Category Archives: Gay Rights

The American economy has been strained to the breaking point by eight years of reckless fiscal policies. Our international stature has been compromised and diminished by arrogant and unilateral foreign policies. Our government has helped create a global energy crisis, and has done nothing about climate change. You could be forgiven for assuming that those issues are central to the upcoming elections, but I’m going to suggest that war and peace, economic prosperity and even national self-respect are in a very real sense subsidiary to what is truly at stake on November 4th. 

This election is a contest between the past and the future; its outcome will determine whether Enlightenment rationalism or religious fundamentalism prevails. In short, this is the election that will determine who wins the “culture wars.”

There are some arenas where the culture clash is front and center; even James Dobson has said that losing the referendum on same-sex marriage in California would mean that the Christian Right has unambiguously lost the culture war. But the conflict is more consequential than the future of same-sex marriage and gay rights, important as that is. This election will determine who gets to control what America will look like in the 21^st century. It is a fight between absolutely incompatible worldviews.

I’d been convinced for some time that this election would be a fateful battle between culture warriors, but the choice of Sarah Palin as John McCain’s running mate confirmed my thesis.  I don’t say this simply because Palin represents everything that is wrong with social conservatives’ ideology, although she does. (She’s anti-choice even in cases of rape or incest, she opposes stem-cell research, she’s anti-gay, and she’s really anti-science—she’s an advocate of teaching creationism in the schools who does not believe that human activities contribute to global warming).

I also don’t say this simply because her social conservatism was more important to John McCain than her absolute lack of any qualification to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency.

I say this because her selection was part and parcel of the way in which culture warriors really see the issue of gender—and by extension, how they see every other issue of diversity, including but certainly not limited to gays and lesbians.

Think about it. Had McCain chosen a male running-mate with Sarah Palin’s resume, the choice would have been laughed off the national stage, dismissed as absolutely unserious. Tim Pawlenty, the equally socially conservative Minnesota governor who was on the McCain short list, was widely criticized for being too insubstantial, for having qualifications too likely to be dwarfed by Biden’s greater experience and gravitas. And Pawlenty looks like a seasoned elder statesman compared to Palen. What, then, did she bring to the table, other than (excuse me) a vagina? And just how cynical—and revealing—does that make this selection?

Here’s the calculus as I see McCain’s folks analyzing it: 1) a lot of women voted for Hillary; 2) social conservatives in the GOP base still aren’t excited by McCain. We can energize the base by choosing one of their own, and as a  bonus, we can pick up disappointed Hillary voters because she’s a woman, and women are interchangeable. Women just want to see someone who looks like them in office, bless their pretty little heads.  It seems genuinely never to have occurred to the McCain camp that for women voters to believe that a candidate “looks like them” might require more than shared secondary sexual characteristics.  At the very least, it means sharing a particular worldview, being a particular kind of woman.

The Christian Right approaches issues of gay equality the same way, by constructing a monolithic “gay agenda” that everyone in the gay community is assumed to share. It is also the way they see African-Americans—and in fact, as one friend of mine remarked, the choice of Palin is based on precisely the same worldview that put Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court. He’s black, so the black folks should be happy. So what if everything Thomas stands for is in stark contrast to what the vast majority of African-Americans believe? So what if Sarah Palin’s positions are profoundly anti-woman? She’s female. Surely that’s all Hillary’s supporters—and by extension, other women—care about.

It is ironic that, as the Democratic party has moved past tokenism toward genuinely pluralist politics, the Republicans have bought into the worst kind of identity politics. Those differences between contemporary Republican and Democratic worldviews are consequential for all of us.

