On Monday, March 1, John A. Perez was sworn in as California's first openly gay Speaker of the Assembly. Two days later, state Senator Roy Ashburn was arrested for driving drunk in Sacramento's gay neighborhood, accompanied in the car by a young man.
There you have the culture war over homosexuality in a nutshell, the two iconic ways of being gay: pride or shame.
It might not be entirely fair to call Sen. Ashburn gay; he certainly doesn't. But he's about the only one. His sexual orientation is usually referred to as an "open secret" in Sacramento, where his appearance at the city's gay bars is neither infrequent nor unnoticed.
His approach to homosexuality is the one the 55 year old grew up with: denial. But "denial" isn't exactly right, since, over time, he seems to have come to some acceptance of the fact that, by nature, he finds men sexually attractive. And even in public he does not formally deny he is gay; he dodges. His sexual orientation is "not relevant" and "has no bearing" on his job performance. He doesn't say he's gay, but neither is he on record saying he's not gay.
This public avoidance of what is obvious to everyone who knows
and works with him requires almost military discipline and
Herculean exertions of nuance and distraction.
Not to mention self-deception. Not his (since it's fairly obvious
he knows his sexual proclivity), but the self-deception of those
who are working so hard to disbelieve the undeniable.
That is what his party not only demands of its followers, but seems to prefer - the willing (if not mandated) suspension of disbelief. No GOP candidates can ever be (openly) homosexual.
The confines of that small parenthetical contain the entire culture war over gay rights. Of course some GOP candidates and elected officials are homosexual. Of course GOP voters are, as well. But that observable and unavoidable fact can't be honestly and straightforwardly talked about in the party. Log Cabin and now GOProud keep trying, while the party leaders and voters put their fingers in their ears and shout "Lalalalala!" as loud as they can.
This not only disables the party's gay officials, it makes the entire party look simpleminded if not entirely insane.
Compare that to the Democrats. Yes, the Dems have their closeted gays as well, but that's not the party's fault, it's entirely an individual choice. And it can be as fatal to Dems as it can to their counterparts.
But homosexuality is hardly a disqualifying factor for a Democrat - or certainly isn't in California. John Perez worked his way up right alongside heterosexual party regulars, and his sexual orientation is no more a secret than theirs. On the merits (or on the politics - the two are intertwined), his colleagues in the Assembly voted for him to be their leader. Like the Latino, women and African-American speakers before him, being a minority in California might actually have been an advantage, but among many contenders, he's the one who made the cut. Prior speakers of both parties, including the Granddaddy of them all in modern California politics, Willie Brown, showed up to celebrate Perez's elevation. Encomiums and accolades were offered, and Perez's inaugural speech met with rousing and sustained cheers.
Ashburn could never have aspired to anything like that in his party. No homosexual could.
Many people fall between these radically different understandings of homosexuality. But we are now at a stage where each party has adopted its own model. In California this week, we got to see exactly how they differ.
116 Comments for “The Ashburn/Perez Axis”
posted by Throbert McGee on
Kudos to Link for focusing on Ashburn’s ridiculous self-deception without parroting the tendentious claim that his voting record is “anti-gay.” I saw a number of headlines and blog stories that emphasized his “anti-gay” legislative history, but had to Google for more details, which I found buried near the end of a story from a Sacramento TV station:
Wow, voting against Harvey Milk Day — how can he look at himself in the mirror?
The other two bills, admittedly, at least get into legal territory related to what most ordinary people would describe as rights. Nonetheless, there are valid procedural reasons to avoid recognizing out-of-state gay marriages as long as the status of in-state gay marriage remains in flux. And since any anti-discrimination law — almost by definition — will constrain some people’s freedom of association and at the same time encourage litigation and bureaucratic expansion, no legislator should feel compelled to apologize for voting against such laws, even if it offends the Equality Cheerleaders from “his community.”
posted by Throbert McGee on
Ooopsie — here’s the link to the news story that I quoted from.
And as a palate cleanser, here’s a link to a F*CKIN EPIC Rube Goldberg machine, done as a music video for “This Too Shall Pass” by the group OK Go — quadruple-orgasm quality, as Debrah would say!
(Now I must go change my pants.)
posted by daftpunkydavid on
hey throbert mcgee,
while i agree with most of what you said, i’d like to point you to this: http://www.capitolresource.org/oneadmin/_files/File/2008-CRFI-Legislative-Scorecard.pdf
it’s pretty clear his voting record, at the very least from 2006 to 2008, has been “anti-gay” (not because he’s gotten 100% from a “pro-family” group, but because some of his votes had the effect, intended or not, of hurting gays and their families).
posted by BobN on
No GOP candidates can ever be (openly) homosexual.
In fairness to the GOP, I would have to add “anymore” to that line. There used to be openly gay GOP politicians, not many of course, but, heck, one was in the Senate, something an out Dem hasn’t managed. And, another of course, he got there before he was outed, but he did manage to hold onto his seat until he retired and was re-elected while out.
posted by BobN on
I see that Throbert, not one I would have expected to bend over for Senator Ashburn, has no problem doing so.
Ashburn IS anti-gay. His voting record proves it.
Nonetheless, there are valid procedural reasons to avoid recognizing out-of-state gay marriages as long as the status of in-state gay marriage remains in flux.
And there is no legitimate reason to not recognize out-of-state marriages. In fact, clarifying the status of marriages before, during, and after the window of legally recognized same-sex marriages performed in California is rather URGENT, because of the complicated nature of the situation. Even Ahnuld could see that.
http://sacramento.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2009/10/12/daily8.html
posted by BobN on
Ooops, not Senator, Congressman. Too much wine with dinner… yes, let’s blame that…
posted by Debrah on
Even though I disagree with David Link on many things, this is very well-written.
Just enough dramatic flair employed to present a strong case for his point-of-view.
“This public avoidance of what is obvious to everyone who knows and works with him requires almost military discipline and Herculean exertions of nuance and distraction.”
“Not to mention self-deception. Not his (since itâs fairly obvious he knows his sexual proclivity), but the self-deception of those who are working so hard to disbelieve the undeniable.”
***************************************
This is one of the best ones.
And who cannot agree that some gay men try to have it both ways–if not demand it!
Of course, they’re “out” to their friends, and they might touch on gay issues and support gay rights publicly as an advocate, but NEVER will they go on record as being gay.
Wow, what a bundle of “having it any way you want” that lifestyle must be.
And when such people use the word “minority”, it’s repulsive.
They wish to mulct from the “majority culture”—(is anyone feeling nauseated yet from that comical phrase?)—and never openly identify as gay. Then, when it feels right and they’re in the mood to thrust forth some “gayness”, they fully expect to do so…….but no one had better acknowledge that they are gay!
The fact that they are so fully capable of going about life brilliantly with no obstacles just as does everyone else only makes their loosey goosey, in and out use of the word “minority” more pathetic.
If I were a gay man, I’d rather someone tie my d!ck to a whipping post until it came up ground beef, while being forced to listen to the oily Pat Robertson 24/7 to add to the torture, before I would ever refer to myself as a “minority”.
Moreover, I’m not so sure denial is a Republican (which I am not) feature……and not just as prominent among Democrats (which I am, technically).
In any case, it isn’t the business of others to force anyone else to discuss their private sexual practices. Even elected officials.
Constituents can judge them by their attention to issues important to them without always taking a microscope to someone else’s bedroom.
There is really nothing more pathetic than the lives of people like Michelangelo Signorile.
Can anyone imagine making a living chasing down the locations of the d!cks of other men……and then blabbing about it like Joan Rivers on pink carpet?
posted by Debrah on
Throbert–
That video is seriously nuts!
How on earth did they have the patience to set up such a maze?
The real story is how everything proceeded like clockwork on the first take.
By the way, I don’t know if I can trust the analysis of “daftpunkydavid”.
I’m always wary of someone who still uses lower case keyboard strokes. :>)
By the way, “daftpunkydavid”—are you a California resident?
How do you know for a fact that “gays and their families” were “hurt”?
I mean, factually. Not a “feeling”.
posted by Debrah on
BobN–
In vino veritas….
á¼Î½ οἴνῳ á¼Î»Î®Î¸ÎµÎ¹Î±….
posted by Throbert McGee on
The Russian version of this goes, Whatever’s on the mind of a sober man is on the tongue of a drunkard.
I learned this recently while explaining In vino veritas to a Russian — he’d misunderstood the Latin for all these years, and thought it meant something like “A life without wine is not TRULY living”! Leave it to a Russian to misinterpret it that way… 🙂
So he was quite surprised to learn that the actual meaning of the Latin proverb was “alcohol loosens the tongue” — exactly the same as the Russian one.
P.S. In very recent years, a “sequel” of sorts has emerged for the traditional Russian saying: “And whatever’s on the tongue of a drunkard, is on my Live Journal page!”
posted by Jorge on
That is what his party not only demands of its followers, but seems to prefer â the willing (if not mandated) suspension of disbelief. No GOP candidates can ever be (openly) homosexual.
The confines of that small parenthetical contain the entire culture war over gay rights.
At least, that’s what the culture war is TODAY, but it takes two to tango. Why is it that on a nominally “independent” blog I am reading a commentator finding fault with someone’s choice neither to deny or acknowledge his homosexuality, for saying it’s not relevant? Has our community really become so extreme as to demand a public media acknowledgement of one’s homosexuality or be labeled a denier? Have this country so demolished the closet and exterminated the ex-gays that there’s nothing more important to culture war about than to cast shame on people for keeping their private lives private?
Remember, it’s not just conservative politicians and constituents who demand a Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell lifestyle from their representatives. The pseudo-closet is in society, family, and community, too.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Even funnier/patheticker are those who wrap themselves in the cachet of being an oppressed minority while at the same time trying to subsume larger and larger proportions of the general population under the infinitely elastic term “queer.” (You’re a heterosexual man who digs bald chicks? Well, that’s definitely a minority preference — here’s your official Queer lapel button and bumpersticker so you can remind everyone that you’re not part of The Man’s Establishment.)
