Originally published September 24, 2003, in the Chicago Free Press.
If you found that you just about OD'ed on "gay" this past summer, think how the religious right must feel. Those 90 days were the gayest in U.S. history. A brief recap:
Canadian gay marriage (with significant U.S. impact). Supreme Court's "Lawrence" decision. Gay Anglican priest elected New Hampshire bishop after one appointed in England withdrew. Presidential aspirant Howard Dean promoted gay civil unions. California Gov. Gray Davis signed extensive gay partnership law. Congressional subcommittee hearings on Defense of Marriage Act.
"Queer Eye" was Bravo's "breakout hit of the summer." "Boy Meets Boy" had happy ending. "The Amazing Race" won by two gay men. "Will and Grace" still going and going. Ellen DeGeneres's talk show finally began. MSNBC's ranting rightist Michael Savage "let go" after he broke no-homophobia vow.
Is there anything to be learned from all this or any conclusions we should draw? Let us try a few possibilities. The most obvious single fact was the unparalleled gay visibility. Gay lives, gay relationships and evidence of the growing acceptance of gays in at least some sectors of society were given publicity as never before.
Most of the visibility was positive. The language of the "Lawrence" decision was a landmark of affirmation. Even the anti-gay congressional hearings managed to communicate that many gays and lesbians want to marry their partners, join the mainstream and be fellow citizens. Conservatives suddenly found that "special rights" rhetoric just didn't work since they were the ones with the special rights. (Negative publicity came mostly from the Catholic priest sex scandals, which gay advocacy groups handled poorly.)
All these advances did not just suddenly pop into existence. They were the result of years of preparation and constant painstaking advocacy, of numerous smaller advances here and there in the churches, the media, the law, the political system. They were the result of more than 30 years of gays and lesbians coming out, explaining and sharing their lives, talking to those with open ears and struggling to open the ears of those whose ears were closed.
Socially the U.S. is still a melting pot, though with an incompletely melted content. That is, it is also a nation of niches in which population groups with ethnic, social, business or religious interests in common may hold differing social views from other groups. This means that gays do not have to change the nation as a whole to make any gains. They can make gains in gay friendly niches - liberal churches, creative business sectors, the urban patriciate, liberal politicians - and build on those, using them as models or leverage with other niches.
The major religious and political gains gays have made are, not unexpectedly, in coastal, Democratic-leaning states, especially in New England. A New Hampshire Episcopal bishop. Pro-gay Vermont and Massachusetts presidential candidates. Massachusetts and New Jersey gay marriage lawsuits. The religious denominations friendliest to gays and lesbians are the Episcopalian, Unitarian and United Church of Christ, all with New England roots and strong New England influence, all inheriting the tradition of Yankee individualism and personal autonomy.
In other words, gays make gains most readily in the region where the demand for personal responsibility and a consequent respect for individual independence are most deeply rooted. That being so, those are social values we would be wise to help promote as the most fertile soil for future gay advancement elsewhere.
Despite all the rest going on, "Queer Eye" felt significant for several reasons. It did not have gay visibility, it had gay dominance - open, assertive, self-confident dominance. "We are the experts here." It was less that the "fab five" could be campy, even frivolous, than that they were helpful, friendly, knowledgeable, and at root sincere. To some people in this nation that still comes as surprising news about gays, and it is a message we must never tire of repeating.
It was also interesting to see how many companies were happy to see their products mentioned on "Queer Eye." Very mainstream Pier 1 was delighted to have the gay men shop on camera at Pier 1 and walk out carrying Pier 1 shopping bags. The company viewed them as a valuable endorsement with virtually no downside. Public aversion, at least by women, who constitute the vast majority of shoppers, is now judged largely absent, and religious right boycott threats must be viewed as entirely toothless.
Skeptics might argue that "Queer Eye" drew at most 3 million viewers, or 1.1 percent of Americans. Rebroadcasts on NBC reached no more than 5 percent. But, equally important, "Queer Eye" and the other gay-inclusive shows generated enormous amounts of print publicity. Many who did not watch the shows were exposed to their influence through the literally hundreds of articles about them that appeared in magazines and newspapers large and small. More people probably read about the shows than saw them.
Just as one swallow does not make a summer, one summer does not immanentize the gay eschaton. But it was a summer our gay predecessors would have longed for.