• The emerging Democratic philosophy requires that we look at individuals—gay, straight, Christian, Jewish, black or white—and evaluate those individuals on their merits, their talents, their characters. It isn’t that race or religion or gender or orientation becomes irrelevant;  it’s just that those markers of identity aren’t material—they’re just one aspect of this particular human being, and we are grading this human being on the basis of everything he or she brings to the table. Everybody gets to compete on a level playing field, where being gay, female or purple is neither an asset nor a liability. It’s simply a description.
• The worldview of the right-wingers who control today’s GOP, on the other hand, is paternalistic. It begins by assigning people to categories, by dividing the world into “us versus them.” Members of the group labeled “us” are the elect, the rightful rulers of the universe. Political considerations do, however, require some concessions to the fact that “they” have the right to vote, and so some tokenism is required. (It never seems to occur to those holding this worldview that tokenism is as insulting as outright bigotry. Tokenism assumes that members of those “other” groups are interchangeable, that unlike white Protestant straight males, they are not entitled to be accepted or rejected on the basis of their individual merits.) When you view the political landscape through this lens, you believe every debate must have winners and losers. There is no “win-win.” There is no “live and let live,” because allowing people to live their lives in accordance with any rules other than your own is—by definition—defeat.

At its base, this election is a choice between those two worldviews. It’s a choice between the past—where the color of your skin, the denomination of your church, your gender and/or your sexual orientation determined your place in the social order—and a future where behavior, and not identity, determines how far a person can go.

 

Comments

The American economy has been strained to the breaking point by eight years of reckless fiscal policies. Our international stature has been compromised and diminished by arrogant and unilateral foreign policies. Our government has helped create a global energy crisis, and has done nothing about climate change. You could be forgiven for assuming that those issues are central to the upcoming elections, but I’m going to suggest that war and peace, economic prosperity and even national self-respect are in a very real sense subsidiary to what is truly at stake on November 4th. 

This election is a contest between the past and the future; its outcome will determine whether Enlightenment rationalism or religious fundamentalism prevails. In short, this is the election that will determine who wins the “culture wars.”

There are some arenas where the culture clash is front and center; even James Dobson has said that losing the referendum on same-sex marriage in California would mean that the Christian Right has unambiguously lost the culture war. But the conflict is more consequential than the future of same-sex marriage and gay rights, important as that is. This election will determine who gets to control what America will look like in the 21^st century. It is a fight between absolutely incompatible worldviews.

I’d been convinced for some time that this election would be a fateful battle between culture warriors, but the choice of Sarah Palin as John McCain’s running mate confirmed my thesis.  I don’t say this simply because Palin represents everything that is wrong with social conservatives’ ideology, although she does. (She’s anti-choice even in cases of rape or incest, she opposes stem-cell research, she’s anti-gay, and she’s really anti-science—she’s an advocate of teaching creationism in the schools who does not believe that human activities contribute to global warming).

I also don’t say this simply because her social conservatism was more important to John McCain than her absolute lack of any qualification to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency.

I say this because her selection was part and parcel of the way in which culture warriors really see the issue of gender—and by extension, how they see every other issue of diversity, including but certainly not limited to gays and lesbians.

Think about it. Had McCain chosen a male running-mate with Sarah Palin’s resume, the choice would have been laughed off the national stage, dismissed as absolutely unserious. Tim Pawlenty, the equally socially conservative Minnesota governor who was on the McCain short list, was widely criticized for being too insubstantial, for having qualifications too likely to be dwarfed by Biden’s greater experience and gravitas. And Pawlenty looks like a seasoned elder statesman compared to Palen. What, then, did she bring to the table, other than (excuse me) a vagina? And just how cynical—and revealing—does that make this selection?

Here’s the calculus as I see McCain’s folks analyzing it: 1) a lot of women voted for Hillary; 2) social conservatives in the GOP base still aren’t excited by McCain. We can energize the base by choosing one of their own, and as a  bonus, we can pick up disappointed Hillary voters because she’s a woman, and women are interchangeable. Women just want to see someone who looks like them in office, bless their pretty little heads.  It seems genuinely never to have occurred to the McCain camp that for women voters to believe that a candidate “looks like them” might require more than shared secondary sexual characteristics.  At the very least, it means sharing a particular worldview, being a particular kind of woman.