To paraphrase Team America: World Police: “Everyone is Queer. Queer! Queer! Queer! Queer-queer-queer-queer-queer-queer-queer-queer-queer-queer-queer-queer-queer…”
posted by Throbert McGee on
I beg to differ — I looked at the .pdf that daftpunkydavid linked to, and Ashburn’s votes on gay-related issues are entirely consistent with (and fully explainable by) a limited-government political philosophy. In order to persuasively demonstrate that he’s anti-gay, you’d need to show (for example), that he has a legislative track record of supporting intrusive and/or expensive state-mandated measures, such as “minority sensitivity training” for senior-care facilities, and only voted against SB-1729 because that bill specifically addressed the case of “lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender seniors.”
Or, if he’d used his public podium to denounce voluntary private initiatives by senior-care facilities to implement “LGBT sensitivity training” for their staff, one could reasonably call that an anti-gay view (even though there was no legislation involved), since it’s really none of his business as a state senator if a private facility wants to have such training for its employees.
“Anti-gay,” like “homophobia,” is a sometimes legitimate accusation that should not be cheapened by sloppy overuse.
posted by BobN on
Throbert, within a system in which the unions of heterosexual couples are afforded legal rights, responsibilities, and privileges, what “small government” rationale is there for not extending similar — better yet identical — legal status to same-sex couples?
Seriously. Remember, it has to be a “small government” reason.
posted by Tom on
BobN: “Throbert, within a system in which the unions of heterosexual couples are afforded legal rights, responsibilities, and privileges, what “small government” rationale is there for not extending similar — better yet identical — legal status to same-sex couples? Seriously. Remember, it has to be a “small government” reason.”
It is a case of “two wrongs don’t make a right”.
Do you have any idea how much government support of “marriage” costs? Government-supported marriage is nothing more and nothing less than a form of welfare and income redistribution from single Americans to “married” Americans.
The founders never envisioned the extent to which a series of socialist-leaning governments under the influence of religious fanatics would involve government in “marriage” — tax breaks, unearned social security payments to widows and children, military married housing and the like — over 1,000 taxpayer supported benefits.
Just because the government wastes enormous resources supporting private heterosexual relationships under the name of “marriage”, it does not follow that Ashburn or any other legislator trying to turn the socialist tide should support extending the waste of resources to supporting private homosexual relationships, creating yet more intrusive big-government regulation of our private lives.
The welfare state surrounding marriage has gotten so out of hand that the only workable small-government solution is to eliminate marriage entirely. It is a bit like pissing into a gale, but fierce and unrelenting opposition to extending the “marriage” dole to homosexuals is a prudent and saluatory intital step to weaning heterosexuals off the “marriage dole”, it would seem to me.
posted by Jorge on
I beg to differ — I looked at the .pdf that daftpunkydavid linked to, and Ashburn’s votes on gay-related issues are entirely consistent with (and fully explainable by) a limited-government political philosophy. In order to persuasively demonstrate that he’s anti-gay, you’d need to show (for example), that he has a legislative track record of supporting intrusive and/or expensive state-mandated measures, such as “minority sensitivity training” for senior-care facilities, and only voted against SB-1729 because that bill specifically addressed the case of “lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender seniors.”
Let’s see…
Legalizing gay marriage; legalizing domestic partnerships; enforcing California (strong and strongly studied) anti-bullying bill; granting or extending the Civil Rights Act protections enforcable against businesses to gays; a sex education bill, okay with provisions…; declaring Harvey Milk Day; oh, an anti-gay distimination bill removing “creed” from protected classes; Expanded domestic partnership benefits; and so on and so forth with expansions of existing laws.
I disagree. When someone votes no on every single one of these bills, you can’t give him the benefit of the doubt blindly. You need to hear his explanation or at least his ideology.
I do agree that a person isn’t necessarily anti-gay with this voting record. There are good Republican alternatives to many civil-rights bills. But what Republican who is this tone-deaf on gay rights would have a similar voting record for blacks? Yes, Republicans have major problems with extending the Voting Rights Act, but it passes every time it’s up for extention. So get his explanation.
posted by Lori Heine on
“Do you have any idea how much government support of ‘marriage’ costs? Government-supported marriage is nothing more and nothing less than a form of welfare and income redistribution from single Americans to ‘married’ Americans.”
–Amen, Tom. I keep commenting on that on LGBT “conservative” blogs, and the responses are hilariously out of touch with reality.
“The founders never envisioned the extent to which a series of socialist-leaning governments under the influence of religious fanatics would involve government in ‘marriage’ — tax breaks, unearned social security payments to widows and children, military married housing and the like — over 1,000 taxpayer supported benefits.”
But then again, our tax-and-reward system is nothing but a system of organized theft. It is not the sanctity of marriage most of these morons are trying to defend, but very cleverly-justified theft.
We can get all teary-eyed about our responsibility to the environment, but the notion that we ought to work for months out of each year to hand our earnings over to people who did NOTHING to earn it (except copulate and breed, which they would do anyway), we’ve been programmed out of even glancing up from our toils to notice.
Thus does the scam go on. And thus, 150 years after the Civil War, has slavery actually won.
posted by BobN on
Tom and Lori,
All hail the brave Libertarian politicians who work ever so tirelessly to push back against the tide of entitlement that is heterosexual marriage!!!!!
I challenge both of you to find ONE example of a Libertarian politician actually working to REDUCE the rights associated with heterosexual marriage. It doesn’t even have to be Mr. Ashburn.
posted by BobN on
By the way, Lori, Tax Freedom Day this year is April 13 (earliest it’s been in quite a while). We spend 16% of our budget on anti-poverty programs, so, at best, you’re slaving away for the breeding masses for only about two and half weeks.
posted by Lori Heine on
BobN, at least the Libertarians are TALKING about it. Granted, there has to be more than talk — there must be action — but politicians do nothing at all until a lot of folks keep on talking about it.
And as far as how much of the time we spend working for money that will be confiscated from us by the government is concerned, I’m wondering why you think any amount of it is acceptable. Theft is theft. There’s no mystery why those who benefit from it find creative reasons to “justify” it.
And lest some guardian of traditional marriage wants to accuse me of not caring about the institution, puh-leeze. My parents were married, as were most people’s, and I’d be the last person to say I didn’t care that they were. I doubt it had much to do with being able to receive the fruits of other people’s earnings from the State.
Last night I had the satisfaction of hearing my brother-in-law thank my sister and my nieces for the help he has received from them, over the years, in his work. He was able to do it on television, which is something few people get to do.
I know that they, like everyone else in my family, also support same-sex marriage rights. They don’t seem to feel the need to take money from single people in order to enjoy a happy marriage or family life.
posted by Jimmy on
Per JMG, Ashburn is now on the record:
âI am gay. Those are the words that have been so difficult for me for so long. It is something that is personal, and I donât believe I felt with my heart that being gay would affect how I do my job,â Ashburn said. Asked about his anti-gay voting record, Ashburn said, âI felt my duty, and I still feel this way, is to represent my constituents.â Radio talk show host Inga Barks wanted assurances that Ashburn would continue to vote in a conservative manner on LGBT rights issues. Ashburn responded, âI believe firmly that my responsibility is to my constituents. I will take a careful look at each measure and apply that standard. How would they vote on this? How would they want me to vote on this,â adding that most people understood what that means.
posted by Bernie on
This is my first comment on IGF although I’ve been reading it for several years. The back and forth comments here concerning whether or not Ashburn is anti-gay or not has left me puzzled. Why is this even up for discussion? Seriously folks…
Ashburn has quite clearly demonstrated anti-gay animus in his voting record and has gone as far as to participate in and speak at an anti-SSM rally sponsored by the right wing Traditional Values Coalition and Reverend Lou Sheldon in April 2005. Ashburn went on to tout the rally and his appearance at it in a press release on his website.
Archived release here – http://tinyurl.com/AshburnTVC
This is not simply a matter of quietly voting against legislation that would help California’s gays and lesbians. He went out of his way to portray himself as a stalwart soldier and leader in the fight against the gays and lesbians. Ashburn ingratiated himself with and partnered with the very people who would like for us to cease existing… and would extend the same to Ashburn if they knew his true nature. Which now they do.
I fail to see how there can be question whatsoever in this matter.
posted by Tom on
BobN: “I challenge both of you to find ONE example of a Libertarian politician actually working to REDUCE the rights associated with heterosexual marriage. It doesn’t even have to be Mr. Ashburn.”
I’m not claiming that any politician, Libertarian or otherwise, would dare to touch that third rail. I was giving you an example of how a politician could, in theory, oppose same-sex marriage for a “‘small government’ reason“.
You won’t see a politician touch heterosexual marriage welfare with a ten-foot pole, any more than you’ll even see a politician go after middle class welfare boondoggles like home mortgage interest deductions and charitable deductions.
Most so-called “small government” politicians are frauds, pure and simple, willing to reduce the size of government so long as it is at the expense of the people who don’t support them. And most “small government” proponents in the general population are all for cutting government benefits, so long as it isn’t their benefits. Hypocrisy is the word for it, I think.
BTW, I think Ashburn is a typical case a politician who used “family values” as a way to beat his own drum in a social conservative district. Throbert is just plain wrong when he tries to assert that Ashburn’s many of Asburn’s votes weren’t animated by the anti-gay sentiments of the right-wingers in his district.
The Republicans have been banging on the anti-gay drum for a decade now, and are being left behind as the country changes.
posted by BobN on
I’m wondering why you think any amount of it is acceptable
I’ve been to places with no social safety net. The stench bothers me.
They don’t seem to feel the need to take money from single people in order to enjoy a happy marriage or family life.
So, they eschew the standard tax deductions for spouses and children? My, that’s dedication to ones ideals!
posted by Tom on
Bernie: “This is not simply a matter of quietly voting against legislation that would help California’s gays and lesbians. He went out of his way to portray himself as a stalwart soldier and leader in the fight against the gays and lesbians.”
Sure he did, Bernie. Ashburn’s from a social conservative district, and banging the drum kept him in office. It is the oldest game in the political book. BTW, glad you posted.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Thank you, Bernie, for the info about Ashburn’s participation at the TVC rally — to me that’s far more relevant (and damning) than his voting record*, since choosing to associate with TVC and Sheldon is so far “above and beyond the call of duty” for an elected representative.
