Thanks for that. For some reason, my figure of eight after Proposition turned into a “cool” icon with sunglasses, and I meant pedantic, not semantic! Anyway…

Basically, we’re both on the same page regarding male suicide. It IS worryingly high. I agree!!! If you read the article again, I never wrote that social progress has put an end to it, but I do certainly think it might help. Of course, it might. This is what I wrote: “Recent social progress here was also too late for men who commit suicide in Donegal or Dublin or Cork or Wexford whose coffins were lowered into the ground to whispers or thoughts of “I think … he was gay.” All of these things are connected.” I think you miss-read that part of the article. I know three gay people who have committed suicide in recent times. One was a friend. One was a friend of my friend’s son. Another was the cousin of a friend. In the latter case his sexuality was unclear, though my friend said that it was believed that he was likely gay. He was a teenager. I don’t know the reason for the first two people taking their own lives. Even my own friend’s reasons. I will never know. Did it have anything to do with life being made more difficult for gay people or was he depressed or was it a moment of madness or was he just tired of life, of was it all of the above? I don’t know. He’s gone. It’s too late to find out. I do know this. The first op-ed I wrote for The Irish Times about gay people being segregated in small towns, we met for lunch and he simply said, ‘Thank you.” I learnt about that from his experience living in a rural area, and the way kids there used to go on. Of course, it was he who helped inform me. And I was the one who owed him the debt of thanks for bringing that to my attention, and I told him so. Those three suicides are in addition to a piece I wrote a couple of years ago for the Sunday Tribune about a young man in Donegal who committed suicide and left a note saying he couldn’t bear the homophobia in his village. I spoke with his sister. She was an amazing, articulate woman and I shall never forget her. So, Neil, I agree with you! I never made that implication you say I did.

On your second point, I don’t think “we” are merely consumers. I never said that either!!! I said we are consumers. There is a big difference. We buy products. That is what I said. There is a power in the choices we all, gay or straight, make as consumers … or, as I wrote, choose not to make. Just like there is a power in the choices we make in the ballot box. We, all of us, are consumers whether we like it or not, and one of the messages from ‘Milk’ and that particular campaign during the 1970s in the Castro was to force companies, such as certain beer companies, into supporting gay rights by boycotting their products. They soon came around. That’s all I meant by that. Hit them where it hurts, if need be. The pocket book. If companies (and I said theatres and airlines and banks … not just shops!) want the patronage, cough up some financial/marketing support. I went to New York last week. I bought one thing while I was there. Actually, two things. A magazine rack, because it was beautiful, on sale, and because I needed one, and a pair of earphones for my iPod as mine were broken. I did not shop till I dropped, let me assure you! I wholeheartedly believe there is more to life than shopping and designer labels. Come to think of it, I have written about that too on many occasions. (I wrote something in the Irish Independent a couple of years ago about the perils of designer labels, which is still online, and in The Irish Times “Consumer Confidence At Its Best”, and “Crying Over Our Canapies”, and when I wrote a couple of social columns some years ago, I used to go bazookas if the PR people sent in gratuitous shots of barmen and cocktail waitresses holding brands of vodka up to the camera, and they slipped through to publication. That’s how strongly I felt about people promoting their alcohol like that. So, again, I think you misinterpreted my article … because we are in agreement on that too.

Finally, I also take your points regarding your stance on gay marriage. You projected an opinion onto me that I simply don’t have (again!). I don’t feel any dissent towards you or anyone who feels like that. I think it is an individual choice, which I respect, I just think the choice should be available to everyone to make, and I think the legal rights (guardianship protection for children under the law; next of kin, pensions, etc.) should be available to all. I definitely don’t think everyone should get married or have a civil union or even live with another person or even have a long-term relationship if they don’t want to. Individual choice. That’s all. But the choice should (only in my humble opinion) be there. The last thing I would ever believe or suggest in any article is that (a) we should all make the same choices regarding relationships or marriage or (b) that gay people shop and that’s what we’re here for. I am fervently, madly in opposition to both of those statements. I can totally (!!!) understand why you were upset if you thought that, but if you read my article again, I hope you will see that that’s not at all, at all, at all what I wrote. At all, at all. I responded because I felt compelled to, because it was a letter addressed to me and, believe it or not, I usually do always responde to all private emails in any event, good and bad, green ink or blue ink, I just rarely do so online.

Now we’re both on the same page, let us move on. You may have spurred me to become more involved in the Blogosphere, so thanks for that. And, Neil, Happy Holidays!