The Christian Right approaches issues of gay equality the same way, by constructing a monolithic “gay agenda” that everyone in the gay community is assumed to share. It is also the way they see African-Americans—and in fact, as one friend of mine remarked, the choice of Palin is based on precisely the same worldview that put Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court. He’s black, so the black folks should be happy. So what if everything Thomas stands for is in stark contrast to what the vast majority of African-Americans believe? So what if Sarah Palin’s positions are profoundly anti-woman? She’s female. Surely that’s all Hillary’s supporters—and by extension, other women—care about.

It is ironic that, as the Democratic party has moved past tokenism toward genuinely pluralist politics, the Republicans have bought into the worst kind of identity politics. Those differences between contemporary Republican and Democratic worldviews are consequential for all of us.

• The emerging Democratic philosophy requires that we look at individuals—gay, straight, Christian, Jewish, black or white—and evaluate those individuals on their merits, their talents, their characters. It isn’t that race or religion or gender or orientation becomes irrelevant;  it’s just that those markers of identity aren’t material—they’re just one aspect of this particular human being, and we are grading this human being on the basis of everything he or she brings to the table. Everybody gets to compete on a level playing field, where being gay, female or purple is neither an asset nor a liability. It’s simply a description.
• The worldview of the right-wingers who control today’s GOP, on the other hand, is paternalistic. It begins by assigning people to categories, by dividing the world into “us versus them.” Members of the group labeled “us” are the elect, the rightful rulers of the universe. Political considerations do, however, require some concessions to the fact that “they” have the right to vote, and so some tokenism is required. (It never seems to occur to those holding this worldview that tokenism is as insulting as outright bigotry. Tokenism assumes that members of those “other” groups are interchangeable, that unlike white Protestant straight males, they are not entitled to be accepted or rejected on the basis of their individual merits.) When you view the political landscape through this lens, you believe every debate must have winners and losers. There is no “win-win.” There is no “live and let live,” because allowing people to live their lives in accordance with any rules other than your own is—by definition—defeat.

At its base, this election is a choice between those two worldviews. It’s a choice between the past—where the color of your skin, the denomination of your church, your gender and/or your sexual orientation determined your place in the social order—and a future where behavior, and not identity, determines how far a person can go.

 

Comments

The jury is still out.

In the upcoming election, the real question is not whether the individual named John McCain or the individual named Barack Obama will be elected President. The choice before us is ultimately not between persons or even parties; it is nothing less than a choice between the past and the future, and that choice will have particular significance for the gay community.

As readers of the Word know all too well, the last decade will not rank among America’s shining hours. (Okay, the metaphor is mixed, but you know what I mean.) The country has been in the throes of a cultural and religious chauvinism not seen since the last Great Awakening/Nativist eruption. Such eras are never kind to minority groups or marginalized communities, and this most recent period has been no exception. The broader problem is that, unlike previous episodes, this prolonged national snit has occurred at a time that the globe has been shrinking. The threats we face—to national security, to public safety, and to our economic interests—require genuine partnerships with other nations, a partnership beyond the capacities of an arrogant “decider” intent on unilateral action.

This November, the American electorate will decide whether to abandon an approach to national affairs that has caused us to be disdained internationally and that has turned us into a fiscal banana republic at home. Voters in California will decide whether to snatch the hard-won right to marry from its gay and lesbian citizens, and bigots in Arizona will try again to add a same-sex marriage ban to that state’s constitution. In other cities and states around the country, voters will have to decide whether to risk similarly dramatic changes in the way we do the public’s business.

In any change election—which this one is shaping up to be—there will be winners and losers. One of the reasons that people fear change is that they fear being one of the losers.