* Not that voting record on nominally “LGBT-related” bills is always irrelevant — but in my view, voting against a “pro-gay” bill is of much less gravity than voting for an “anti-gay” bill, if you’re trying to determine who truly hates gays (or, in the cases of closeted gay politician, who is truly self-loathing).
posted by Throbert McGee on
As a practical example of the distinction I’m talking about: to vote against a bill that removes or reduces existing obstacles to adoption by gay parents is certainly not “pro-gay,” but without knowing more details about the bill, I would have to reserve judgment on whether a vote against it is clearly “anti-gay.”
On the other hand, a bill that creates new and larger obstacles to adoption by gay parents (on top of whatever obstacles already exist) is an “anti-gay” bill, and someone who votes for such a measure is himself being “anti-gay.”
To put it still another way, infringing on “negative rights” is far worse than choosing not to increase “positive rights.”
posted by Throbert McGee on
Regarding the “wealth transfers” created by marriage benefits, as Tom and Lori have been discussing — I would argue that these benefits exist primarily because of the traditional association between heterosexual marriage and child-rearing. Which is to say that this is not about the single subsidizing the married; it’s about the childless subsidizing other people’s children.
And as a single, childless person, I don’t have a general objection to subsidizing the significant material sacrifices that parents make for their children — after all, I fully anticipate that other people’s children will be bringing me my dinner and my pills in a nursing home someday.
Which is to say that I would frame the social relationship between childless adults and the so-called breeders next door as one of “mutual parasitism” — or if you want a nicer-sounding word, symbiosis. In principle, both can benefit from the wealth-transfer.
posted by Lori Heine on
Throbert, the question remains: who owns our money, who owns our labor, and who owns us? Is that something a collective should decide, or something each individual is able to decide for him- or herself?
Those who call themselves Christians should know how to answer that question. Individual free will — and the idea that nobody owns us but God — has supposedly been central to their theology and philosophy for the past two thousand years. It was this concept that underlay the principles of our Founding Fathers.
I do not believe that any collective has the right to determine who ought to be able to confiscate ANYONE’S earnings, or to conscript ANY of their labor, for the sake of ANY good — be it imagined or very real. That is where I am coming from when I state my opinions on the matter here.
Marriage and childrearing may seem like a relatively benign cause to justify collective ownership of the individual and the State appropriation of our labors and the fruits thereof. It’s easier for the collectivists to slip it in that way. But is it right? And once the camel’s nose is under the tent, how much more of the beast will eventually make it in?
That’s the real question as I see it. It isn’t merely a question that concerns gay people; it concerns us all.
posted by Tom on
Throbert: “Regarding the “wealth transfers” created by marriage benefits, as Tom and Lori have been discussing — I would argue that these benefits exist primarily because of the traditional association between heterosexual marriage and child-rearing. Which is to say that this is not about the single subsidizing the married; it’s about the childless subsidizing other people’s children.”
That is simply not true, Throbert. The differential tax rates for married couples filing jointly apply whether or not the couple has children, for example.
posted by Debrah on
This 2004 post from “Classical Values” is quite appropo.
****************************
“I have always taken a very dim view of outing, because it’s based on shaming another human being based on what he does in private with his genitals. From what I can see these days, the two primary groups of people who most believe in sexual shame are religious fundamentalists and gay activists. The former do it in the hope of ‘saving’ people from homosexuality, while the latter do it primarily to induce conformity to their political opinions. Apparently, it is felt that what one does with one’s genitalia creates a requirement that one conform to certain political goals; i.e. if one is homosexual, one is not allowed to hold opinions that differ from those of self-appointed ‘gay leaders’. It’s errant nonsense, and as tyrannical as it is profoundly illogical.
Sexual freedom, to my way of thinking, is based not on conformity to group rules or identity politics, but precisely the opposite. You’d think homosexuals would be the first to understand that, but I guess there’s always the tyranny of the oppressed. It’s bad enough to be a victim of such tyranny; it’s worse not to even know it.
I think those who practice ‘outing’ are behaving more like blackmailers and shakedown artists than as advocates of sexual freedom.
Perhaps they don’t like sexual freedom after all. If that is the case, then I think it is they who honor the true spirit Roy Cohn.”
*************************
Throbert makes several excellent points (as he often does because he’s capable of looking objectively at the world around him), particularly when he says that today’s kids will be tomorrow’s caretakers….as well as SS contributors who will be paying for the government’s current gross missteps.
Hey guys, someone on this planet has to procreate normally and use their bodies the way they were designed. Is that not OK with you?
In my view, much of the push-back the gay community receives is born of this often-psychotic desire to make everyone around them conform when their own numbers are a tiny fraction of the population.
Contrary to what is consistently stated by “activists” and “vehement gay rights proponents”, there is a strong push for homosexuality to be taught in schools.
Successful passage of gay marriage would, necessarily, engender such a curriculum and that’s exactly what the gay community wants so badly.
And if anyone above is still moaning about paying taxes that might go toward the heterosexual institution of marriage (LOL! I have to laugh), just think how all those adult taxpayers must have felt for decades having their tax dollars go toward the unimaginable expense to this country from the AIDS epidemic.
As Throbert opined months ago, as just one example—Andrew Sullivan’s meds, alone, must break the bank. Or at least cost his employer a bundle.
So please, everyone is able to play “Can you top that?” ad nauseum.
For such a tiny fraction or self-identified “minority”, the gay community certainly expects society to conform to every new whipped-up whim.
Here’s a stellar point made by a commenter named “Eric” who posted under Corvino’s latest column:
“While Corvino is correct to say that the ‘true’ definition of marriage covers many concepts, each is essential to a holistic understanding of the institution. To try and ignore one of these non-constituent parts would, in the end, do damage to marriage and the way it is practiced.”
“It seems to me that same-sex marriage would therefore need a compatible objective end; a function that it performed for the betterment of society as a whole, rather than just the parties involved in the marriage.”
*************************************
What exactly is the function of SSM for the betterment of society as a whole?
I ask this, not rhetorically, for I have rarely met a gay man or a lesbian whose sole purpose in life was not, invariably, his or her own interests.
That makes for a very insular set of values of which the outside world gets a clear view every day.
Lastly, let me say that I personally find nothing wrong with self-absorption, even when it’s elevated to an art form.
The only thing one must remember is that the rest of the world will not be forced to play along.
posted by Jorge on
The back and forth comments here concerning whether or not Ashburn is anti-gay or not has left me puzzled. Why is this even up for discussion? Seriously folks…
This is someone most of us do not know, so you’re going to have that. Of course we also get people like you bringing in information and then making a strong argument from it. The whole question of whether or not state Senator Ashburn is anti-gay is an opinion question, and we’re going to bring our assumptions and values into it. You’ll never get everyone to agree. You can get most people to agree, and you can get almost everyone to move toward your direction.
I judge people as “anti-gay” very sparingly and it would take a long time for me to figure out everything that I would need to know to agree that Ashburn is anti-gay. Although it is much easier to prove to me that he is not anti-gay.
So he admits he’s gay, eh? I hope I manage to sleep through the inevitable cries of hypocritical ingrate. Although I would be interested to know what he has done to make the world a better place. This is very interesting and I would like to know what his constituents think.
Having said that, a drunk driving arrest is pretty dangerous to one’s career to begin with.
posted by Tom on
Debrah: “What exactly is the function of SSM for the betterment of society as a whole?”
The function of SSM for the betterment of society as a whole is similar, if not entirely identical, to the function of OSM for the betterment of society as a whole, to wit:
(1) SSM is likely to strengthen marriage as a normative expectation for all couples, same-sex and opposite-sex; (2) SSM is likely reduce societal disruption caused by high-risk behaviors among younger gay men by “settling” them, just as OSM “settles” straight men, reducing the frequency of high-risk behaviors with attendant societal disruption; (3) SSM is likely to reduce societal health care costs, just as OSM does, by (a) strengthening the role of gay/lesbian spouses as caregivers, and (b) increasing the psychological and physical health of the spouses; (4) SSM is likely to reduce the need for public welfare by making same-sex couples financially and legally responsible for each other, just as OSM does by making opposite-sex couples financially and legally responsible for each other; (5) SSM is likely to provide the children of same-sex couples the psychological, physical, financial and legal benefits OSM confers on the children of opposite-sex couples; and, last but by no means least, (6) SSM will promote a more just society by treating classes of citizens similarly situated, as the lawyers say, equally under the law.
None are new ideas; Jon Rauch, Bruce Bauer and other conservatives made the societal case for SSM years ago. It has not changed, and it has not lessened.
posted by Jansen on
It looks like Ashburn has come around, and out: http://www.tonic.com/article/california-state-sen-roy-ashburn-comes-out-of-the-closet/
posted by Debrah on
“It looks like Ashburn has come around, and out….”
**************************************
And I’m sure the gay koffee klatsch circuit (as opposed to the regular man circuit) will be going mad with gossip.
Andy TOLL! Andy TOLL!
A blogger bounty. The guy has been browbeaten into publicly admitting his homosexual tendencies.
Didn’t he know that he was always supposed to put his gay d!ck on a billboard to be accepted?
Ashburn comes out of the closet
More like forced.
posted by clayton on
You wrote: “His approach to homosexuality is the one the 55 year old grew up with: denial. But âdenialâ isnât exactly right, since, over time, he seems to have come to some acceptance of the fact that, by nature, he finds men sexually attractive. And even in public he does not formally deny he is gay; he dodges.”
To attribute his behavior to his age is to do a great disservice to the thousands of gay men in their fifties who had the courage and integrity to live their lives openly. And I am one of them.
Remaining in a perpetual closet of denial (or dodging) is not merely the consequence of the year he was born. It is a choice he has made–and not just once. He made this choice every time he deemed his private life “irrelevant,” every time and he voted against a gay rights measure. He made it when he married a woman (presumably either as cover, or as an attempt to straighten himself out), and he made it every time he said or did something designed to give the impression he was straight.