Regards, Q

The ‘gay correspondent’ tag was certainly not intended as a dig at you – I’m very aware that you write on a broad range of topics. Rather it was a slight dig at the Irish Times itself for the paucity of queer opinion pieces that appear within that paper (a paper I have a huge amount of respect for generally, and read on a daily basis). In retrospect, there may have been a little too much haste in my response, and one or two digs may have been thrown in. Now that you have responded in full, perhaps we could park those for a moment, and debate the ultimate issues under discussion.

The monopolisation of queer discourse by the marriage/partnership issue is one that troubles me greatly. I myself was involved in the development and publication of the Labour Party Civil Unions Bill, and equally I have regularly championed the campaign for equal access to civil marriage both within the community and in broader society. That, however, does not imply that it is something I particularly desire for myself, nor does it imply that I am willing to disregard my concerns about the institution of marriage, nor further does it imply that I am willing to sideline other issues of queer liberation and equality that I find personally to be of much greater importance at this time. While some view my opinions as containing a certain contradiction (my own criticisms of marriage combined with my support for the campaigns of ME and Noise), I am of the belief that what Professor Kathleen Lynch referred to as the “demonisation of those who dare to dissent” is becoming readily more apparent within our community, and that is something I feel obligated to challenge.

That demonisation of dissent is obvious in several ways. Firstly, and most obviously, dissenting opinions have become unwelcome within our community. Secondly, however, has been the monopolisation of queer public opinion around the issue of marriage/partnership rights. That said, a cursory glance of the Irish Times archive does indeed reveal the breadth of your coverage on queer issues in recent years, so perhaps my response to you was framed more by my own feelings on this matter than on an entirely fair account of your writing. Let me say quite clearly (since I have implied otherwise in my original post) – you have published many articles on a very broad range of topics relevant to the queer community.

There are, however, two issues with your article that I feel obligated to stand by. Firstly, your implications that social progress has put an end to suicide amongst gay men, and that the occasions on which the sexuality of the deceased may be discussed graveside have come to an end, are wrong. The rates of suicide amongst young gay men remain worryingly high, and I believe that any assertion to the contrary will only serve to detract attention from this lasting issue.

Secondly, while you may feel it to be pedantic, the issue of the othering of queers in society is a vital one, central to any attempts at queer liberation (including any campaign for marriage/partnership rights incidentally). And I do not accept that “we” are merely consumers, as you would describe us. We are not othered by the mainstream for refusing to shop enough, or vote enough etc. We are othered for refusing to accept binary notions of gender, and the challenges to that othering must revolve around an emphasis of our continually productive inputs into society (much more widely than merely as consumers), combined with a fundamental challenge to the way we educate our citizens about gender and sexualities.

Perhaps these issues might face greater scrutiny in the pages of the Irish Times in the months ahead?!

Thanks again for engaging, and indeed for forcing me to continually analyse my own views and motivations.

Neil

Ian – four brief responses.

On the Herald article, I have mixed feelings. I’m delighted to see some of the activists I know, love and greatly admire getting recognition for their work (including David, Katherine, Anne Louise, Ailbhe, Noel and Brian). On the other hand, I think it’s always disappointing that certain figures get overlooked in such lists. Names that spring to mind that are absolutely deserving of equal recognition would be Tonie Walsh, Chris Robson, Katherine O’Donnell, Panti, Orla Howard, Michael Barron, Deborah Ballard, Mick Quinlan, Bernadette Rooney, Arthur Leahy…….

On the queer ‘label’, you and I have long differed on this matter, but I know you have enough of an understanding of queer theory at this point to understand why it is a term I prefer to use. To briefly quote Eve Kosovsky Sedgwick “The immemorial currenat that queer represents is antiseperatist as it is antiassimilationist”. I think that represents my views better than anything else I can say!

On having a ‘focus’ on marriage/partnership rights – I have no issue with such an idea – indeed, as you are well aware, I have had a great involvement in such campaigning work over a period of years at this point. My issue is with the monopolisation of discourse and debate that has recently developed. Fundamentally, I believe that we are at our strongest when we fan the flames of debate and dissent, rather than attempting to render all opposition voiceless.

On your final point, I couldn’t disagree more strongly. We can stand strong as a community while still remaining active citizens in broader society. Most of the queer activists I know are also heavily involved in a variety of non-queer spheres, be that employment, politics, community organisations or so on. Surely, you and I are perfect examples of that, as we share an activity both within our community, and also in the non-queer political sphere.

