Every national campaign has its moments of revelation, straws in the wind of change. For me, one of the most memorable blew past in a snippet of video.
It was June. Hillary Clinton was conceding the Democratic nomination to Barack Obama. A few minutes into her speech, as she called the roll of her supporters, she hit on the words "gay and straight." The camera angle was such that you could see young people in the crowd behind her erupt in boisterous cheers. A few minutes later a mention of "gay rights" elicited the same reaction.
Those young people, it struck me, were reacting to Clinton's gay-friendly rhetoric the way we are used to seeing social conservatives react to gay-hostile rhetoric: with joyful recognition that their brand of pro-American values, their brand of patriotism, was being affirmed. The "moral values" energy was on our side.
In 2004, when President Bush beat Sen. John Kerry in a tight race, we thought we had learned the continuing, indeed renewed, potency of values issues (read: gay marriage and abortion). An activist state supreme court had legalized gay marriage; Republicans gleefully seized the issue by putting gay marriage bans on state ballots, energizing the party's social conservative base. At a moment when voters were looking for stability and strength, the Republicans wove gay marriage into an overarching security narrative: America's core values were being challenged by radical Islamists from without as well as radical judges from within, and Republicans could be trusted to stand up to both. On the defensive, Democrats scrambled to change the subject, triangulating away from their gay and lesbian supporters.
What a difference four years makes. Again activist judges, this time in two states (California and Connecticut), order same-sex marriage. Again gay marriage bans sprout on state ballots. Again the public craves stability and security, though this time the threat is economic. On paper, the ingredients are the makings of another 2004.
But this time the results were entirely different. In 2008, Democrats used gays as an applause line, embracing us as a symbol of the change agenda. More important, Obama embedded gays in a security narrative of his own: America has been weakened by divisive politics and fruitless bellicosity; inclusiveness can restore the country's tattered unity, rebuilding strength at home and prestige abroad. This time it was the Republicans who mumbled and changed the subject, steering away from social issues both in their choice of nominee and in their campaign.
Which election, 2004 or 2008, tells us more about the future? You could argue that the values vote of 2004 was a fear-driven blip in the larger trend toward gay integration. Or you could argue that 2008 was really about the economy, and that culture-war issues will resurface when pocketbook issues recede.
It is too early to say, but that has never stopped a journalist before, so here goes: To me, 2008 looks more like the new normal. The cultural backlash against gay equality is far from over, and the marriage fight, in particular, has years to go. But the core message of legal equality has gotten through.
Now, "gotten through" does not mean "always wins." It means that the presumption of gay equality is at least as prevalent as the presumption of gay inferiority. According to Gallup polls, a clear majority of Americans now believe that homosexual relations between consenting adults should be legal and that "homosexuality should be considered an acceptable alternative lifestyle." In 2008, for the first time, Gallup found that as many respondents judged homosexual relations "morally acceptable" as judged them "morally wrong." At about 90%, support for "equal rights in terms of job opportunities" is now so overwhelming, as to be a nonissue.
What about marriage discrimination, then? Opposition to same-sex marriage remains predominant. Here, however, the problem is that the public sees gender as part of the core definition of marriage, not as a discriminatory detail. Eventually, albeit slowly, that is likely to change.
Meanwhile, the public already accepts the legitimacy of legal same-sex unions, provided they are not called marriage. Strikingly, a recent poll by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, a Democratic-leaning firm, found that a majority of young white evangelicals, ages 18 to 29, favor either gay marriage (26%) or civil partnerships (32 percent). That places young evangelicals closer to the overall population than to their older confreres. In the foreseeable future, the principle of same-sex unions, though perhaps not "marriage," will be uncontroversial even on the Christian right.
I think, though I can't prove this, that there are two important transitions happening here. Both are good for gay and lesbian Americans, but one will require some hard rethinking.
The first is that the antigay culture war is winding down. The public has weighed the Karl Rove narrative (culture-war politics strengthens America by defending our values) against the Barack Obama narrative (culture-war politics weakens America by undermining our unity) and has come down on Obama's side - certainly for now but possibly for much longer.
Harder for us to adjust to will be this: The civil rights mind-set, with its focus on antidiscrimination laws and court-ordered remedies, has outlived its usefulness. There are still discrimination problems, of course-for example, when schools turn a blind eye to harassment. By and large, however, the public no longer regards gays as an oppressed minority, and by and large we aren't one.
The old civil rights model, with its roots in an era when homosexuals were politically friendless pariahs, focuses on such matters as protection from bigoted employers and hate crimes. In truth, for most gay Americans the civic responsibility agenda, with its focus on service to family (marriage), children (mentoring and adoption), and country (the military), is more relevant and important. With a comparatively sympathetic administration and Congress taking office in Washington, the time has come to pivot away from the culturally defensive pariah agenda - the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, for instance - and toward the culturally transformative family agenda.