I am fifty-three–almost the very same age as Ashburn–and I have friends in their sixties, seventies and eighties who had the courage to be true to themselves. Ashburn is not the victim of demographics. He is the victim of his own self-hatred.
posted by Debrah on
Tom–
Thank you for your signature lawyerly response.
However, I disagree that SSM is similar or identical to OSM.
*******************************
“SSM is likely to strengthen marriage as a normative expectation for all couples, same-sex and opposite-sex…..”
*******************************
Marriage will never be a “normative expectation” for the majority of gay men. That’s a fantasy pushed by SSM proponents because they desperately want homosexuality taught in schools as a “norm”.
Behind every orchestration is the push to normalize homosexuality—including the open promiscuity of gay men—and soften the influence of the heteronormative world.
Although there are many great people out there who are raising kids and who also happen to be gay, a child loses a significant aspect of the “growing up” process when he/she does not have the benefit of both a mother and a father.
Even kids raised inside an OSM grow up a bit warped when they are alienated from one of the parents or if one of them is a distant parent.
When a man grows up being too close to his “Mommy” and more distant from his father, he usually becomes a navel-gazing pussy and a lousy husband. He’ll marry someone who reminds him of, and treats him as, his “Mommy” did.
A woman who did not grow up close to her father is usually distrustful of men and often will not be capable of developing a loving relationship with the man in her life.
The various layers and idiosyncrasies of the people who raise us put a brand on our psyches—for better or worse.
And all the sweet ocean voyages organized by Rosie O’Donnell for the cable networks will not change that.
But yes, it is far better for kids with no parents to care for them be adopted by gay couples rather than have no loving home at all.
posted by Jimmy on
“A blogger bounty. The guy has been browbeaten into publicly admitting his homosexual tendencies.”
He didn’t say he had homosexual tendencies. He said, “I am gay.” That is a political statement. No one outed him; his own irresponsibility did that. Now, one wonders what factors really influenced Ashburn’s sudden reversal of course on a firm decision to run for US Congress, which came before the DUI, leaving supporters nonplussed.
One thing is for sure, his stepping into the light of day has brought the predicable response from the conservative bedfellows he once snuggled up to:
Randy Thommason, president of SaveCalifornia.com, is calling on the Bakersfield senator to resign, declaring in a press release that: “His lying, cheating ways have boiled over and the public’s trust has been shattered.”
Thommason also lashed out at Ashburn for breaking the law by driving drunk – the senator was arrested on a DUI last week and apologized – and for voting in the Senate last year for a tax increase as part of a way to fill a budget deficit.
Ashburn was divorced in 2003, but Thommason criticized him anyway for straying from marriage and said that “no one is truly gay.”
“He vowed to be faithful to his wife, then broke his vows when he chose homosexuality over his marriage,” Thommason said. “Now that he has openly identified with the “LGBT” lifestyle, Ashburn is dramatically out of step with his constituents, has lost their trust, and is in danger of voting against their conservative family values.” – Fresnobee.com
posted by BobN on
That’s a fantasy pushed by SSM proponents because they desperately want homosexuality taught in schools as a “norm”.
A norm, as opposed to THE ONE AND ONLY norm of heterosexuality. Tell us, Debrah, how does silence or condemnation of homosexuality help those kids you’re so worried about?
posted by Debrah on
BobN–
Relax and keep your shirt on.
Why can’t we all just come out with it?
You know, just the way most gays want other gays to do who don’t openly acknowledge their sexual orientation.
Just drop the antimacassar niceties and highbrow rhetoric waxing phony intellectual analyses and admit that behind all this is a push to make the gay life seem as normal among humanoids as the hetero life.
Which it isn’t.
posted by Jimmy on
“Just drop the antimacassar niceties and highbrow rhetoric waxing phony intellectual analyses and admit that behind all this is a push to make the gay life seem as normal among humanoids as the hetero life. Which it isn’t.”
Thank Apollo!
Are you really saying that same-sex couples can not possibly become as provincial as hetero couples, Debrah?
posted by BobN on
I don’t need to drop any niceties, antimacassar or otherwise, to say that I’m working for a society in which homosexual and heterosexual and bisexual orientations are seen as equally normal. Cuz they are.
Why don’t you just drop your niceties and your vulgarities and tell use why that chafes you so much.
posted by Jimmy on
“Why don’t you just drop your niceties and your vulgarities and tell use why that chafes you so much.”
BobN, Dahlia Lithwick’s review of Martha Nussbaum’s book, “From Disgust to Humanity”, should provide insight into her chafed nether region.
http://www.slate.com/id/2246892/
posted by Debrah on
“Are you really saying that same-sex couples [cannot] possibly become as provincial as hetero couples, Debrah?”
*******************************************
Jimmy, provinciality can be found anywhere.
Even amid the mating of sea snakes.
I’m merely voicing openly what the majority—I would bet my life—of the planet discusses behind closed doors.
If I were gay, I’d understand that and wouldn’t waste my life twisting something into a pretzel just to try to be like the ever-loathed “heteronormative” world.
posted by Debrah on
“Why don’t you just drop your niceties and your vulgarities and tell use why that chafes you so much.”
*****************************************
BobN, don’t get me started on this.
I didn’t know what “gutter” and “juvenile”, and “raw” were until I visited a subscription site of someone I know and respect but didn’t know he’d be clueless enough to openly put himself among such gay grotesquerie of teenagers and 20-somethings.
You see, that lifestyle and choice seem perfectly normal among gay men.
A middle-aged straight man who’s allegedly “respectable” wouldn’t be caught dead with his real name on such a site.
And this is but one example of the type of “different cult” you have going and want everyone to pretend it doesn’t make any difference.
I never concerned myself with gay life—live and let live—and was always quite dispassionate…….until I actually acquainted myself with what passes as “normal” and what is acceptable in their dealings with one another.
I won’t gloss over this BS as some have been indoctrinated to do.
posted by Jimmy on
I seriously doubt that if you were gay, Debrah, you would accept a status of less-than or second class, or even separate-but-equal. And to suggest that you would is a bigger lie than you saying that you know what you would feel as a gay person to begin with, which you cannot possibly say.
Painting everybody with the same brush is just another form of lying.
posted by Debrah on
Jimmy–
You’re right. There is no way for any of us to know the exact life scenario we’d inhabit if we were a different gender or possessed a different sexual orientation.
However, we can know our own temperament and our own personality.
Since this isn’t the “Debrah forum” and a few of the men here get upset when too much heterosexual talk surfaces (LOL!), I’ll just say that you have no idea how I have “bucked the system” as well as gone against what was “expected” in my life, already.
I can say with fervor that if I were gay I would not waste one day asking the outside world to “accept” anything I want to do.
Or more specifically, anyone I might want to f*ck.
You see, Jimmy. In my opinion, there are some gay men out there who are exquisite in many ways.
The fact that they engage in the activity which is so colorfully described in the link you provided really makes me sad.
It’s really quite bizarre…….but as a friend of mine said who is a doctor—“People engage in all kinds of activities that aren’t good for them.”
posted by Jimmy on
I think it’s great that you have been free to “buck” a system that is designed to accommodate you in the first place. It’s an honorable choice, I suppose.
It should be just as honorable for others who want to “buck” the “lifestyle and choice normal among gay men” and actually live conventionally married lives.
And can we remember the lesbian couples who also deserve that freedom? They continue to be massively under-represented on this forum.
posted by Throbert McGee on
To phrase it a little differently, legally-recognized SSM might, at best, have the effect of making it more “normative” to have a Big Gay Wedding and call oneself “married.” But normativizing weddings is a far cry from normativizing the commitment to monogamy and the voluntary mutual self-sacrifice that are traditional expectations of marriage. And these are aspects of marriage that no governmental fiat or other outside nudging can normativize if we as a gay community aren’t willing to socially enforce the norms among ourselves. In other words, we chase after the special cachet and dignity of the word marriage without realizing that the cachet is created and maintained by a social willingness to say “Shame, shame!” to people who break the rules.
posted by Debrah on
“In other words, we chase after the special cachet and dignity of the word marriage without realizing that the cachet is created and maintained by a social willingness to say ‘Shame, shame!’ to people who break the rules.”
**************************************
Throbert baby is back!
This is really quite astonishingly perfect.
posted by Lori Heine on
“And can we remember the lesbian couples who also deserve that freedom? They continue to be massively under-represented on this forum.”
Thank you, Jimmy. Yes, we are. I’d like to hear more lesbian opinions here. We are tired of being misrepresented as “selfish hedonists,” a la Alan Keyes, and not much interested in crudities about orgasms and body parts. Most of us outgrew that some time ago.
You’re right. I believe IGF was intended to be a forum of serious political discussion. That doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with humor, but all this gay-bashing is getting a little old. Gay men also deserve a lot more respect than that.
posted by Debrah on
“Most of us outgrew that some time ago.”
************************************
Then perhaps exhibiting that aspect of gay life instead of effectively defending the negative aspects with silence…..while crying for SSM to be the law of the land…..might be an advisable strategy.
“Gay men also deserve a lot more respect than that.”
*************************************
Some do.
Some don’t.
I knew Jimmy’s comment would bring in the self-righteous verbal detours and obfuscations.
The steeples lean.
posted by Jimmy on
Hey Lori, how does it feel to be a walking, talking obfuscation?
posted by Tom on
Jimmy: “Hey Lori, how does it feel to be a walking, talking obfuscation?”
At least she isn’t lawyerly …
posted by Jimmy on
Tom-
Indeed.
posted by BobN on
the cachet is created and maintained by a social willingness to say ‘Shame, shame!’ to people who break the rules.
Well, if that’s all there is to it, then I loudly shout, “SHAME, SHAME!!!” to anyone on here who has, uh, “bucked the system”.
Absurdities aside, is there a reason we’re getting marriage advice from someone who isn’t and has never been married? That would be Debrah, bucker that she is. And, Throbert, what’s your expertise based on?
posted by Throbert McGee on
I am flabbergasted that anyone would think to boast of their apathy towards topics that are manifestly fascinating and delightful to talk about.
