Last week, a firestorm began when San Francisco Pride announced that Bradley Manning would be an honorary Grand Marshall for their Pride, but then quickly rescinded the offer. The real outcry should have begun after the rescission but there has been close to absolutely nothing. Crickets.

Perhaps the problem is that Manning may be a a great American but not a great Gay American. Unlike other gay heroes, his sexual orientation and his actions can not be used to prove that “Gay is Good.” Manning’s act is far too complex to fall into such a nice neat category, and for Gay to be Good, it must be sound-byte-sized for the  cheerleading gay press as well as the masses.

Before I go further, let me be clear, I know that Manning leaked classified and unclassified documents to Wikileaks. I know the potential for damage to the US and the US Military is present from such an act. I also know that the same can be true for most any governmental whistleblower and I know that no evidence has been found to suggest that Manning’s actions placed anyone at risk. The bottom-line question should not be, is gay good, but rather, is shining light on horrific things that the US has done better than keeping those lies and secrets hidden?

But those outside of the gay community see the importance of Manning’s heroism, so much so that he has been considered for a Nobel Peace prize. The government’s case is not substantial, yet their treatment of Manning has been horrific. If the government is permitted to bully everyone here, the results could be detrimental to the Free Press.  Manning’s actions benefit the whole of democracy in a foundational way similar to Bayard Ruskin and Alan Turing, two other patriots who are only being heralded posthumously. Yet Manning’s actions are adversarial to the US Government, a parent-like entity from which the gay community is still seeking acceptance.

Another reason why the community can not embrace Manning is that his actions don’t align well with the myth of “the good soldier,” and after fighting for so long to repeal DADT, the community cares about promoting the image that good gays are good soldiers. Indeed, it was LGBT enlisted individuals who complained to San Francisco Pride such that their invite was revoked from Manning. We expect soldiers to follow orders and do as told and assimilate into the status quo. Manning isn’t a good soldier, but rather a heroic patriot calling out inequities and the abuse of power. The repeal of DADT allows gays to be good soldiers and anyone who threatens that, is problematic.

In her op-ed for the Advocate, Victoria Brownsworth takes San Francisco Pride to task, as a corporate prostitute that welcomes greedy corporate interests, but chastises a gay patriot like Manning. She summarizes San Francisco Pride, and by extension all Prides, as just a business, caring more about making a buck and inconsistent with the legacy of  the Stonewall Inn rebellion. Manning role models a 21st century digital version of the Stonewall uprising. His actions ask everyone to consider the status quo and stand up against horrific acts of the Government. Brownsworth’s piece ought to be required reading, and I think the best part of it, is the critical analysis of Pride director William’s press release. It isn’t Pride  organizations which are the problem per se, but rather the inability of their leaders to manage the full breath of inclusivity for the whole of the LGBTQ community. William’s dismisses Manning the whistleblower in an offensive way, similar to the way the homo-haters dismiss gays and lesbians. Williams others Manning, and declares him dangerous. Where have we experienced that before? As much as the good soldier conforms to the military status quo, the good gay conforms to the Pride status quo, and to question it is blasphemous.

A part of this which no one within the LGBTQ community has addressed is the role that Wikileaks played in this situation. In court testimony however, this became clear. The Government would not have gone after this so aggressively, had it been the New York Times, or other mainstream journalism to which the documents had been leaked. Rather it was the new fangled uncontrollable use of the Internet and the free sharing of documents which prompted such fury. I have to wonder if the Government could have punished Wikileaks more directly, if Manning would have been treated more humanely.

At stake in this situation may be the future of democracy and what it means to be an informed citizenry. I don’t believe I’m overstating the importance, and for a gay man to be at the heart of it is important. Will the LGBT community stop focusing solely on Gay Marriage long enough to recognize the turning point we are at here with this case and with Bradley Manning? I especially love this quote from Justice Hugo L. Black, found in the linked NYT op-ed:

The guarding of military and diplomatic secrets at the expense of informed representative government provides no real security for our Republic.