Priority 1, and well ahead of whatever comes second, should be federal recognition of state civil unions. Obama supported this, as did, for that matter, all the other Democratic candidates. Marriage will take a while, but federal civil unions, though not a cinch, are attainable in the course of the next four to eight years, and they would be hugely beneficial to gay couples, who would get access to immigration rights, Social Security benefits, spousal tax status, and much, much more. Federal recognition of same-sex unions might also break the back of the "don't ask, don't tell" military policy. How can one part of the U.S. government banish gay couples while the rest embraces them?
Perhaps I'm Pollyanna. Perhaps the antigay political volcano is merely dormant, not dying. Perhaps it is too early to move on from civil rights. But I think it likelier that the country has turned a corner in the culture wars. If so, the question will be whether we can turn with it.
35 Comments for “The Election Turned a Corner. Can We?”
posted by BobN on
Can you point to any other group which has “moved on” from civil rights without having achieved all those apparently pointless guarantees of equality like Constitutional amendments and binding Supreme Court decisions?
I can’t.
I’ll be willing to “move on” when I see religious groups fight for removal of guarantees of religious freedom and when I see Constitutional guarantees against discrimination based on race and national origin repealed with the full support of all minority groups because “they’re not needed anymore”.
posted by TS on
Rauch,
Thank you for this thoughtful, well-argued, and optomistically presented analysis. I think your interpretations are strong, but I also think it’s just too early to tell whether some of them are valid. The often very close results of democratic elections can potentially mean a wide number of things: maybe the masses are turning the corner, and maybe 45% still are determined to think one way, 45% still are determined to think the opposite way, and the middle 10% saw on the entertainment-news media that Palin’s daughter got pregnant. I guess we just have to wait and see. Waiting is starting to suck.
posted by Ashpenaz on
Now that Obama is president, many of the civil rights leaders in the black community are going to have to ask themselves honestly if there are ways in which they bring victimization and oppression on themselves. Many have already been asking asking whether urban, hip-hop culture is the best paradigm for the black community. Even Obama has suggest that blacks pull up their pants, go to school, and create stable families like his and Michelle’s where the father and mother stay together.
Could this kind of introspection and self-criticism work for the gay community? Are there ways that gays bring on their own victimization and oppression? Do Pride parades and Stonewall protests show us at our best? I would say that the marches of the previous week did more damage in terms of a backlash than any possible enlightenment (and I don’t think there was any of that) they might have brought to the masses.
Is there anything, anything at all that large, visible segments of the gay community do which only serves to reinforce stereotypes? I’m not saying all gays, but are there prominent segments of the community which stress multiple partners in an age of AIDs, which are addicted to meth, and who want to shock and embarass “traditional” society? I think there are. Is it time that gays started “pulling up their pants” as the black community has been advised to do?
When was the last time you walked away from a pro-life rally feeling more concerned about the rights of the unborn? Wasn’t your response to extreme images at that rally more annoyance at the protestors? Did undocumented workers gain your sympathy by marching in the streets with Mexican flags? Why, then, does the gay community think that marching into churches, stomping on crosses, and parading around in multi-color wedding dresses is going to help?
I have yet to see an article, anywhere that suggests these recent defeats should lead to a time of self-criticism. Gays are always right and opposition is always homophobic. But let’s challenge that model, shall we? Perhaps we can say that gays shoot themselves in the foot by ill-planned displays of annoying, shrill behavior. Perhaps the best strategy is to encourage sobriety, responsibility, monogamy, and maturity among our members so that is what people think of when they think of gay.
A similar change is happening in the black community because of Obama. I bet you’ll be happier when the urban, hip-hop lifestyle is a thing of the past and blacks start working on their educations, building families, and starting careers. If the black community can change in response to new circumstances, so can we. Stop the Pride parades. Stop the Stonewall rallies. Build a monogamous relationship instead. Go to church. Play softball. Pick up some litter. Do something positive, and the rest will happen.
posted by TS on
Ashpenaz, another counter to your argument (which happens, by the way, to be the exact same every single time) is that people shouldn’t have to go out of their way to be commendable human beings to recieve equal protection under the law. People should be free to behave like saints, sinners, or anything in between and expect appropriate, corresponding consequences. Society should approach matters of justice as one individual-one crime or shortcoming- one system of consequences. For example- I disbelieve arguments for the existence of God. Religious groups would be right to condemn my failure to believe and make me face consequences: they might declare me unwelcome in their church, refuse to pray for me, refuse to employ me at their (Christianity-related) business, or count me out of their circle of friends. These consequences are appropriate for what they view as my flaw. But it cannot rightfully go further than that unless I have more flaws. They cannot attempt to direct the flow of public resources away from me, or attempt to deprive me of legal rights. Also, they cannot declare that all gay people, all people with blond hair and green eyes, or all people wearing brown wristwatches should face the same consequences.
You are free to speak out against conduct you see as bad, but you might get told to bugger off and worry about your own life.