I guess it just goes to show, once again, that menz be different than wimmenz — and that’s what puts the á¼ÏεÏÎ¿Ï (Gk., “different, other”) in “heterosexuality.”
posted by Debrah on
BobN–
I’m not even entertaining the thought of giving “marriage advice”.
LOL!
Except to say that the whole concept of marriage is vastly overrated, IMO.
You deliberately dreamed up that one just to be snarky.
But I would venture to say that both Throbert and I know enough about it to wonder why it’s so significant for some to attempt to redefine it.
One does not have to take a trip to the moon to know the various steps necessary for becoming an astronaut.
In fact, a trip to the moon might make more sense in this scenario.
A Star Trek venture into a Vulcan rendition of “marriage”
Remember that original morsel?
posted by Debrah on
“I am flabbergasted that anyone would think to boast of their apathy towards topics that are manifestly fascinating and delightful to talk about.”
**************************************
Exactly, Throbert dah-ling.
Provided that it’s delightfully lustful and not gory and creepy.
LOL!
By the way, I must recruit you to do a weekly ‘sex talk’ on my blog.
Everyone loved your style.
posted by Lori Heine on
“Hey Lori, how does it feel to be a walking, talking obfuscation?”
Really fine, thanks, Jimmy. Especially when the charge comes from a graduate of the Zelda Fitzgerald School of Emotional Maturity. (Quick: which movie did that come from?)
“At least she isn’t lawyerly …”
No, I only work for one (as of today). Although I guess if I keep at it long enough, I will be. Lawyers have an interesting take on things. I guess if I understood it better, I’d have a better grasp of what goes on in our government.
Seriously, I had time for a dinner date, most of a classic Diamondbacks game from 2001 on local cable, and returned to find only three more flaming turds of Zelda wisdom on this thread. Remarkable, in a strange sort of way.
A lesson — apparently — from Zelda: never use 100 words to say something when you can use 100,000 instead.
Amazing. This is fun.
posted by Bobby on
“Except to say that the whole concept of marriage is vastly overrated, IMO.”
—I agree, except that when I read articles like the following
5 myths about same-sex marriage
http://townhall.com/columnists/JaniceShawCrouse/2010/03/09/five_myths_about_same_sex_marriage
It makes me want to support same-sex marriage.
posted by Tom on
Debrah: “Except to say that the whole concept of marriage is vastly overrated, IMO.”
I’ll grant you that marriage may be overrated in terms of personal fulfillment, but not in terms of the benefits society derives from marriage. In the latter sense, marriage is vastly underrated in my opinion.
Marriage is a lifesaver for our society. Marriage binds two people together in a “primary care-giver” bond, each taking responsibility for the other, reducing the burden on charities, social welfare agencies and health care resources. Marriage protects children. Marriage increases the psychological and physical health of spouses. And so on and so on.
What I have never understood about those who oppose SSM is that they insist, one the one hand, that our society benefits greatly from OSM, but deny, on the other hand, that our society will derive benefit from extending marriage to same-sex couples. It seems to me to be a contradiction.
When I proposed a few ways in which SSM marriage will benefit society — six, to be lawyerly about it — in response to Debrah’s request, she responded to none of them but driveled off into her usual bons motes and impressionistic, unsupported, opinions, like an unguided missle coursing through an otherwise clear sky.
And now, here she is denying the value of marriage.
Debrah, in my view, is a near-perfect illustration of the trap that opponents of SSM find themselves in, sooner or later, whether they know it or not.
Unable to answer a simple question — “If OSM provides significant benefit for society, why wouldn’t SSM also benefit society?” — with supported reason and logic, opponents of SSM soon end up arguing that marriage is not important at all.
It simply does not wash.
I am old enough to remember the time when our cultural norm was “If you want to live together, get married, and if you have children, stay married.” This was not, in my view, a provincial or rustic notion, but an expression of how important marriage is to the couple involved, the children they are raising, and our society as a whole.
Much has happened over the last fifty years to shake the foundations of this cultural norm. Fewer couples are marrying, couples that do marry are marrying later, divorce and remarriage are rampant, and an unconsionable number of children are being born out of wedlock and raised outside of marriage. In my view, this is something we need to turn around.
Opponents of SSM, insisting as they do that marriage is not important enough to extend to same-sex couples, are sending a clear and unmistakable, if perhaps unconcious, message that marriage is not important at all, that it is acceptable for couples to live outside marriage and raise children outside marriage. That is not moving the ball forward toward the goal of returning to a cultural norm was “If you want to live together, get married, and if you have children, stay married.”
Many heterosexuals, like Debrah, seem to have largely given up on marriage. Most heterosexuals, if the divorce and remarriage rates are any indication, seem to have largely given up on marriage as a life long commitment. Be that as it may, I think we are damaging our society by ignoring and belittling the value of marriage, as we do, and I think that opponents of SSM are making matters worse, rather than better.
My view is that we should work to turn this around. In my view, we ought not only support marriage, but we ought to insist on it as a “normative expectation” for couples, both straight and gay/lesbian, and in particular couples who are raising children. To do so, of course, will, as Throbert correctly points out, require that we — straight and gay/lesbian alike — work to insist upon and enforce marriage as a norm.
posted by BobN on
I’m not even entertaining the thought of giving “marriage advice”.
LOL!
Except
Yeah, “except”. Every post about gay men not being qualified to marry, not being able to fulfill what marriage really is, not understanding what the word means, etc. is, most certainly, “marriage advice”.
posted by Debrah on
Tom–
I’m on my way to another appointment and had no expectation of being met with your long instruction manual on marriage.
I’ll say it again and please remember this: I am not an “opponent” of SSM. I wouldn’t work against SSM. Nor would I spend the time to work for it.
Simply because I find the whole idea of a man walking another man down the aisle the height of comedy.
Of course, I’m very capable of putting on the actress chapeau and pretending that it’s a “marriage”. You’d be surprised how charming I can be when the need arrives.
All you say is well-written, and like David Link, you’re an intelligent man with views on this topic that are different than those of the majority of the people on the planet.
I understand your desire to “nest” and build a life with someone. I’ve gone through stages of this myself; however, many of us simply do not “crave” such a lifestyle.
This doesn’t mean anyone has “given up” on the institution. I want people to marry and procreate and keep the planet alive and well.
I just don’t need that claustrophobic environment right now, but as I said before–one could fall madly in love tomorrow! Who knows?
To be honest, I have been in love (kind of…..from afar) with someone for the last couple of years. But alas, it will never be.
And since I first must fall in love with the MIND, someone like that is an even rarer find.
In total, I’ve had 4 proposals and perhaps if I had not, this marriage thing might hold more cachet for me.
I suppose I expect too much from marriage. Many people do.
You and others need to arrive at the point on which Jonathan Rauch touched in one of his previous posts.
I don’t know if it’s the “Jewish man” in him (they have the excellent trait of grasping reality head-on), or simply that he is a pragmatist, but Rauch has hit on the main sticking point…..and he doesn’t do it in a bitter way:
***** Before SSM can become law, one has to first believe that it is, indeed, a MARRIAGE. *****
Many of us don’t. And not because we’re “mean” and not because we’re not open to freedom for all and not because we are not educated and well-traveled and have not “been to town”…….
……..but because we do not believe that real marriage is a “marriage” that takes place between those of the same sex.
Find a new appellation.
Tom, most gay men are not like you and I do hope you can understand that many of us are well-aware of that fact and will not sit back and pretend that “marital bliss” is what most gay men are about.
Don’t slap the wrists of those who mention that fact. If it bothers you, redirect your efforts in the direction of those who create this reality that some of you won’t accept.
What you say is all very thoughtful; however, how does it play on the gay male YouTube sites and among every-day gays?
Lastly, don’t use what my view may or may not be of marriage. It’s immaterial to the discussion of SSM.
That will not make your quest any more palatable in the reality-based world.
posted by Debrah on
BobN–
Uh-huh.
posted by Amicus on
compare the inconsistencies:
Even funnier/patheticker are those who wrap themselves in the cachet of being an oppressed minority …
I’m merely voicing openly what the majority—I would bet my life—of the planet discusses behind closed doors.
posted by Amicus on
After carefull consideration and study, I have concluded that “antimacassar” is very gay and, using it as an adjective, is fabulously gay.
🙂
Sorry, but it is true. It must be genetic.
posted by Amicus on
uh, “carefull” s/b “careful”
posted by Tom on
Debrah: “You and others need to arrive at the point on which Jonathan Rauch touched in one of his previous posts. I don’t know if it’s the “Jewish man” in him (they have the excellent trait of grasping reality head-on), or simply that he is a pragmatist, but Rauch has hit on the main sticking point…..and he doesn’t do it in a bitter way:
***** Before SSM can become law, one has to first believe that it is, indeed, a MARRIAGE. *****”
I think you are referring to Jon’s post “What Brown Can’t Do For You”, in which Jon discusses the question of whether the Perry case is premature. In that post he makes the point: “Obviously, I believe that a same-sex union can and should be regarded as a true marriageâbut that is the question before the Court. In order to conclude that the unavailability of SSM deprives gay couples of an equal right to marry, the Court must conclude that a same-sex marriage is a marriage.”
The observation does not suggest that Jon has changed his longstanding an articulate support of SSM, like this snippet from his June 2008 WSJ column “Gay Marriage Is Good for America”:
Jon’s thinking on SSM is careful and persuasive, and strongly influenced my own.
Debrah: “Many of us don’t. And not because we’re “mean” and not because we’re not open to freedom for all and not because we are not educated and well-traveled and have not “been to town” ……. but because we do not believe that real marriage is a “marriage” that takes place between those of the same sex.”
Of course.
And that is the nub of the matter. You are not concerned about whether or not SSM will benefit society. You are only concerned with your own opinion about whether SSM is “real marriage”.
Your position is similar to that of Christians who believe that remarriage after divorce is not marriage, but adultery. I don’t have an argument with them, in the sense that they are free to believe what they want to believe about remarriage.
And I don’t have an argument with you, insofar as I have no interest in trying to get you to change your view that SSM is not “real marriage”. Believe what you want to believe.
