used to mean, at least politically or socially, now mean something else. I choose not to go for a few reasons. I do not feel I associate with that kind of attitude toward any kind of sexual expression, nor do I feel I share the same opinion on what it means to be "proud" of one's self (for it is not we who do good, but Christ in and through us). As you all mentioned before, selfish Pride separates us from God; but there is a type of pride, perhaps analogous to the pride a parent has of their child, that is inherently good (doubtless by sin it can be turned into something negative). This is definitely not the pride displayed in these parades (and if it is by certain individuals, by virtue of the whole, that individual's good intention is rendered futile). I merely ignore the show, acknoledge that it goes on, but have become indifferent to its existence, like the ads in between segments of Heroes on NBC. No matter how much louder they are than the actual show, they are nothing more than an annoyance, to be turned down and tuned out.

What makes this parade different than the "wholesome, All-American" sort, where veterans of old and new wars followed along with high school marching bands, sports teams, giant Garfield the Cat balloons, or sweet-smelling million-flower-petal floats? What does the above express that is inherently different from a parade that showcases the intricate private lives of an already overly-[homo]sexualized population? I think many of us, as religious people, as practicing Catholics, prefer the non Gay-Pride types because these other groups represent ideas that bring people together, not to create divisions based on sexual tendencies and practices, but rather to find common ground on very much deeper things: we attribute a status of honor (badly recognized in this country, even by some who say they do) to fighters of wars (especially more just wars in memory); music is a deeply human expression with which we not only communicate with each other but also with God; many sports are to people representative of societies working in unison for a common purpose (where even the "underdog" has a chance to succeed with effort and support); we take the beauty of flowers and use it,with the hands of many people, to create other beautiful things; now the Garfield balloon thing - I don't know about that! Haha. I guess sometimes people just want to watch something strange or silly on Thanksgiving. Maybe we should move WeHo's Pride Parade to the fourth Thursday in November.

I'm not sure what self-esteem really means. It seems to me one of those things more conspicuous in its absence. If you torture yourself about characteristics or properties you don't have, then you lack self-esteem. If you don't, then you have self-esteem! Or in other words, you're okay.

Interesting point - I tend to agree with you, Saul.

OK, so if a person is content with the fact that he's gay, then he has self-esteem. To me, there is a difference between pride and self-esteem. One is bragging about something, the other is a healthy sense of self.

I think the lack of "gay pride" these days is a reflection of SSA youth (of which I'm a part of) simply not viewing sexuality as a big deal. I may be gay, I'm also white male blond with green eyes.. all characteristics of which I have no particular shame in holding.. but I am hardly "proud" of... after all, I didn't exactly work hard to get these characteristics.

The LA Pride Parade happens in Los Angeles today.

http://lapride.org/

According to a survey on the home page for the event, activism is one of the least popular agendas of site visitors.
Here's the breakdown currently:

What's your agenda?
Answers: Votes (Percent)
Activism: 543 (8%)
Ending Hate: 1797 (25%)
Finding Love: 1652 (23%)
Marriage Equality: 1701 (24%)
Volunteerism: 260 (4%)
The Perfect Martini: 1114 (16%)

So, if this poll is accurate, of those who attend the PRIDE event (which is already select sub-group of the same-sex attracted population), only 1/4 are interested in marriage equality.

I'm not surprised. It's a non-starter with most men.

That 23% is sad / telling. I written before of the loneliness that drives otherwise solid men to cavort, and preen on floats, etc:

http://johnheard.blogspot.com/2006/05/dreadsong-within-your-wounds-hide-me.html

That 4% is pretty sorry too.

- JH

I think the Christian community could benefit from listening to what same-sex attracted persons are actually looking for... which largely seems to be acknowledgement as persons, being received in love, etc.

These are fundamental human needs. We need to do a better job of articulating that we acknowledge and confirm these aspirations, while pointing out the behaviors that only complicate and contradict the fulfillment of these needs.