When you are condemning conduct because it is unfairly harming you, you must identify the correct enemy! And the enemy is not your fellow gay man X who is behaving deplorably and “giving you a bad name!” The enemy is the person who is harming you! It is completely unfair for that person to assume that you should face the consequences for X’s deplorable behavior!
posted by TS on
Excellent points, TS. I would add, though, that the reality is that the perception of gay people has caused to some to be against the whole gay community. I agree that it’s unfair to tar everyone, but that’s the way it is. On the other hand, for many people, it doesn’t matter if, all of a sudden, every gay person exhibits “acceptable” behavior. There are still going to be people that regard homosexuals as sinners. Why? Because, you never here these people say, “Gee, if a homosexual behaves nice and is in a monogamous relationship with someone of the same sex, we’ll welcome them both into my church with open arms.”
The best way for a gay person to counter what they believe is unacceptable behavior is to tell people, at an appropriate point, what kind of person they are. That they and many other people think and behave like they do. On the other hand, you don’t want to fall into the trap of thinking that acting one certain way is the only way to go. We don’t want to throw freedom out the window. We certainly don’t want to feel that all gay people (or anyone else, for that matter) have to go to church, be Christian, play softball, etc., to show that we are good gay boys or anything like that. There are many other ways of being good, productive members of various communities.
It will take a while for people’s perceptions of stereotypes to change. In the meantime, we all have to be responsible for our own behavior, our own actions, and our own happiness. This does not mean one needs to stop criticizing the deplorable actions of persons or groups (inside or out of the gay community), or stop fighting for rights. But at a certain point in adulthood, one has to be stop blaming others (again inside or out of the gay community) for their own conduct and happiness.
posted by Ashpenaz on
Although you accuse me of saying the same things in every post, it is also true that every article since the Prop 8 defeat has also said the same thing: gays are always right, it’s everybody else’s homophobia, let’s march, people. None of the articles suggests any self-criticism on the part of the gay community. None talk about the large segments of the gay community which reinforce negative stereotypes.
Obama was successful, not because he embraced urban hip-hop culture, but because he offered an alternative. He is a father who stayed with his children. He went to college. He went to church. That is a powerful witness to the black community. Why isn’t there a gay Obama? Why isn’t there someone who steps out of the gay ghetto and shows the world a different way of being homosexual?
If we had more “gay Obamas,” we wouldn’t need to march. If we created a new image for what it means to be gay, the way Obama is creating a new image for what it means to be black, we’d have the same access to power that he does.
Now, it’s your turn. Write something new. Write something different. See if you can think of something to suggest besides more marches and lawsuits.
posted by Kevin on
Living in Oklahoma, I simply cannot relate to this article. Anti-gay politicians are even more in power after the 2008. Sally Kern was reelected to the Oklahoma state house a few weeks ago using anti-gay hate as her main talking points. The Republican party has used anti-gay rhetoric to take over the state Senate and have promised to pass anti-gay adoption laws as soon as possible. I suppose if people agree with this article, they must not be aware of what’s going on in some parts of the country, or perhaps we’re getting the backlash in an uneven way.
posted by GregC on
Ashpenaz has a point. I don’t think though that we need to get rid of pride parades and festivals. We just need to shift the focus from Mardi Gras/Carnival to something more akin to 4th of July. Maybe if we acted like adults in public, we might get treated like adults in our homes and places of business.
posted by Ashpenaz on
(sharp intake of breath, pearl clutch) Omigod! Omigod! Someone thinks I made a point!(lip vibration, single tear down cheek)
posted by tristram on
“Meanwhile, the public already accepts the legitimacy of legal same-sex unions, provided they are not called marriage.”
“The public” in OK (per Kevin, above)? or in FL where it was almost 2-1 against ssu’s however denominated? or in AR where a huge majority was perfectly comfortable slapping children around to demonstrate their contempt for gay or lesbian couples? or in CA (the home of Sodom [SF] and Gomorrah [Hollywood] where the large majority of straight voters were eager to swallow the LDS lies and deny queers any claim to equality before the law?
I’d like to think you’re correct, that the culture wars are essentially over. But the theofascist right has a different take on it – that the tide has turned and in spite of a nationwide shift (again, except for OK – sorry Kevin) to the left on ecoomics and foreign policy, the ‘gay agenda’ was defeated from coast to coast.
Someone has it figured and someone is blowing smoke.
posted by Pat on
The post on November 24 at 7:26 am was me. My apologies.
posted by Pat on
Maybe if we acted like adults in public, we might get treated like adults in our homes and places of business.
Most of us do, GregC. The problem is that the ones that get noticed are the ones in the pride parades. And even there, the focus is not on the ones who act like adults in public, as you say. No, this doesn’t mean we need to get rid of the draq queens or the gym bunnies or whatever. We certainly don’t want to shut down freedom. But the rest of us have to become more visible.