The question before our society is whether or not we should recognize SSM for civil law purposes, despite the belief of people like you that SSM is not “real marriage”, just as we now recognize remarriage after divorce for civil law purposes, despite the belief of a significant number among our population that remarriage after divorce is not marriage at all, but instead state-recognized and state-subsidized adultery.
Civil law should be based on the common good.
posted by Tom on
Debrah: “Tom, most gay men are not like you and I do hope you can understand that many of us are well-aware of that fact and will not sit back and pretend that “marital bliss” is what most gay men are about.”
I think you would be surprised how many gay men are like me. You need to get out more, I suspect.
Ill grant you that we — those of us who have lived together in faithful monogamy for years and raised families — are probably a minority at present. I think that will change over time.
But the more cogent question is this: Why deny SSM to the gays and lesbians who want to marry, just because other gays and lesbians do not? What logic is there in that?
Would you deny OSM to straight couples who wanted to marry, just because a significant number of straights don’t want to marry?
posted by Tom on
Debrah: “I’ll say it again and please remember this: I am not an “opponent” of SSM. I wouldn’t work against SSM. Nor would I spend the time to work for it.”
I will take care to remember it, Debrah.
Nonetheless, those of us on IGF must respond, if we respond at all, to the arguments you put forward.
You consistently put forward arguments in opposition to SSM, and have not, to my knowledge, ever put forth an argument in favor of SSM.
Because you are entirely neutral on the issue, despite what you write, my characterization of you as an opponent of SSM is no doubt unfair, and I’ll try to remember to do better and stress the unique viewpoint from which you post.
posted by Lori Heine on
Tom, you touch on an important issue. Straights are judged as individual human beings, whereas gays and lesbians are lumped together into one big, messy, scary blob.
This country was founded under the rule of law, which judged each citizen as an individual. And as I suggested earlier, the SSM debate ties into a larger one about what sort of a country we want to be.
Martin Luther King said that African-Americans should be judged not by the color of their skin (something that lumped them all together), but by the content of their character (their individual personhood). He is rightly applauded for this, as most people can easily recognize the wisdom in this assertion.
That’s because we’re Americans, and we should know better than to annihilate the individual. At least some of us still realize that a nation in which that can happen to anyone is, indeed, a nation in which that can happen to ANYONE.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Tom to Debrah:
I don’t believe that these two points are as easily separable from each other as you seem to think. That was the point I meant to make when I wrote:
And some of the “social benefits” that you attribute to SSM are very much dependent on how people outside the marriage view SSM. For example, I would argue that having SSM doesn’t necessarily help to keep same-sex couples together if there’s ZERO social stigma associated with same-sex DIVORCE. And in order for heterosexuals at large to begin even slightly stigmatizing same-sex divorce, they’d first have to believe at a gut level on the “reality” of SSM.
So the personal opinion of millions of Debrahs as to whether SSM is “real marriage” is entirely relevant to whether SSM really has a greater social benefit. (Indeed, I would say that the interrelatedness of these questions ought to be bleedin’ self-evident to anyone who isn’t blinded by the sequins and spangles of the Gay Equality Cheerleaders.)
posted by Lori Heine on
I’d like to add that it is treating each of us as an individual that really leads to more responsible behavior. “Abandon hope, for you are gay” cannot possibly encourage people to take more responsibility for their own lives.
It is precisely the understanding that we are individuals, each of us responsible for ourselves and our own choices and actions, that makes responsible behavior not only possible but desirable.
The culture warriors, in their over-emotionalism and irrationality, have it exactly backwards. As they would readily recognize, if the same “one-size-fits-all” standard were to be applied to them.
We’ve tried assuming that people are all children, who can’t be trusted to make their own decisions and need Big Brother and the wise elites to make all our decisions for us. As one of the culture warriors’ own darlings might put it, “How’s that workin’ out for ya?”
posted by Throbert McGee on
In martial-arts practice sparring, there is no expectation that one participant will obligingly fall down on his ass out of “courtesy” to the other one. And both students benefit from this, because you don’t learn as much from an opponent who goes out of his way to make things easy for you.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Well, that’s one way to undermine your own argument before you’ve gotten a full three words into the sentence…
posted by Tom on
Throbert: “I don’t believe that these two points are as easily separable from each other as you seem to think.
That was the point I meant to make when I wrote: ‘In other words, we chase after the special cachet and dignity of the word marriage without realizing that the cachet is created and maintained by a social willingness to say “Shame, shame!” to people who break the rules.’
And some of the “social benefits” that you attribute to SSM are very much dependent on how people outside the marriage view SSM. For example, I would argue that having SSM doesn’t necessarily help to keep same-sex couples together if there’s ZERO social stigma associated with same-sex DIVORCE. And in order for heterosexuals at large to begin even slightly stigmatizing same-sex divorce, they’d first have to believe at a gut level on the “reality” of SSM.
So the personal opinion of millions of Debrahs as to whether SSM is “real marriage” is entirely relevant to whether SSM really has a greater social benefit. (Indeed, I would say that the interrelatedness of these questions ought to be bleedin’ self-evident to anyone who isn’t blinded by the sequins and spangles of the Gay Equality Cheerleaders.)”
I would point out to you that the idea that citizens should be treated equally under the law, unless there is a clear and compelling reason why denying equality under the law to some citizens is in society’s best interest, is a core idea of both classical liberalism and classical conservatism. It is, I suppose, a radical idea in terms of the sweep of human history, but it is a core and foundational idea of our constitutional system.
It is within that framework that the cultural arguments about SSM need to be evaluated. It is not enough to simply say that the culture “isn’t there yet”. The culture almost never is. The arguments for equality under the law almost always are made against a backdrop of opposition, often fierce opposition.
Marriage between whites and blacks was, at the time Loving was decided, opposed by a large majority of our nation’s citizens. The stigma was irrational, of course, but it was real. It has lessened over time. But even today, over forty years later, the cultural stigma of marrying across black/white lines remains among a significant segment of our population.
The cultural gains — getting the “dignity” of the word marriage associated with SSM in the minds of a majority of Americans, for example — will come as a result of SSM, eventually and over time.
I hate to keep harping on my age, but I am old enough to have come of age before Stonewall, the dawn of the modern struggle for equal treatment, and I have lived through most of the modern struggle for acceptance in the workplace, for the demise of sodomy laws, for the ability to be able to chose to be “out”, and so on. I have seen attitudes change as a result of the battles.
What changed things, more than any other factor, was the increasing number of “ordinary” gays and lesbians who chose to come out and live as openly as was safely possible. When people know gays and lesbians, their attitudes toward gays and lesbians tend to change from opposition to support.
We see that among the young — straights Michael’s and my kids’ age, twenty-somethings. By and large, young straights are significantly more inclined to support SSM than older straights. Why? I believe that it is because they often know enough gays and lesbians to see them as “ordinary”, and to be able to make the imaginative leap from their aspirations in life to those of their gay and lesbian friends.
We will never — not any time soon, anyway — win over the latter-day Anita Bryants. And, as we all know, attitudes towards gays and lesbians are changing with excruciating slowness. But I would argue with you that we should not fear advancing our arguments for equal treatment under the law just because the culture “isn’t there yet”.
Having said that, I agree with your point that if we are going to return marriage to a “normative expectation”, we have to insist that men and women who enter into marriage — both straight and gay/lesbian — enter into it seriously, and support the idea that “If you want to live together, get married, and if you have children, stay married.”
It will be a big cultural change, both within the world of gay men — lesbians, I think, are more inclined to value monogamy than men — and within the world of straights. It is, after all, the straights who have turned marriage into a revolving door.
posted by Lori Heine on
“Well, that’s one way to undermine your own argument before you’ve gotten a full three words into the sentence…”
And how do I do this? Are you trying to claim I’m saying that straights judge gays out of a collective mind? As that would have made no sense, given my premise, of course that was not what I was saying. They are responsible, as individuals, for how they judge us. Indeed, a growing number choose not to take us as a lump in estimating us. But that is still the dominant model used in doing the judging. As is demonstrated by those who post their blanket condemnations of *ALL* gays as supposedly unfit for marriage because of the behavior of some.
posted by Tom on
Tom: “You [Debrah] consistently put forward arguments in opposition to SSM, and have not, to my knowledge, ever put forth an argument in favor of SSM.”
Throbert: “In martial-arts practice sparring, there is no expectation that one participant will obligingly fall down on his ass out of “courtesy” to the other one. And both students benefit from this, because you don’t learn as much from an opponent who goes out of his way to make things easy for you.”
Oh, I don’t expect Debrah to make anything easy. I have difficulty, half the time, trying to figure out what she’s trying to say …
My comment, though, went to (and was limited to) the contrast between her avowed “neutrality” on SSM, compared to what she actually writes.
I was mistaken in assuming that because she always writes in opposition to SSM, that she opposes SSM. I realize now that she is writing more as a journalist in the Hunter Thompson school, imparting to those of us who are gay and lesbian that a lot of straights hold us in disdain, are disgusted by our sex lives, and don’t think that our commitments are “real”. It isn’t exactly breaking news.
Live and learn, I guess.
posted by Jimmy on
“My comment, though, went to (and was limited to) the contrast between her avowed “neutrality” on SSM, compared to what she actually writes.”
Debrah performs the role of Devil’s Advocate in this Socratic exercise with aplomb and approaches it with gusto.
She will no doubt tell you, Tom, to not trust the opinions of young people because their opinions will change, even coarsen, as they age. They will inevitably shift their beliefs 180 degrees from where they were in the tender years.
Don’t even try to draw comparisons to race as it inflames her haunches.
posted by Throbert McGee on
I’m fairly certain that Debrah is sincere in actually opposing SSM, although she doesn’t necessarily oppose it for the precisely the same reasons that some opponents do, nor that she opposes it with the same intensity that some people do. For example, some SSM opponents place great significance on the fact that St. Paul writes, in the Christian NT: “As the groom/husband is to the bride/wife, so the pastor is to the (particular) congregation, and so Jesus Christ is to the (universal) Church.” In other words, even Christians who don’t see homosexual acts as intrinsically sinful may nonetheless object to the concept of “same-sex marriage” on the grounds that the the non-homogeneous character of the husband/wife pair is written deeply into Christian theology. And clearly Debrah, would agree with Christian theologians on the basic point that a husband and wife are a dissimilar, heterogeneous pair, and that the word “marriage” implies a union between yin and yang — although she may not be interested in the extended theological analogy that the relationship between Jesus and the Church is “like unto” the relationship between a husband and wife, respectively. (I assume that Jews would endorse the first part of Paul’s analogy, regarding the relationship between a religious congregation and its leader.)