If America is really on the cusp of a paradigm shift, what will be lost? For white people, the privileged status that we still enjoy simply by virtue of skin color, the “default” judgment that light skin denotes acceptability, if not superiority. For heterosexuals, the confidence that our orientation is “normal,” that non-heterosexuals are somehow deviants to be tolerated at best and scorned or abused at worst. For corporate bigwigs, the ability to hire lobbyists and obtain legislation that exempts them from the forces of the market they try to evade even while verbally extolling its virtues. Those who enjoy these and other advantages are unlikely to view their loss as insignificant.

But if we take the risk, and opt for a new governing paradigm, most ordinary Americans have a great deal to gain, because bigotry and anxiety burden both the oppressed and the oppressor. A refusal to understand that we are all in this together—that ultimately, we cannot escape the consequences of our neighbors’ misfortunes, that we all are poorer when stereotypes deprive us of our neighbors’ talents—is what has gotten us into the mess we’re in.

The election of Barack Obama—even with a Democratic House and Senate—will not usher in utopia or anything remotely like it. The damage that has been done to our constitution, our governing institutions, our economy and our ability to trust each other has been great; if it is reparable—and it may not be—that repair will take a generation or more. Obama is brilliant and talented, and he’s read and taught the constitution (a fact I find comforting), but he’s just one man and certainly not perfect.

The election of John McCain, on the other hand, would mean Americans have chosen the past over the future. It would be evidence that Americans fear change, that we simply cannot find the courage and discipline to extricate ourselves from a culture that has proven to be not just poisonous, but inimical to our own national interests and ideals. McCain is undoubtedly a good person (and surely must be brighter than he seems on the campaign trail) but he is firmly wedded to a cultural moment that needs to pass.

Somewhere, I read a description of John McCain as “an analog candidate for a digital age.” The quip was a reaction to the fact that McCain has not used the internet or “done a google,” as he phrases it. But the characterization rings true across the board, not just in the context of technology.

The basic question voters will face in November is whether we are going to upgrade from Bush 1.0 to 2.0, or whether we are going to adopt a new operating system.

Comments

I know, I know—“nut job” is not a civil salutation. Intellectually, I know that the use of such phrases is neither nice nor likely to be very productive. But cut me some slack, and I’ll explain.
Every time I write a column for the Indianapolis Star discussing equal rights for GLBT persons, I can count on receiving a letter from the same long-time “fan” (who is a fan only in the sense that he obviously reads my columns. Otherwise, as Jon Stewart might say, not so much). The essential message is always the same, faux-solicitous one: I am doing a terrible disservice to my gay son by not providing him with the “treatments” that are available to make him “normal,” by which Mr. Nut Job means straight. These treatments, he unfailingly informs me, have been “proven” by extensive scientific research, with which I need to familiarize myself.
The letters often include Xeroxed copies of this so-called research, inevitably the sort of stuff endlessly churned out by right-wing “scientists”—guys hired by the same fine people who first alerted us to the homosexual agenda being pushed by Sponge-Bob Squarepants and Tinky-Winky.
Having learned long ago that the very worst thing you can do when you attract this particular type of pen-pal is to respond, I routinely route the correspondence to the circular file and go about my business. But I’ve been brooding over the last letter, and instead of continuing to mutter under my breath, I decided I’d use this column to vent, and to write the response I’d send if I thought the person at the receiving end possessed anything akin to an ability to process logic.
So—here’s my open letter to nut job:
Dear Mr. Right-Wing Obsessive,
Thank you for your twenty-third letter, explaining why I should run, not walk, to the nearest reparative therapy practitioner with my “abnormal” “sick” “disabled” son. I will give serious consideration to your suggestions once you respond to a few questions.
First, I’d like you to calm my concerns about the therapy itself. (Since you claim there are great amounts of credible scientific data available, I’m sure these questions will be easy for you to field.)
How will this therapy affect my son’s non-gay behaviors? You know, the personality traits that dictate what sort of human being he is when he isn’t in bed? My son, for example, is extremely popular with all kinds of people (even with lots of people that you might consider “normal.”) He has tons of friends, gay and straight. Everyone in his family adores him—his brothers, his stepfather, his stepsisters, his nieces and nephews. Will this therapy make him even more gregarious and lovable?
My son is both book-smart and street-smart, and he has always earned good money and been self-supporting. He pays his taxes without whining about it (do you?) and he is generous to charities and to his family and friends. He’s also a very good citizen; he votes, he recycles, he helps those who are less fortunate. Will this therapy further enhance his common sense, his IQ or his compassion?
Assuming you can assure me that I won’t change this wonderful human being by destroying a relatively small but nonetheless essential part of who he is, I also have some questions about the reason for your extreme interest—dare I say obsession?—with my child’s sexuality.
Will your life improve if my son is no longer gay? If so, how? Will America be safer? Will global warming abate? Will we find new sources of energy? Will Christians all begin acting like Christians? What, exactly, will change? What accounts for your insistence that my son—whom you do not know, whom you have never met—must change his very identity, a very important part of who he is? And what accounts for your evident eagerness to tell other people how they should live?
For that matter, how many wonderful friends do you have? How close is your family? How many kindnesses do you extend to those you live and work with?
In short, what makes you think you are even one-tenth the person my son is? And where the hell do you get off telling me that he is “sick”?
When you can give me satisfactory answers to all these questions, maybe I’ll take you more seriously. (But I get to determine what constitutes a “satisfactory” answer.)Yours Truly, a mother who is immensely proud of her son just the way he is.
Thanks for letting me vent. I feel much better now.

