Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 13:15:37 +0200 (EET)

Here are the minutes from the Euro-ILGA conference on Hofaism.

MINUTES OF THE CAUCUS ON HOFAISM AS A CRITICAL ALTERNATIVE TO GAY LIBERATION

Facilitator:  President of the Union of Gay and 
Lesbian Families- HOFA.
____________________________________________________________________________

Few participants attended the caucus depite prior agreements and a great 
expression of interest on this, up to now, rather unknown topic.

The purpose of the caucus was to clarify the nature of Hofaism within the 
worldwide Lesbian and Gay Community and, as well, to clarify the 
fundemental differences between Gay Liberation and Hofaism. A subtopic 
was also the possibilities for cooperation between Hofaists and Gay 
Liberationists on certain principle issues.

THE FOLLOWING POINTS WERE MADE DURING THE CAUCUS:

Hofaism is working for the establishment of an alternative lifestyle to 
the "gay life" within the worldwide Community. The international 
organisation The Union of Gay and Lesbian Families- HOFA, was established 
in order to promote this more "family- and monogamyoriented" alternative. 
The ideas of Hofaism and the rather detailed bylaws of the organisation 
HOFA are two seperate entities. The ideas of Hofaism are broader in 
perspective and more pluralistic. HOFA is not a religious organisation. 
HOFA has no ties with any political party nor with any religious sect of 
organisation. HOFA is a member of the Gay and Lesbian Parents' Coalition 
International (a form of cooperation with large organisaation 
representing different issues of importance to Hofaists). GLPCI is a 
forum for Lesbian and Gay parents in need of support and information.

Hofaism, as an ideologi and philosophy, as traced back to the beginnings 
of the Gay Liberation movement, not so as to create a split in the 
Community, but rather as a key to a very needed debate which should lead 
to the further developement of our entire Community. Herewith, Hofaism 
states that a science called "Gay Criticism" is of the utmost importance- 
that is, a science/philosophy of criticism of the Movement, of conditions 
within our Community and, as well, of the very assumptions which Gay 
Liberation is making (for instance, about homosexual monogamous families  
being an attempt to copy "hetersexual" institutions). The descussion 
should be (unlike at present) free, democratic and creative. Peculiar to 
Hofaism is the belief that descrimination against homosexuals (indeed, 
discrimination in general) is the result of "societal ranking" by the 
"group or groups with most resources" or "the group in charge" in each 
society which also posesses the power of definition (good and bad, high 
and low, even words of description, etc.). Thus, descrimination, in 
short, functions as a toold for the division of society. This is a result 
of the fact that different groups are competing for resources and power, 
because resources and power are usually limited in each society. South 
Africa, where a minority with"the resources" has ruled over a mass 
majority and where Chinese immigrants are classified as "coloured" while 
Japanese merchants are classed as "honourary whites" was used as a 
taypical example of this hypothesis.

The difference between Hofaism and Gay Liberation is in short that Gay 
Liberation seems to be proposing a sort of integration after an 
informative and legislative process of societal change within each 
society. This is often characterized as a melting away of the divisions 
of sex, sexual preference, etc. Gay Liberationists often state that the 
only thing uniting the sexual minority is sexual preference and outside 
pressure from a homophobic society. The Hofaists strongly disagree with 
this hypothesis and instead propose that certain fundemental innate 
characteristic differences are to be found between heterosexuals and 
homosexuals. Hofaism also refutes the above-mentioned view of the future 
developement as UTOPIAN. Instead, the Hofaist movement supports the 
hypothesis that the competition between different groups will continue 
into the future, including the tendency toward discrimination of 
homosexuals and that the Community must establish a strong identity of 
its own, autonomous from that from the society at large. 

It was stressed that this does NOT imply the formation of Gay ghettos, 
but rather the active participation of Lesbians and Gays within the key 
professions and areas of the society-at-large accompanied by the 
formation of strong Lesbian and Gay institutions as well as an efficient 
neutral general education for those coming our of the closet about their 
own minority, its history and culture, as well as its different 
ideological and philosophical schools of thought (i.e. Gay Liberation, 
Hofaism, Gay Spirituality).

The three important societal units within Hofaism are:

  1) the minority
  2) the local organisations/congregations or communities (which all
     take on certain social and other needs of their members) 
  3) the homosexual family unit (household)
Hofaism prefers and propogates the formation of many smaller 
organisations which, through a long-sighted thinking and proper 
socialization, understand value and function of cooperation on key 
issues. Larger coalitions would merely be established in the case of 
concrete projects. The organisations should seek ongoing funding from the 
members and from donors and thus avoid the "free-rider" problem so common 
today (at least in Europe). Hofaism complains about the ineffectivity of 
the use of vital resources and the seeming lack of serious, new ideas or 
will to try new things within the traditional Lesbian and Gay movement.

A delegate from Estonia objected to the categorical description of "Gay 
Liberation" stating that according to her, Gay Liberation may be many 
different things to many different people. She also added that the 
decisions and actions of certain individuals within Gay Liberation should 
not necessarily be interpreted as the official ideological viewpoint of 
this movement. The Estonian delegate wished to add new dimensions to the 
model of the division of society into different layers (societal 
ranking). No concrete rationale for these new dimensions was indicated. 
She also proposed a community-model  with a national Lesbian and Gay 
organisation in the centre surrounded by other smaller organisations and 
interest groups (an American model?), all working in cooperation with 
each other, with no certain organisation giving orders.

The Hofaists explained that, for the time being, they do not feel that they
wish to or can use the rainbow flag as their flag, but instead the flag 
of Hofaism which is composed of three horizontal fields, with a white 
field in the middle and with two black fields, one above and the other 
below the white middle field. Upon the white field is a yellow triangle 
in front and slightly to the Northwest of its black shadow which it 
mostly eclipses. The middle white field symbolizes openness, honesty and 
societal promenance. The black shadow symbolizes traditional gay life. 
The yellow triangle symbolizes our alternative lifestyle. The golden 
colour of the triangle (instead of pink) symbolizes the right to 
self-definition.

At the end of the lecture, it was stressed that Hofaism is not seeking a 
split with the Lesbian and Gay movement (or Community), for this would 
serve absolutely no purpose. Hofaism and the international organisation 
HOFA are seeking cooperation with Lesbian and Gay organisations and hope 
that also our values and points of view can freely be expressed within 
the Gay movement in all countries, even in political demands expressed by 
the organisations. HOFA is absolutely not denying or belittling the 
absolute importance of the work being taken on by Gay Liberation, but 
instead wishes to remind the movement of internal issues or problems as 
well as alternative forms of activity which it may have forgotten.

The Estonian delegatge wished to stress the importance of humanness 
before any "-isms".

Since the caucus lacked the power of making resolutions, no resolutions 
were made. However let it be known that a call for free dialogue and 
debate were strongly expressed.

Helsinki, December 29th, 1994
                         - - - - - - - - - - - -