But in any case, although Debrah opposes SSM, and mocks the idea of two men walking down the aisle together, that doesn’t mean she opposes or mocks “loving couplehood” for gays and lesbians. Rather, she urges that we develop our own customs for our pair-bonding, and stop acting like those assimilationist Reform Jews who eagerly put up “Hannukah Bushes”. (I know perfectly well that not all adherents of Reform Judaism engage in that kind of “aping”, but it WAS that sort of copycat behavior in the past that gave Reform Judaism a lasting bad name among the Orthodox.)
posted by Throbert McGee on
Actually, Jimmy, my first-ever dialogue with Debrah — and she can vouch for this — went more or less as follows:
Exactly how “gayness” and “Jewishness” were agreed to be analogous is left as an exercise for the clever reader.
posted by Jimmy on
Throbert-
The gay/Jew comparison is one I don’t see made very often. I’m more familiar with her antipathy at the idea that valid correlations exist in the shared experiences that LGBT and people of color, especially blacks, have had in the course of pressing for their civil rights.
posted by Tom on
Throbert: “I’m fairly certain that Debrah is sincere in actually opposing SSM, although she doesn’t necessarily oppose it for the precisely the same reasons that some opponents do, nor that she opposes it with the same intensity that some people do.”
When I suggested that Debrah was an opponent of SSM, she responded: “I’ll say it again and please remember this: I am not an “opponent” of SSM. I wouldn’t work against SSM. Nor would I spend the time to work for it.”
Carefully read, of course, her statement may have nothing to say about whether she personally favors, opposes or is neutral about SSM — she speaks only of “work”, and it is possible that she means something beyond “written advocacy” as “work”.
You two seem to know each other well, so I don’t question that you believe that Debrah “is sincere in actually opposing SSM” for your own good reasons, but I I feel constrained to take her at her word when she says, flatly and unequivocably, “I am not an “opponent” of SSM.”
Jimmy: “Don’t even try to draw comparisons to race as it inflames her haunches.”
I’m not going to worry about Debrah’s haunches. I believe that there are historic similarities and legal analogies between the struggle for equal treatment under the law by African-Americans, on the one hand, and gays and lesbians, on the other. I can’t spend my life walking around Debrah’s eggshells. If she goes off, she goes off.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Riddle me this!
Q. How are homosexuals like Jews, but unlike blacks?
and
Q. How are homosexuals like blacks, but unlike Jews?
and
Q. Apart from the obvious answer of being numerical minorities who are sometimes victimized by other people’s prejudices, how are gays like blacks AND like Jews?
(HINT: The answers to all three of these head-scratchers are interrelated.)
posted by Debrah on
Throbert–
Ha!
Of course, the answer to your question is BROADWAY.
Your (8:20 PM) was a good recollection; however, here’s what we actually said:
Debrah said: “Cease drawing comparisons to being Jewish. Being ‘gay’ has nothing to do with being Jewish.”
Throbert said: “Debrah, although I mostly agree with what you’ve been saying, there IS one respect in which homosexuality and Jewishness are somewhat similar to each other, but for the most part dissimilar to being black or Asian in a mostly-white society: in America, at least, Jews and homosexuals both had the choice of trying to totally assimilate and blending in with the majority, OR of openly wearing their differentness on their sleeves.”
“But I’m just being a bit pedantic, because in most other ways, being Jewish and being gay are obviously very different experiences (well, apart from both groups having ‘disproportionate’ influence on Broadway…), and the invocation of the ‘blood libel’ was quite over the top. (Surely a better analogy would’ve been ‘Gypsies steal children and raise them as their own’!)”
Throbert said: (quoting Debrah)- ” ‘[raw and raunchy adolescent behavior] would seem to be much more acceptable and embraced by the respectable in the gay world.’
Debrah, can you hypothesize WHY this is the case? (I’m a 38-year-old man who prefers to identify as ‘happily homosexual, but not gay’, and I have my own theories on the adolescent behaviors of many ‘gay men’. However, I’d like to hear your take first before I explain why I think this happens.)”
Debrah said: “Throbert, you’re SO above average.
You have two things going for you right out-of-the-gate:
One, you mostly agree with what I’ve said.
Two, you’re obviously in possession of over-the-top intelligence and objectivity.”
Debrah said: “No, I want to read your thoughts on this most significant topic first.
(I was about to go wash my hair, but I’ll wait with bated breath for your analysis.)
(quoting Throbert) *** ‘Jews and homosexuals both had the choice of trying to totally assimilate and blending in with the majority, OR of openly wearing their differentness on their sleeves.’ ***”
Debrah: “Very good!”
Our exchange began with your exquisite and psychologist-worthy analysis of why grotesque sexual displays from many gay men are basically accepted inside the gay community…….
……..when you came out with that gem about Broadway.
LOL!
posted by Debrah on
“Q. How are homosexuals like Jews, but unlike blacks?”
As you mentioned in the post from long ago, gays and Jews do not have to “wear their different-ness on their sleeves”.
Being black isn’t mitigated by going inside a closet as gays can so easily do or by choosing not to make your “Jewish-ness” an open feature of your life.
“Q. How are homosexuals like blacks, but unlike Jews?”
Gays and blacks are tethered to a “pity party”. They constantly whine about being “minorities”, and it’s really quite unseemly…….not to mention, nauseating, in the 21st century. It’s particularly odious to call yourself a “victim” because of the way you express your sexuality.
Such earth-shaking problems!
Jews go about their lives by just “doing it”. For centuries they have endured unimagined challenges the world over; however, they do not pretend to be “victims” or allow such a concept to rule their lives.
For such a tiny fraction of the human population, they have not only survived, but thrived. Obviously.
“Q. Apart from the obvious answer of being numerical minorities who are sometimes victimized by other people’s prejudices, how are gays like blacks AND like Jews?”
All three represent an unusually high percentage who make their livings in the arts—music, film, fashion, etc…….
posted by Debrah on
Amicus–
Your (3:15 PM) needs correcting.
You quoted a line from Throbert and one from me.
If you think there is an “inconsistency”, perhaps that’s why.
I know that you “skip over” my posts, so perhaps you’ll need to put a bit more work next time into your methods of clairvoyance.
posted by Debrah on
Tom and Throbert–
Throughout both your exchanges, you’ve touched on a few things and each of you is correct in part.
Consequently, I’ll answer both of you in one comment.
Throbert is correct that I have no overt and intense opposition to SSM. Candid comments here, notwithstanding.
IMO, it’s important to have an open dialogue on culture war issues or why bother?
I support civil unions as do the president and vast numbers of thinking people.
I carry no “traditional or religious” baggage in forming my opinion. It’s merely a technical reality.
Marriage was not designed or dreamed up for people of the same sex.
Call it anything you wish, but it will never be “marriage”, but we can pretend.
If someone knocked on my door and asked me to sign onto an organized démarche against SSM, I would not sign it.
On the other hand, if I were asked by a media outlet to do an op-ed or something on my views of SSM, I’d do that.
In the voting booth, I would not check the box for SSM, nor would I take part in a political effort against it.
Tom is right, in my view, that lesbian couples do not generate the type of negativity as gay males often do and they also seem to be more committed to the idea of monogamy.
The gay male culture—and a nonstop, openly grotesque one does exist—needs some work before gay “activists” will be successful in projecting their issues onto society.
posted by Tom on
Debrah: “In the voting booth, I would not check the box for SSM, nor would I take part in a political effort against it.”
In the voting booth, would you check the box against SSM?
Debrah: “The gay male culture—and a nonstop, openly grotesque one does exist—needs some work before gay “activists” will be successful in projecting their issues onto society.”
You are correct that there is a segment of the gay male culture that is, for many straight people, grotesque. Depending on which straight person you talk to, the “grotesque” might be flamboyancy, effeminate behavior, camp, sexual acting out, public displays of affection, white parties or whatever.
You seem, in this post, as in others, to suggest that whatever behaviors straights find “grotesque” needs to be eliminated or hidden before straights will come around to supporting equal treatment under the law for gays and lesbians.
I don’t think that’s right. I believe that as more and more “ordinary” gays and lesbians — family, friends, co-workers, neighbors — become visible to straights, straights will come around.
The point that Lori makes (“Straights are judged as individual human beings, whereas gays and lesbians are lumped together into one big, messy, scary blob.“) is relevant to this question, it seems to me. The conclusion that whatever is considered “grotesque” is descriptive of gays and lesbians is stereotyping, pure and simple.
As long as straights don’t know that family, friends, co-workers and neighbors are gay or lesbian, it is easy to stereotype, and perhaps, given the fascination of the news media with slugs like Peter LaBarbara, forgivable. Ignorance is the enemy of thought.
But increased — eventually pervasive — visibility of “ordinary” gays and lesbians will kill the stereotype, sooner or later. That is what seems to have happened among the young. Knowing a variety of gays and lesbians of their own age group, young straights can see past the stereotype and look at individuals — and, as often as not, see themselves reflected in what they see in their gay and lesbian friends.
Asking, as you seem to do, that whatever behaviors straights find “grotesque” needs to be eliminated or hidden in order to win straights over is both impossible and unfair.
It is impossible because human beings are diverse, and no population is ever going to be uniform.
It is also unfair to expect that result. Straights are as diverse as gays and lesbians, and we do not ask them to eliminate the unsavory behaviors among themselves as a condition of granting them the full rights and responsibilities of citizenship.
Gays and lesbians should be held to the same standards as straights, legally and culturally. That is what “equal treatment” means.
I am not foolish enough to believe that gays and lesbians will gain cultural acceptance any time soon, any more than I am foolish enough to believe that women will. Gay men will always be “fudge packers” to many straights, just as many men will always believe women can’t drive or think clearly.