We still live in a world where most politicians and celebrities are not willing to come out. Sure, people are entitled to their privacy, but somehow we know about the spouses of all the straight (or presumably) straight politicians. We also still live in a world where if a gay person mentions that he has a male partner, he is pushing his sexuality in others’ faces, but it’s okay for a straight person to talk about his wife and children. And those that are most outspoken about homosexuality do stress the bad parts of the gay community, but never say that if gay persons “behave” that they will accept them. Things are changing thankfully, but it’s the above that also has to change in order for acceptance to continue.
posted by Kevin on
Right on Tristram, I’m pretty sure reading it again Rauch is living in some bizarre alternate universe. Gay rights took another big hit coast to coast, and social conservatives think they are getting on a roll and seem strongly prepared and motivated to push anti-gay measures forward. They’re going to go for adoption next coast-to-coast following the Arkansas 2008 model, and any notion that we’ve “turned the corner” is whistling past the graveyard.
posted by jimmy on
“Stop the Pride parades. Stop the Stonewall rallies. Build a monogamous relationship instead. Go to church. Play softball. Pick up some litter. Do something positive, and the rest will happen.” That’s like saying, “Set back there quietly, at the back of the bus, behave, and just maybe we’ll think about it.” Now, I’m luke-warm on pride parades myself, but WTF, they’re once a year! The visible gays and lesbians in popular culture are, by and large, in monogamous relationships. To say the impetus is on gays to hurry up and form monogamous relationships rather than say, date around, like most straight people do, just to prove we can and to cast ourselves as “grown-up” is a constipated POV. Ya’ gotta’ kiss a lot a frogs to find a prince or princess. But, that’s not the point.
“And those that are most outspoken about homosexuality do stress the bad parts of the gay community…”, I don’t know who these people are, and what “bad” parts this refers to. The fact is, it took a Stonewall, where people were fed-up, to get the ball rolling. Asking nicely hasn’t worked too well for other 2nd class groups, just ask Native Americans.
posted by Pat on
“And those that are most outspoken about homosexuality do stress the bad parts of the gay community…”,
Jimmy, what I meant to say is that those who are outspoken in their dislike of the gay community (e.g., many on the religious right), are still going to believe homosexuality is a sin, even if all of us start living Ashpenaz’s ideal life.
I agree with you somewhat. We do need to speak out. We do not have to be nice will we get steamrolled over. We don’t have to accept second class citizenship. But it helps if all of us open up to people around us, that the bad stereotypes do not apply to most of us. That, for the most part, we lead normal lives like everyone else.
posted by Bobby on
“We just need to shift the focus from Mardi Gras/Carnival to something more akin to 4th of July. Maybe if we acted like adults in public, we might get treated like adults in our homes and places of business.”
—Why be so boring? We should act like adults during protests, and we shoudln’t blacklist or get people fired from their jobs just because they voted for Prop 8. Gay McCarthism is NOT the solution.
But when people watch a gay pride parade, they expect the craziness, the dykes on bikes, the guys in drag, the leather people. Just don’t invite NAMBLA!
posted by Ashpenaz on
I don’t want to be misinterpreted here, but I’m going to agree with Pat and Bobby. I think it’s OK that the gay community has its fringe element so it doesn’t become boring. There are certain fun things which should come with being gay–for instance, being gay means I can see Mamma Mia as many times as I want. So, I can see the function of gay pride parades and all the drag stuff as keeping us awake.
However, what has happened is that these fringe groups have taken over the gay community. It’s like having the Girls Gone Wild being spokesman for the straight community. There isn’t a visible witness for those of us who are normal. I would be fine with the fringe element as a fringe–but it completely distorts the actual gay life as it is lived. And thus, the “Pride ‘n Rainbows” gays do damage to the rights of the normal gays.
This morning, Prop 8 came up in my Bible study. I haven’t made any explicit “Hey, I’m gay” announcement yet, so they are getting to like me for other reasons. We were discussing the woman caught in adultery. I said that those who voted for Prop 8 were like the guys throwing stones–making decisions for other people without knowing where they were coming from. I didn’t wave a Rainbow flag in front of them, but I made a point which perhaps made them think. As they get to know me, they will see that I don’t date women, etc. and I’m sure they will slowly put things together. At that point, we will have built a relationship already so it will be hard to see me as the stereotype created for them by the Pride people.
This is the work that needs to be done, especially in the churches. I’m willing to support the occasional Pride rally if you’ll think about those of us who are trying to make inroads our way.
See you at Transporter 3, which I plan to see many, many times. And I mean in a gay way.
posted by jimmy on
Depending on the denomination, and where it is coming from with respect to doctrine, you may make inroads with your fellow worshipers. Coming from a fundamentalist, old-time baptist church, they would have tried to ‘love’ me right into Exodus International. They would have failed.
Whether you are a LCR, a state governor, Mr. Gay America, or Chi Chi LaRue, you’re still a homosexual. We need all of them. You are saying, Ashpenaz, that gays just need to mainstream themselves in order to appeal to the sensibilities of the rest of mainstream, ‘normal’ America. I’m mainstream. I’ve only done drag once, for Halloween about 12 years ago (the stilettos would Kill me know if I tried it). I’ve been open without being threatening to the world around me. I say what I think when asked. I’m certainly no militant. Do you really think gays will achieve equality under the law if left up to guys, or gals, like me? I don’t think so.
posted by TS on
aha, Ashpenaz! now there’s a message with a less condescending tone and a more positive message. I personally think that’s what effective arguing is really all about.
posted by Pat on
I don’t want to be misinterpreted here, but I’m going to agree with Pat and Bobby. I think it’s OK that the gay community has its fringe element so it doesn’t become boring. There are certain fun things which should come with being gay–for instance, being gay means I can see Mamma Mia as many times as I want. So, I can see the function of gay pride parades and all the drag stuff as keeping us awake.
