AIDS Crisis

Another pivotal epoch characterizing the external and internal struggles within the LGBT/Q community began during the 1980s AIDS crisis. During this horrific period in history where entire communities were being devastated, for a time, it appeared that members of LGBT/Q communities were uniting as they struggled to gain public attention and governmental aid to deal with this ravaging disease. Scholars argued that the 1980s Reagan Administration had largely ignored the growing AIDS epidemic because gay men were the most visible victims of the virus (Duberman 1999, Shepard 2001, Thompson 1994). Further, the only drugs on the market to treat HIV at that time were so expensive that only the wealthy could afford them. In response to the government’s silence and the unfair gouging of the pharmaceutical companies,

activist groups such as ACT UP and Queer Nation grew in large numbers as lesbians and gays started working together again. For a brief time, ACT UP was able to reinvigorate the legacy of gay liberation and moved the gay rights movement away from assimilationist civil rights lobbying groups. Shephard (2010) argues that AIDS activism and the social justice activism driving it, were linked with queer activism that surpassed the gay civil rights agenda. Their advocacy consisted of protesting the actions of health organizations, government agencies, and pharmaceutical companies in hope of receiving attention and the much-needed aid to combat the disease. These groups actively fought against the growing stigmatization facing queer and gay people due to the AIDS epidemic.

Boehmer (2000) argues that while the community in some regards did rally together, the AIDS crisis also highlighted the internal factions the lesbian and gay community because the early AIDS organizations were predominantly male and white, thereby often ignoring the needs of women and people of color. Due to the devastating effects of HIV/AIDS, the celebratory climate about sexuality was largely silenced and was replaced with public health messages that promoted safe-sex and demonized any expression of sexuality outside a heteronormative

framework. For instance, being gay had long been stereotyped as being promiscuous, especially regarding gay men, so the dominant message emphasized monogamy in hope of combating this image. Many Americans believed that if a person contracted HIV, they deserved it—a sentiment that held salience for decades following the crisis (CDC 2000). In attempt to combat these negative perceptions, mainstream gay organizations formed to change the image of gay culture and gay lifestyles. The messages from mainstream gay activists worked to reinforce and privilege certain bodies and identities over others; and they accomplished this by casting non- normative gender presentations and sexuality as “deviant,” “risky” and “deadly” versus those

subscribing to homonormative ideas that focused on monogamy and gender-appropriate presentations as “clean,” “safe” and “respectable” (Warner 1999).

The mainstream groups that espoused respectability politics launched national campaigns in hopes of “cleaning up” the image of homosexuality. Warner (1999) argues that the strategy for gay rights and current trajectory of the movement operate through the politics of shaming. The mainstream movement had been successful in challenging the stigma associated with gay identities but only by reinforcing the shame associated with sex. Thus, we witnessed a de-

stigmatizing and normalizing of gay identities start to happen, by disassociating the identity from the sexual act, because sex between two people of the same-sex is still largely considered

perverted by heterosexual society. The mainstream gay community believed that in order to win rights and acceptance from a heterosexist society, “good gay citizens” needed to work to divorce their identities from any sexual act. These mainstream gay groups focused on closing

bathhouses, bars, and targeting public sex locales. However, this strategy certainly did not end with the AIDS crisis. These goals of assimilation and respectability remain central to many of the most visible and contemporary lesbian and gay organizations today; and the desire for

normalization can be seen in the desexualizing discourse still utilized in contemporary gay politics as well.

Queer activists have long argued that the normalizing strategy coming from mainstream lesbians and gays collude with the structures of heteronormativity. They argue that

homonormative lesbians and gays privilege assimilation, which ultimately marginalizes those who do not adhere the values that govern heteronormative society. On the contrary, queers posit that the gay rights movement should be about speaking out against mainstream politics that are

racist, sexist, classist, and homophobic, and work to destabilize social institutions, power structures, and the gender binary.

Both types of groups are fighting for equality, yet have very different perspectives on what equality looks like and how to gain rights in this country. For the past several decades, the mainstream lesbian and gay organizations focused on overturning homophobic policies such as Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) and Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). They argued that

equality would be reached when all people can access any social institution, specifically the right to serve in the military and the right to get married. While there is nothing inherently wrong with this argument, queers critique this logic and argue that buying into these institutions will not truly grant freedoms or bring social justice. Rather, this effort only perpetuates inequities within this country through the patriarchal institution of marriage and the spread of violence and imperialism through participation in the military industrial complex.