As the November ballot initiative limiting marriage to between one man and one woman looms, our diverse community is under an immense amount of pressure to homogenize.

Understandably so – images of grooms in gowns may give our opponents priceless artillery.

It’s now, however, we see the risk the marriage initiative presents: 39 years after Stonewall, our community may force its more flamboyant fringe members back into the closet.

The notion isn’t ridiculous. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom discouraged couples from participating in mass weddings, or marrying in costume, while leaders of state and local organizations are cautioning our community against any display that may aid the anti-gay proponents of the initiative.

The state leadership’s paranoia was most evident last week, at each of the strategic first ceremonies in California’s largest cities.

The ceremonies of San Francisco’s Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, a couple who have been together more than half a century; Sacramento’s former Assemblymember Dennis Mangers and Michael Sestak; and San Diego’s Bob Lehman, a former Marine sergeant, and City Commissioner Tom Felkner, were strictly orchestrated so an “image” of same-sex marriage would be broadcast to voters.

And it worked – from Newsweek to The New York Times to just about every state and local media outlet the marriages of those historic couples were lead stories, “proof” that same-sex marriage is harmless. After all, what damage could an 80-year-old couple, or a former Marine sergeant and his civic-minded husband do to the institution of marriage?

The fact is: the exhibitionism and outrageousness that has characterized the community in the past may hurt us come November, but that’s no reason to ask members of our community to live a less authentic life, or stay behind while the media-friendly few wage war for us.

According to political analyst Tony Quinn, who spoke with the Los Angeles Times, Californians were appalled by images of the Sister of Perpetual Indulgence during the 2000 campaign for Proposition 22.

So, do we ask the Sisters to step aside until our marriage rights – their marriage rights – are secured?

Do we ask members of the leather community to tone it down a bit during Pride, so news consumers only see family-friendly images in mass media coverage of the annual event?

Of course, there isn’t a member of a state or local organization stupid enough to outright ask members of our fringe communities to make themselves invisible – but there are a number who are biting their tongues.

Now let’s take this and put it in another context: the Employment Non Discrimination Act. There was a national outcry when ENDA was stripped of its protections for transgender people.

The non-trans inclusive bill would protect gay and lesbian employees from discrimination, political proponents said. So, wouldn’t it have been expedient to say to our trans brothers and sisters, “Stay behind, but we’ll be back for you”?

The situation with ENDA doesn’t directly translate to the situation we face now in California with the marriage initiative – no one in the GLBT community will be excluded from sharing marriage rights, should we prevail in November.

Like ENDA, however, the marriage initiative has the potential to divide our community – if we let it.

The fact is: we stayed united on the frontlines for ENDA, and we must stay united in the trenches through November. Each of the community’s diverse, unique organizations and individuals can contribute to our fight – whether he’s a man in a business suit or a bustier, a woman in a suit jacket or a nun’s habit, we can’t afford to push anyone back into the closet.