To me, Ashpenaz, it’s not about whether or not the gay community is boring. It’s about freedom. And it’s also depends on what you mean by fringe element. As Bobby says, no NAMBLA! That kind of “freedom” we can all do without.
This morning, Prop 8 came up in my Bible study. I haven’t made any explicit “Hey, I’m gay” announcement yet, so they are getting to like me for other reasons. We were discussing the woman caught in adultery. I said that those who voted for Prop 8 were like the guys throwing stones–making decisions for other people without knowing where they were coming from. I didn’t wave a Rainbow flag in front of them, but I made a point which perhaps made them think. As they get to know me, they will see that I don’t date women, etc. and I’m sure they will slowly put things together. At that point, we will have built a relationship already so it will be hard to see me as the stereotype created for them by the Pride people.
That’s good you spoke out against Prop. 8. And it’s certainly your right whether or not to come out to your fellow Bible study colleagues. And keep in mind that it doesn’t have to be one extreme or the other. No rainbow flags are needed to come out. Your colleagues may or may not figure it out for themselves. There are other reasons why men don’t date women. And if they do figure it out, they may interpret your silence as shame. I’m sure you don’t want the stereotype that the only good gay is the one that accepts their second class citizenship, and stays nice and quiet while the straights feel open about discussing their girlfriends, spouses, and children.
posted by guapoguy on
I’m happy to see a brighter, more positive side of you, Ashpenaz. Keep it up!
I’ll also offer a suggestion for your relationship to your Bible study group, based upon my own personal experience. I suspect you’re not ready to take it, but it’s a good suggestion just the same. And the suggestion is this: If there is anything about yourself that you don’t want somebody else to find out, or that you worry about them finding out, then just tell them. No matter what it is, if you tell them, then they can never find it out.
My partner of many years and I were married while visiting in California last month, before the election. When I returned to our home in very traditional western Michigan, I told the very traditional members of a spiritual growth discussion group about my marriage at my very traditional and straight church. Every single member of the group congratulated me and wished us well, and since then only one member of the group told me she was worried about my salvation but wished me well, while every single male member (six in all, and all straight) has told me privaately that he doesn’t know any reason why gay people shouldn’t be able to marry, maybe not in the church but at least at city hall.
Personally, I also support appropraite use of protest demonstrations. No major change in minority rights has ever advanced in this country without discord…women’s rights, farm workers’ rights, black rights, and gay rights thus far. Such actions sometimes offend or frighten, but they do get public attention, which can lead to positive results. Act Up was obnoxious during the height of the AIDS crisis, and yet they were instrumental in influencing changes in governmental AIDS funding and policy.
But gentle approaches, such as coming out to friends and families, such as your church group, can accomplish the same thing, even if on a smaller scale. If you don’t come out to them, and they only find out later, then no matter how good and decent you may have seemed, you will run the risk that they will think you misled and deceived them, and that perhaps you aren’t as good and decent as you had appeared. I’ve been there and done that both ways…being upfront from the start, and keeping it secret until I thought the time was right. In my case, being up front always worked better.
posted by Bobby on
Hey Ashpenaz, I’m glad you made those comments in the bible group. I wonder how they where received?
I do hope you know that in conservative programs they do draw a difference between gay activists, extremists, and the more mainstream gays. Even there we’re not all painted in the same light.
In fact, maybe the radicals make us look more normal and mainstream. It’s the Jerry Springer effect, by watching the freakiest people on earth, your definition of what is normal becomes a little more broad.
posted by Ashpenaz on
I appreciate the comments. I think it’s much easier to march in a parade in a silly costume than enter a group of mostly straight men and get to know them over a period of time. Yes, I’m patting myself on the back a bit here, but I wish more gays would get off the streets and out of the ghetto and just start making friends. What if all those marchers decided to actually go inside those “problem” churches and join a Bible study? What if we were on the inside praying instead of the outside chanting?
I don’t want to be forced by some Stonewall based tradition to use the word “gay” as I slowly come out to this group of men. “Gay” has become a scare tactic–accept me or else. Also, I’m asking them to accept ME, not the whole gay community. These men have a right to dislike flamboyant, shock behavior, just as I do. And I have the right to distance myself from exotic behavior, just as Obama does.
At some point, I’m planning to say something like “I’m attacted to men and I’m struggling to find a way to express my sexuality in a way that accords with my faith.” I might go on to explain how my years in ex-gay therapy didn’t “cure” me, and how glad I am to have found a denomination that is open to the idea of same-sex blessings should Jesus bring a partner into my life.
I’m out to both of the pastors, who welcome me and who are interested in how this Bible study will respond to me. Honestly, I don’t see that I’m fooling anyone–gays who think they can be in their 40s, never married, and give a good review to Mamma Mia without people having the slightest idea really underestimate levels of intelligence.