The St. Joan of Arc Catholic (not really Catholic) church in Minneapolis has been in the news the lasts few days because the new Archbishop John Neinstedt told them they could no longer support or promote the Gay Pride Parade in our city. I haven't followed it much in the media.

Thanks for the news Barb. I've blogged in the past on the strange happenings there.

- JH

As opposed to taxpayer funds for WYD in Sydney? It's all a process of co-optation. . . Marching for Gay Pride? Why not? People march because they're 'proud' of their country (ANZAC Day) or their belief system (Are there Easter Parades still? Are they even religious? I'm sure I saw it advertised!). Maybe 'Pride' is not the right word, but if one's parents/peers/family/culture tells one to be shameful of one's sexuality, what should one feel once one realises that shame is not necessary?

Well, of course, there are many things we should be ashamed of - treating others badly, failing ourselves, falling short of the standards God sets down for flourishing / the Good, etc.

Catholics have never been terribly keen on bald nationalism, and inasmuch as a Pride March can be seen to celebrate selfish or sinful things, participation would appear to be outside the path a man must take for holiness, goodness, and compassion.

When Catholics join a Corpus Christi procession, or some other sort of public witness, it is not indeed to celebrate themselves - it is to glorify / worship God.

I'd add, too, that a lack of shame does not - in those things where shamefulness is not correct - entail something like brazeness, or "pride".

- JH

Conceptually I agree of course! But in practise, the agent of moral progression does not feel shame, or shame's friend, guilt, at least not for 'transgressions' 'against' 'society' or the supernatural. Celebrating selfishness and sin? Where do I sign up?! That's part of the point of the Pride march I think: celebrating the 'wins', the freedoms that have been fought for and gained. Of course, there are many of the opinion that the state should be an enforcer and arbiter of morality. May I enquire what you think the probability of out fag Christians being accepted or tolerated in any denomination would be without the (mostly) secular movements that came before?

I don't know anything about "the agent of moral progression". If he is a nihilst construction, I'm not sure what I could learn from him - or, indeed, what he would think to learn from me.

What you call "wins" I call failures, in many respects. Disobedience is sinful. If you don't agree, march - but the post is for those who agree on this point, and wonder if they can march otherwise.

"Out fag Christians" might describe a number of DREADNOUGHTERS, many of whom would argue that secular movements, inasmuch as they've been rabidly anti-Catholic (like ACT-Up, etc.) have, rather slowed acceptance of diversity (or brotherhood). More often than not, and sadly, they've encouraged a sense of woundedness, or suspicion on the part of orthodox Christians towards their same sex attracted fellows.

We have much work to do to separate ourselves, as faithful Catholics who happen to be same sex attracted, from those how are faithful to some other (sexual, neo-Pagan) creed, and just happen to be (when it suits) disruptively Catholic.

The first thing we can do is, often, not march in a Pride parade:

http://johnheard.blogspot.com/2008/03/dreadpublishing-being-heard-john-heard.html

- JH

Pride can be as ugly and warping as shame, and it certainly is not the right way or an effective way to conquer false shame. I only know Pride Marches from TV-footage and most of it is a complete embarrassment, even from an easthetic point of view. It makes many gay folks wonder: if this is it, maybe I was right for feeling ashamed. ;-)

Non-violent civil disobedience too? Disobedience towards who? The state, the church, the corporation? I'd argue that the wins that have accrued are not and never will be perfect, and ergo the conservative (who is inherently against any social reform whatsoever) would of course describe the expansion of human directed and human centred freedoms failures. It's trite to point out, but benefits have costs. I cannot comment on ACT-Up directly, but 'rabid' anti-Catholicism is maybe a by-product of, allow me to be trite again, say 2008+ years of persecution at the hands of the co-religionist (did Chris Hitchens make that word up? Haha). I find it very difficult to believe that it is somehow the 'fault' of secular human rights movements that there is 'suspicion' of queers by orthodox Christians. . . trite alert: the old testament.