Comments

The California Supreme Court has struck down that state’s ban on same-sex marriage. And we all know what that means: the forces of self-righteous indignation are gearing up for the mother of summer reruns. Wait for these oldies but goodies:

Judges have no business making such decisions. Um, sorry, but that’s their job. Judges are supposed to decide the cases before them, and some require deciding whether a particular law is consistent with the state or federal constitution. Judges don’t just wake up in the morning and say, gee, I feel like overturning some legislation today.

Judges should not overturn the will of the people. Failed government class, did you? In a constitutional republic, fundamental rights are not subject to majority vote. The Bill of Rights is a list of things the government cannot do even when popular majorities approve. In this case, moreover, that argument is unavailable; the California legislature—the “voice” of the people—passed same-sex marriage legislation not once, but twice, only to have Governor Schwarzenegger veto it both times. (It’s also worth noting that those on the Right who scream most loudly about respecting “the will of the people” didn’t hesitate to ask the courts to overturn the will of the people in Oregon who passed a referendum legalizing assisted suicide, or the will of the people in California who endorsed medical marijuana. Can we spell hypocrite?)

We need to elect Republicans who will put “strict constructionists” on the bench. Well, let’s see. It’s certainly true that contemporary Republicans are determined to put ideologically driven judges on the bench. And they have had some measure of success. But judges who are even minimally qualified are more likely to rule based upon controlling statutes and precedents than on their personal preferences. The California Supreme Court is a case in point: of the seven sitting judges, six were appointed by Republican governors.

And then there’s the old standard: Throughout human history, marriage has always been between one man and one woman. Well, no. In early Israel, a man could have several wives and concubines. (People who’ve actually read the bible, rather than merely thumping it, might recall the story of Jacob, who married two sisters, Leah and Rachel. Or Solomon, who had 700 wives and 300 concubines.) In America, in 1848, the Oneida community practiced “complex marriage” where every woman was married to every man in the community, and there was a so-called “Christian polygamy movement,” as late as 1994. Although Mormons have (formally) renounced it, polygamy persists in many parts of the Middle East to this day—among President Bush’s princely pals in Saudi Arabia, for example, and in Senegal, where an estimated 47% of marriages are “plural” or polygamous. There is even some evidence—admittedly disputed—that the medieval Church blessed same-sex unions.

What with Iraq, the recession, climate change, natural disasters, food shortages and gas prices, do we really have to replay these tired arguments about allowing Adam and Steve to file joint tax returns?

 

       

Comments