Maybe some of the men don’t want me to say anything out loud. This has nothing to do with shame on their part or mine–maybe they are content to have that part of my life in the background. If that’s the case, then why shouldn’t I honor that? What is to be gained by answering questions no one is asking? I realize that will bring cries of self-loathing closet queen, but I think it’s OK if, for whatever reason, people don’t want to look at my sexuality. As Fran Lebowitz says, spilling your guts is as attractive as it sounds.
This is not about an agenda. These men and I share a love for Scripture. That’s more fundamental to our identities than who we’re attracted to. When we talk about the Centurion and his beloved slave, I hope to say things like, “This reminds me of that relationship in Alexander or Troy. It was OK for men to love each other in that society Isn’t in interesting that Jesus blessed a same-sex couple.” Or, “Isn’t it interesting that Naomi was considered to be Ruth’s child’s parent, and not Boaz. Those around them must have seen the love between those two women was very deep.” Or, But I can’t say that while I’m chanting outside their door and stamping on their crosses. I can only say that if I go through the doors and become part of the community.
posted by Pat on
I think it’s much easier to march in a parade in a silly costume than enter a group of mostly straight men and get to know them over a period of time.
Ashpenaz, it maybe be easier for some people, but not me. I usually don’t march in parades, and I usually don’t wear silly costumes.
I don’t want to be forced by some Stonewall based tradition to use the word “gay” as I slowly come out to this group of men. “Gay” has become a scare tactic–accept me or else. Also, I’m asking them to accept ME, not the whole gay community. These men have a right to dislike flamboyant, shock behavior, just as I do. And I have the right to distance myself from exotic behavior, just as Obama does.
You’re certainly free to use whatever term you find more comfortable to describe your sexual orientation. But it sounds to me that your colleagues are intelligent, and wouldn’t normally assume that if one says one is gay, that it automatically means you subscribe to everything in the gay community. No more than being identified as Christian means that person should automatically assumed to be an immoral, hypocritical, judgmental blowhard.
Of course, these men are entitled to dislike certain behaviors. I certainly do.
I’m out to both of the pastors, who welcome me and who are interested in how this Bible study will respond to me. Honestly, I don’t see that I’m fooling anyone–gays who think they can be in their 40s, never married, and give a good review to Mamma Mia without people having the slightest idea really underestimate levels of intelligence.
I know a few people approaching 50 or older, who are straight, but never married, and probably never will. Granted, they don’t review Mamma Mia, but some have characteristics that people would possibly stereotype as gay. I can understand an outsider saying that I’m being fooled by these people. But believe me, these people are straight.
Maybe some of the men don’t want me to say anything out loud. This has nothing to do with shame on their part or mine–maybe they are content to have that part of my life in the background. If that’s the case, then why shouldn’t I honor that? What is to be gained by answering questions no one is asking? I realize that will bring cries of self-loathing closet queen, but I think it’s OK if, for whatever reason, people don’t want to look at my sexuality. As Fran Lebowitz says, spilling your guts is as attractive as it sounds.
This is not about an agenda. These men and I share a love for Scripture. That’s more fundamental to our identities than who we’re attracted to.
Again, it’s up to you how you want to handle this. But I’d look at it this way. If someone may be uncomfortable about hearing if you’re gay, and they don’t mention their own relationships, including wife (or girlfriend) and children, then that’s fine. But if any of these persons talk about their wives, but don’t want to hear about your partner, then they are being unfair.
posted by Ashpenaz on
What I hear you saying, Pat, is there is something inadequate about my way of being out and my way of being homosexual. See, I don’t like having my choices judged by the gay community or its representatives. Can you see why that might feel a bit oppressive? I get more flak from the gay community about my choices than I do from my church. I doubt if the Mormons enforce conformity with such zeal as the gay community.
I am going to do things my way, using the words I choose, based on my experiences, using my best judgment of each situation. If you want me to support marching in parades waving a dildo as a valid way of expressing homosexuality, then you need to simply support me and those like me. I am tired of the urban gay community setting standards for the rest of us to live up to and then dispensing contempt and unwanted advice when we make other choices.
As a side note, in all the months I have been in this study, not one person has mentioned their wife. It just hasn’t come up. I don’t think these straight men are any more eager to share personal stories than I am. We like to talk about corn here in Nebraska. Ask me whether or not you should harvest at 15% or 10%. Please. Just ask.
posted by guapoguy on
Well, Ashpenaz, you’ve managed to win me over. To be honest, my earliest impression of you, from you postings on past threads here, was that you were an embittered, hostile man. But you kept writing, and I kept reading, and gradually I came to envision you as a really nice, down-to-earth person, without a pretentious bone in your body. If I’m wrong, don’t tell me otherwise. You seem to have taken a big step in this space by granting other gay people their rights to live their lives differently than you, and by golly, you have every right to live yours as you prefer and feel most comfortable. I can tell you about my experience in life, but I can’t expect you to embrace my experience. So more power to you. And keep us posted on your progress with the Bible guys.