Thanks for your “open letter”. Firstly, I do write more about more than just gay issues, maybe one every ten or more for that particular paper, so the gay correspondent tag, while a compliment, is not entirely accurate. But I take civil rights seriously, nevertheless … and also take that as a compliment, like I said. However, I was not comparing the two Propositions per se, nowhere am I saying they were similar issues, I was merely making the point that there were two entirely different Propositions (6 and impacting the lives of gay people at two different moments in time … one passed, one did not, which have captured the imagination of gay people and helped mobilise them into action. I did not say they were, in themselves, similar.

When I refer to same-sex marriage, take it from me, I have men AND women on my mind. When I refer to gay people having children, again I have men and women in mind. To say my references to gay suicides negates other mental health (or any other issues) and then to go on to say that is “offensive” is disingenuous of you and, frankly, a real cheap shot. You also present a Catch 22 with that fuzzy logic. But you can take any 840 words and pick them apart with a desire for what you want to read about. I am not of the “misguided” belief that marriage is the only issue. Neil, I have written thousands upon thousands of words on other gay-related issues.

I don’t focus on every gay organisation in every article, that would be impossible, but I mentioned the Gay Switchboard in that article too, if you look. I also believe MarriagEquality is an excellent single-issue group, and have no problem championing it, and make no apologies for that. If you look back at other pieces I’ve written from time-to-time, and I don’t try to tick boxes when I do so (so if that’s what you expect better start writing yourself … that’s one sure way to get things done, Neil, I’ve found), I also mention Gay Pride in other articles, the Irish Queer Archive, GCN, the Gay Prom, the Drag Queens, the Gay Clare Social Group, among others, but I don’t feel a responsibility to divide my attentions meticulously between all organisations. Please feel to jump in any time with your own writing on subjects that are dear to your good self.

Your circular analysis of the “we/they” issue is pretty semantic. It is explicit that I am referring to those from the majority (on the panel) and minority (in the studio audience) and, later in the article, I refer in the conclusion to hate crimes and fear-mongering and intolerance. Again, if you want to pick apart every reference and say there should be a broader/bigger article on each one, that’s easily done, but an endless task. The piece was generally focusing on gay marriage and, implicitly, how some people use children/the institution of marriage as a smokescreen for other views, a theme I will come back to again. Again, I’ve also written about gay people getting mortgages and the problems they face when asked for blood tests, Section 37 (several times, Neil) homophobia in society/media, and I could go on.

Obviously, I can’t expect you to have read everything other people have written, so here’s a tip: don’t make assumptions about other people’s work and what they should/shouldn’t write about, especially when you haven’t read it. I’ve written extensively and personally about many issues, Neil, including homophobic bullying in schools (many times … including a recent 3,000-word in The Irish Times Magazine about the Gay Prom), gay film festivals, gay sporting festivals, gay theatre festivals, gay-bashing (again from a personal perspective … pieces in the Sunday Tribune etc.), hate crimes, gay people living in rural areas, gay literature, the Emerald Warriors, Gay Pride, Alternative Miss Ireland, gay teenagers, Vatican encyclicals, homophobia in the media/school/workplace, etc. And that’s just off the top of my head. I’m sure there are many more, and nor does it include the countless times I weave gay issues/themes into broader pieces.

Still, clearly, for some people, it will never be enough.

Over …. and out.

QF

http://www.herald.ie/entertainment/hq/queer-as-folk-heroes-1579247.html

I don’t entirely agree with your reply –

Firstly I don’t particularly like the label of “queer”

I agree with the broad thrust of your assertion that there are many other issues facing LGBT people then partnership rights BUT in the current context where we have a Minister for justice who clearly wants to present a hugely mimimalist civil partnership bill and is busy attacking Equality in various ways in this country, when we are on the cusp of introducing this historic legislation soon, I think that there needs to be a focus on this issue.

I also think in a broad sense that there is a slightly wider contradiction in some of what you say – you say for example that LGBT people should be ” citizens– active participants in neighbourhoods, sporting teams, churches, families, workplaces” – but then refer to “the LGBT community” – these are not necessarily congruent with each other – ie if LGBT people are active citizens and members of the wider community then there is no need for a somewhat separatist and segregated “LGBT community” – there are also many LGBT people who deny any existence of an “LGBT community”

Anyway just wanted to make those somewhat incoherent points

A shorter letter to Madam based on your piece above would be useful.