For over a decade, corporations have used big-budget campaigns to endorse the Gay Pride Parade and to create mega-advertising showing their alliance with the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer community.
This is in stark contrast with the New York City Stonewall Riots of 1969, which through much bloodshed and tears, culminated in the first Gay Pride Parade in 1970. The 1950s and ’60s saw many human rights issues come to a head, and this was no different for the LBGTQ communities who faced violent repression for their sexualities.
After being banned from bars, beaten by the police in the streets and especially targeted if they were a queer person of color, one has to ask, “what would the pioneers of gay equality and rights think about pride today?”
Many people see corporate presence at pride as a victory. Establishments that would once refuse association or even business from gay customers now use big money to assist the creation of pride parades that feel for many as though they have won the sweet taste of tolerance.
“I think that corporate sponsorship shows how far we have come, and I think it is great that companies are being responsible and showing their support for gay rights,” said Sam Smith, a biology graduate student at PSU. Smith went on to say that when he was a child, big name sponsorship would have never happened and that he is happy to think about what this means for queer kids growing up today.
For others this simply isn’t enough, and sponsorship represents a bittersweet and sometimes downright outrageous attempt at co-opting and marketing to a target audience.
“Apparently my ‘pride’ is sponsored by Smirnoff this year,” said Chris Lang, an adult retail clerk. “It bothers me a lot because on one hand they are supporting us but on the other hand it is only because of our spending power. They didn’t give a shit about us when we were getting out asses beat by the police decades ago. The gays gave up too easy, as soon as they got a little acceptance. It makes me sick to see the cops marching with us now.”
Portland’s Pride can be seen as lucky, as we tend to have fewer corporations and more local businesses than most cities. Oregon native Nike was a sponsor in 2011, marketing an array of rainbow garb for the event.
Debra Porter, president of Pride NW Inc., insists that pride organizers look at the Human Rights Campaigns Top 100 index when accepting sponsors. Porter said that when accepting sponsors, “we look at specific issues, like corporate policies around employee benefits (particularly as regards health insurance, partner benefits, trans-inclusive policies, etc.) and corporate culture, in terms of their LGBTQ employees. For example, is our community represented in upper management?”
Porter also expressed knowledge about opposition to corporate sponsorship at Pride, but added, “Some of the largest contingents in the parade are employee affinity groups. Typically, it is those groups—those employees—who have asked their companies to sponsor Pride as a means to give back to the LGBTQ community and to demonstrate their own pride in their workplaces.”
This perspective denies one major fact: that the attendees of Pride carry multiple badges of identity, not just queer ones. There are workers and union members, animal liberationists, feminists and environmentalists to name a few. It shouldn’t be asked of them to leave these identities at the gate, because at pride there are small, inadequate victories in the name of capitalism to celebrate.
The question remains, “What should disenfranchised LBGTQ folks do about it?” One strategy is to do what anti-capitalist group SHAME has done in the past and march alongside people who share in their disapproval. Another has been the recent call for “Corporate-Free Pride” marches in other cities, such as “Join the Impact-Twin Cities.”
Could it be that the solution is more division? Ultimately, what is shown more than anything else is that the LBGTQ community cannot be boxed in. Though it might be good for advertising to create a target market audience, LBGTQ communities prove that they are not that homogenous. ?