By the way, one area in which your and my experiences may be similar, is that I’ve also noticed that most straight men don’t feel comfortable talking about their own sex lives, much less anybody else’s. There is truth to the old saying that the more men talk about it, the less they’re doing it.
posted by Ashpenaz on
I think it’s great that people are different. My problem has been that the urban gay paradigm has somehow become the norm against which all other forms of homosexual expression is judged. It is probably just as hard to get dressed up in makeup and costume for an elk hunt as it is for a drag show–I think men like to show off in different ways. However, the elk hunter takes off the extreme costume when arguing for gun laws. He recognizes that in order to influence people who find killing animals for sport disgusting, he has to relate to them. He has to conform to get the votes he needs from them.
Would the gay community had the political clout of the gun and hunting lobby. Most people find hunting disgusting and the process of slitting an animal open and pulling out its guts into a warm pile not so much fun. But hunting advocates have managed to maintain their rights in a world that largely finds their source of pleasure offensive and disgusting. And they do that by conforming when they need to. They don’t parade around waving deer intestines around their heads.
I support the right to dress in drag and the right to hunt. But focusing on the extremes isn’t going to gain public sympathy. If we want marriage, we’re going to have to stop showing how much pleasure we get from sending an arrow through a deer’s lung and then eviserating it, so to speak. We’re going to have to focus on conservation, so to speak. In other words, we’re going to have to make something many people feel is disgusting sound like a natural part of life, just the way hunters have been doing for years.
posted by dalea on
For over 30 years I have been listening to the like of Ashpanz decry the gay community and its public image. Harking back to gays born in the 19th century, I have heard this line of drivel for a very long time. The idea that ‘fat dykes, leather men and drag queens’ are both our public image and what is holding us back is complete and utter bullshit. Why do ‘fat dykes, leather men and drag queens’ dominate the public image? Because we do all the work of the gay world. As a reward, we get to hear people who will not get off their fat asses tell us that we ourselves (the workers) are the problem. Enough with this crap. Ashpanz your posts are insulting and demean others. You should be ashamed.
posted by Pat on
What I hear you saying, Pat, is there is something inadequate about my way of being out and my way of being homosexual. See, I don’t like having my choices judged by the gay community or its representatives. Can you see why that might feel a bit oppressive? I get more flak from the gay community about my choices than I do from my church. I doubt if the Mormons enforce conformity with such zeal as the gay community.
Ashpenaz, you’re misreading my posts. I’ve made a point of saying that we should have the freedom to express ourselves the way we see fit. We both are offering opinions on why some expressions are not the best. I’ve questioned the manner of which you wish to express yourself to your Bible study colleagues. I can’t speak for the gay community, but you aren’t getting flak from me. However, you’re worried that your colleagues will judge you harshly if you use the word gay, that they may be offended, and expect you to sit and listen about their spouses, but you’ll have to keep shut about yours. If you want to cut these people slack, but not those from the gay community, that’s your right. Ultimately, you have to decide what works for you, and what’s best for you. And ultimately, your own well-being and happiness, is your own responsibility. Not the gay community, whether or not they conform to your way of thinking. Not your Bible study colleagues, who may or may not accept you in whichever verbage you choose to say it. And not your faith, whether or not you can align it with your sexuality or not.
Again, it’s your choice. I respect your (and anyone else’s) choices. But let me end by saying that you can use whatever term you want for your sexuality. It’s still “gay” and still “homosexual” by today’s American English. And that’s the way people will hear it, whether you like it or not.
We’re just expressing opinions here. And mine may certainly be wrong. But don’t make my opinion extreme, and say or infer that I think you should be marching with dildoes. I’ve never stated such a thing, and I believe I’ve made my opinion clear that I do not support such things. I’ve also made it clear that it doesn’t have to be one extreme or another. We’ve all got to find our own middle ground. If you found yours and it works for you, that’s great.
posted by Bobby on
“Would the gay community had the political clout of the gun and hunting lobby.”
—Asphenaz, as an NRA member, I wish the gun community had the political clout of the gay community. First of all, the media hates us, they either don’t cover our stories or cover them in a negative way. If there’s positive stories, they might hide them in small newspapers, probably on page 6. When someone goes crazy with a gun, that makes front page news. But when an 86 year old woman in Alabama shoots a home invador, the media is deaf to that story.
Secondly, we have very celebrities advocating our cause. Ellen Denegeneres, Rosie O’donnel, Ophra, Brad Pitt, the’re all pro-gay but either anti-gun or simply don’t care. What we do have is the power of letters. In Political Science 101 I learned that politicians count one letter as the opinion of a thousand people. With 4 million NRA members plus 70 million gun owners that sometimes get politically involved, you can bet we flood our politicians with letters, sometimes the NRA gives us form letters, all we have to do is place a stamp, sign our names, and that’s it. By telling them how to vote and reminding them what happens when they don’t vote our way, we often get our way.
Is there any gay organization that has 4 million members? How ’bout 3? 2 million? I think HRC is 1.3 million. That’s simply not enough.
