Photo illustration by Kensie Wallner

Glitter Molotov

By Josh Boschee
Staff Writer

It appears the LGBT activist community has finally unveiled their latest arsenal, which they have been working on in an underground lab in San Francisco for years. After an initial test run this past May on Newt Gingrich, the glitter bomb has been deployed against anti-gay politicians in force over the past week. Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty found himself pink glittered at his book signing in San Francisco and Representative Michelle Bachman had a near miss by the glitterati while speaking at a conservative online movement conference in Minneapolis.

Will the use of the glitter bomb by the growing number of glitterati be the LGBT movement’s atomic bomb? Will discrimination and injustice against LGBT people end because we have evolved in our understanding of the versatility of glitter?

Debate has exploded amongst activists about the effectiveness of the glitterati and whether this new army of activists will derail the progress of more seasoned activists. It’s a similar debate that I often had with a former boyfriend about whether “non-traditional” activist activities were as effective as working within the current power system to create change. At the time we were dating, I was much more an advocate of working with the current system and say “non-traditional” activities as only opportunities to obtain media attention, a couple sound bites, and distract from the work of changing hearts and minds through dialogue. Like President Obama’s evolution on same-sex marriage, so have I evolved on this debate.

To begin with, the majority of us that lead or are active within the LGBT rights movement are fairly privileged. We generally are college educated, Caucasian, come from middle or higher socio-economic families and are well connected to other persons of influence. With this privilege comes the opportunity to not only increase our access to decision makers to create change within the current power system, but it also allows us to take risks and “act out” in a way that doesn’t require us to conform to the way the current power system. Hence our ability to throw a pie in the face of Anita Bryant, take over television stations during the days of ACT UP or glitter bomb anti-gay politicos. I don’t think an African-American male would have been kindly escorted out of a public event had he pied or glittered a white candidate who had an anti-equality platform in the 1960s.

I do think that dialogue and creating change within the current power system is more effective and sustainable. I also recognize the benefits of acting out every once in a while. The work of Anita Bryant’s pie thrower, ACT UP and today’s glitterati expose anti-gay politicians in a different light. Thanks to the heightened involvement of 24/7 and user generated media, these antics create a different type of buzz and conversation about what these politicians stand for when it comes to LGBT persons. They also introduce many more people to getting involved that may have otherwise not been active in the LGBT rights movement. For some reason, I think it is easier for some people to arm themselves with a bottle of glitter and attend a rally, than it is for them to write a letter to their elected official or bring friends to a candidate forum.

Right, wrong or indifferent, people are getting informed and involved. It is the role of us more seasoned activists to engage these new recruits and educate them on other ways that they can create positive change for their cause. One thing is for sure, once you do your first action towards progress, whether it is writing a letter or glitter bombing, you will be hooked.

I think the bigger fear of mainstream politicians is that with the upcoming repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, they will now be seeing a line item in the Department of Defense’s budget for the development and production of glitter bombs to aid in our fight against worldwide terrorism.

Questions and comments: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)