But don’t worry, Ash. Conservatives don’t dominate the popular culture, too many of us don’t study film or journalism because we don’t feel welcomed there. And all our gay causes aren’t as enticing is gun rights. Saving traditional marriage isn’t as exciting as keeping the democrats from grabbing your guns.
Lastly, guns and hunting are two separate things. The second amendment is not about hunting. You have the right to bear arms, not the right to kill deer. Hunting is a priviledge, gun ownership is a right.
posted by Ashpenaz on
In the interest of full disclosure, I find hunters very attractive, so my opinion is clouded. I have spent many the happy hour watching the Sportsman channel.
My comparison was based on the premise that most people find hunting disgusting, and most people find same-sex relationships disgusting. But hunters have protected the right to hunt by stressing conservation and habitat protection. If a state wanted to ban hunting, hunters would not start a “Bloodlust Pride Day” and have a parade dressed in full camo sticking arrows into stuffed animals. They’d realize that sort of thing is ineffective. They would dress normally, talk about how hunting is a part of nature, that man evolved with the instinct to hunt, etc. Since hunters have been successful at protecting the right to do something many find disgusting and morally offensive, the gay community might learn from their tactics.
posted by Bobby on
“In the interest of full disclosure, I find hunters very attractive, so my opinion is clouded. I have spent many the happy hour watching the Sportsman channel.”
—I wish I could date more gays like you, Asphenaz, I really do.
“If a state wanted to ban hunting, hunters would not start a “Bloodlust Pride Day” and have a parade dressed in full camo sticking arrows into stuffed animals”
—Well, every once in a while the media will publish a picture of a hunter posing with a dead deer and plenty of people will get upset and write letters. But you have a point.
posted by Pat on
Ashpenaz, we all don’t do things all the time based on whether they are effective or not. I agree with you that some of the things we may see at a pride parade are not effective. Just as Mardi Gras (or walking down Bourbon St. in NOLA just about any night of the year) or Girls Gone Wild commercials are probably not the most effective thing for straights trying to maintain the “tradition” of marriage.
posted by Ashpenaz on
I agree–Girls Gone Wild, Mardi Gras, strip clubs, etc. are the straight equivalent of Pride parades and gay bars. I don’t think any of those things are good for society. I think that society would be happier if everybody left those things behind and focused on lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships.
However, straight people have the right to marry and we don’t. Their rights aren’t at risk. So they can get away with a lot more.
Going back to the original article, I don’t think marriage rights should be cast as civil rights. I really think that gay marriage is more like hunting rights. Like hunters, we believe that what we do is natural, instinctual, and inborn. Hunters can’t help being hunters, according to their own testimony, so whether we find hunting disgusting or not, hunters have the right to do what their instincts tell them to do. You don’t have to like hunting, you don’t have to eat meat, but you can’t tell a hunter not to hunt just because you don’t like it.
Hunters, too, can explain what they do in terms of conservation and habitat preservation. Gays can focus on similar positive qualities they bring to the table. Working together with hunters would also help us work with conservatives in general. I think if we looked at hunting magazines for inspiration, we’d have a better idea how to defend ourselves. I think I’ll pick up an Outdoor Life for some inspiration right now.
posted by Pat on
I think that society would be happier if everybody left those things behind and focused on lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships.
Maybe so. But what if an individual does not want that? Should he be “forced” to enter such a relationship, but really doesn’t have his heart on it? This certainly doesn’t benefit the other person in the relationship. This is what happened, for example, when gay men married women. This is also what happened when a young straight man, who, at the time of the marriage was not ready for sexual exclusivity and/or had no intention of doing so. Ashpenaz, you’ve indicated that you’ve longed for a lifelong monogamous relationship. But what if you didn’t want that?
Right now, there are many couples who are ready for, and deserving of marriage. There are plenty of gay persons who aren’t. The percentage of those who aren’t is most likely higher in the gay community. There are plenty of reasons for that. Part of it is individual responsibility, but focusing only on that will get us nowhere fast. There are problems internally in the gay community that work against sexual responsibility. And there are problems outside the gay community that work against it as well. We still have children growing up who are excoriated for being gay, even by their parents. And people somehow expect all children to overcome this? Some succeed despite their parents’ viciousness, and that’s great. But too many don’t. We see too often children being taught things that are obviously false, but believe it for the rest of their lives, no matter how many times they are presented with facts and reason. This happens, for example, too often with gay persons told as children that they are inherently bad just for being gay. The sooner that same sex marriage, or even civil unions, becomes more mainstream, the sooner that gay children will see that they have the same option as their straight peers do. We have to start some time.
However, straight people have the right to marry and we don’t. Their rights aren’t at risk. So they can get away with a lot more.
Agreed. It’s frustrating when many persons giving reasons against same sex marriage can also be used as an argument against opposite sex marriage. But they twist it and use the bad behavior by straight persons again as reasons why marriage should be exclusively for straight persons. It’s almost as bad as the “God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” stupidity that people spew.
Although I don’t find your hunting example entirely analagous to same sex marriage, you’ve made some good points there.