But I would argue that is irrelevant to the demands of the constitution.
posted by Debrah on
“In the voting booth, would you check the box against SSM?”
***********************************
Tom, I made my points clear enough.
This is overkill.
The reason I did not include– “would not check the box against SSM” is because on the ballot there would likely be only a box to vote “for” it…..just as there would be one for each candidate running for office.
The ballot does not include a box to vote “against” a candidate. Just a box to check “for” a candidate.
So, you see, your point is nothing more than overkill and nothing based on the reality of the actual ballot.
I made my points very clear.
“Gay men will always be ‘fudge packers’ to many straights….”
*************************************
That’s probably right….and many gay men do nothing to promote an alternative impression.
That’s why pseudonyms like “superdouche” and ones even more nauseating are used by gay men on those sites. Obviously, to make it clear that they have a bottom-ready booty.
The outside world isn’t responsible for what many gay men underscore about their own lives.
posted by Jimmy on
“That’s probably right….and many gay men do nothing to promote an alternative impression.”
How many? Are you keeping a tally? Nothing will ever be enough for some people, particularly those who rely on the unalterable script they have written for themselves.
That some gay men are pigs is no news. They are still males at the end of the day. Where it not for the moderating presence of the fairer sex, many straight men would gladly wallow in the same mud hole. Ask any Asian chick who has been a sex worker or worked in porn for five whole minutes.
Is the fact that you direct your ire at gay men due to the fact that we offend your idealized view of maleness, the Randian Ãbermensch?
posted by Debrah on
“Is the fact that you direct your ire at gay men due to the fact that we offend your idealized view of maleness, the Randian Ãbermensch?”
*******************************************
Ha!
It’s odd, but if I know that a man is gay up front and we are acquaintances or become friends, there is no problem.
However, when a gay man tries to avoid being openly identified as gay and you get to know them either professionally or personally, all the while assuming they are just a straight, ordinary guy…….
…….then you find out they are gay, it’s a letdown of sorts.
All of a sudden, you feel a bit betrayed and then think about the way he is in his personal life—which is the opposite as you thought—and your opinion changes a lot.
As I said before, some of the “man” is lost, whether or not you ever admit it aloud.
I should say that I like the metrosexual look and do not care much for muscular men—although I did date athletes in high school and at university.
As stocky, muscular men age they just get fat and bulky.
I love the way lean, metro-men look in suits, etc…..
So this big idea of some omnipotent “maleness” is not the issue.
I do prefer a man who is “in charge”….simply because I’m a strong personality and it’s a turn-on when a man can control me. LOL!
The idea that any man has anal sex with other men is a devastating thought…….when you initially thought of him as a hetero male.
You think—“Ugh! He sits back on his computer and jerks off ogling the genitals of other men!”
That’s why it’s probably best to just be open about it if you’re gay—personally as well as professionally.
Although, no one should be forced.
posted by BobN on
And clearly Debrah, would agree with Christian theologians on the basic point that a husband and wife are a dissimilar, heterogeneous pair
Yes, Throbert, I’m sure Debrah would enthusiastically embrace St. Paul’s analogy of husband/wife, pastor/flock, Christ/church, complete with all the explicit subservience it presents.
and that the word “marriage” implies a union between yin and yang
This is a very good example of why it’s best not to mix theologies when trying to convey cultural meaning. “Marriage” in the West is most certainly not a union between equals. Well, except for same-sex marriage…
posted by Debrah on
“Yes, Throbert, I’m sure Debrah would enthusiastically embrace St. Paul’s analogy of husband/wife, pastor/flock, Christ/church, complete with all the explicit subservience it presents.”
*******************************
You’re such a drone.
There is nothing in my life that suggests in the slightest that I am tethered to religious doctrine.
Quite the contrary. My opinions on this issue are not informed by religion.
You just need a tool for your ankle-biting.
Trouble is, you come off like a toothless chihuahua.
posted by Tom on
Tom to Debrah: “In the voting booth, would you check the box against SSM?”
Debrah: “Tom, I made my points clear enough. This is overkill. The reason I did not include — “would not check the box against SSM” is because on the ballot there would likely be only a box to vote “for” it ….. just as there would be one for each candidate running for office. The ballot does not include a box to vote “against” a candidate. Just a box to check “for” a candidate. So, you see, your point is nothing more than overkill and nothing based on the reality of the actual ballot. [Emphasis mine] I made my points very clear.”
Curious, isn’t it, that voters in 30-odd states have been given the chance to vote to amend their state constitutions to ban SSM, I guess that’s not reality. At least your reality. For some of us, it is all too real.
posted by Tom on
Debrah: “I do prefer a man who is “in charge”….simply because I’m a strong personality and it’s a turn-on when a man can control me. LOL! The idea that any man has anal sex with other men is a devastating thought…….when you initially thought of him as a hetero male. You think—“Ugh! He sits back on his computer and jerks off ogling the genitals of other men!” That’s why it’s probably best to just be open about it if you’re gay—personally as well as professionally.”
I agree that it is best to be open, although my reasons have nothing to do with your personal disappointment.
In this day and age, living in the closet is almost guaranteed to make you twisted, sooner or later.
Why do I say living in the closet makes you twisted “in this day and age”? Haven’t many gays and lesbians lived in the closet for years and years?
Yes, but the being in the closet is different these days than it used to be. Living in the closet these days is dangerous.
In the 1950’s and 1960’s, the government aggressively pursued a policy of oppression toward gays and lesbians.
Gays and lesbians were characterized as an invisible, menacing threat, something like a “fifth column” akin to Communists. Gays and lesbians were routinely arrested and their names and employment published in newspapers, were discharged from the military and civil service, were denied immigration, and were harassed in bars and in the streets. State and federal agencies frequently embarked upon sweeping investigations to identify and expose gays and lesbians. The businesses owned by gays and lesbians, and the businesses they patronized, were closed frequently under public nuisance laws. Gay and lesbian publications were censored and destroyed. Gays and lesbians risked arrest for dancing with someone of the same sex, asking another consenting adult of the same sex whether or not he or she was interested in intimacy, and having sex in private with other consenting adults.
It was a time of grave danger, and almost all gays and lesbians took to the closet as a form of self-protection.
Over time, beginning with the “Stonewall riots” of the early 1970’s, things began to change. Gays and lesbians began to fight back, establishing “gay enclaves” in major metropolitan areas, organizing and protesting. Gays and lesbians began to challenge laws that criminalized homosexuality, police use of public decency, lewdness and vagrancy laws to harass gays and lesbians, police raids on gay and lesbian bars, and the use of obscenity laws to prevent distribution of gay and lesbian publications.
The AIDS crisis of the 1980’s accelerated the change, prompting gays and lesbians — even the silent rich, the cozy students, the quiet couples — to band together and fight the government of Ronald Reagan for medical research and medical care. Faced with the daily reality of death and dying, gay and lesbian organizations — ACT UP, Queer Nation and so on — became more insistent and less accommodating.
Advances continued during the 1990’s. Gays and lesbians began to make progress with employers, convincing the Fortune 500 to offer safe workplaces and domestic partnership benefits. Gays and lesbians began, near the end of the decade, to challenge discriminatory laws involving foster parenting, adoption and marriage.
Along the way, gays and lesbians came out of the closet in droves, and as a direct result, gays and lesbians became less “other” — more “ordinary” — to straights.
During the mid-1990’s, a dramatic shift occurred in public attitudes toward homosexuality. During the period from 1970 to 1990, the number of Americans saying the “sexual relations between two adults of the same sex” are “always wrong” stayed steady, at about 70%. In the mid-1990’s, a shift occurred. Between 1991 and 1996, the number of Americans saying “always wrong” dropped 15%, to 55%, and the number has continued to go down.
At present, despite the backlash over marriage whipped up by social conservatives during the 2004 and 2006 elections, a strong majority — 70% to 90%, depending on the issue — of Americans support a wide range of rights for gays and lesbians, and it is possible, today, for gays and lesbians to live outside the closet in most areas of the country, including rural areas, without fuss or bother.
Against this backdrop, social conservatives are a throwback. Social conservatives live in the 1950’s, and are determined that the rest of us should live in the 1950’s, as well. Even a cursory look at the rhetoric of Sam Brownback, Gary Bauer, Tony Perkins, James Dobson and the rest of the mob reveals that (a) for social conservatives, gays and lesbians remain a menacing threat, undermining the social fabric of our country, and (b) social conservatives would, if they could, drive gays and lesbians back into the closet.
But the game is up. With the single exception of marriage, Americans aren’t buying the social conservative line on gays and lesbians, anal sex or no anal sex. And that is not likely to change, no matter how hysterical social conservatives become.
So we live, and will likely continue to live, in a country in which the closet is the domain of the selective few, mostly gays and lesbians trapped in the world view of social conservatives. Most American gays and lesbians are out of the closet, although many are not out to all an sundry.
As a result, gays and lesbians are visible in just about every community in America these days, including rural areas like the area I live in, and more and more straight Americans are coming to accept gays and lesbians as equal citizens.
So what does that mean to the closeted, at this point? Why does being in the closet, when so many are living outside, lead to such twisted folk as the parade of “I’m not gay!” Republican politicians and religious leaders caught like deer in the headlights?
The reason is twofold:
First, the closet, in and of itself, is damaging. Closeted gays and lesbians cut themselves off from much of what is best in life — self-respect, respect from others, the sense of belonging, intimate companionship and love, all of which contribute greatly to personal happiness and fulfillment.
The closet is about hiding — to closeted gays and lesbians conceal who they are from the people who matter most in their lives. The closet is about social isolation — closeted gays and lesbians are often isolated from other gays and lesbians and emotionally distant from family and friends. The closet is about feelings of shame, guilt and fear — many closeted gays and lesbians internalize anti-gay attitudes (hence the insistence by men like Larry Craig and Richard Curtis that “I am not gay!”, as if that, somehow, was more disgraceful than seeking sex outside of their marriages), and closeted gays and lesbians who throw off internalized shame, live in fear of discovery and disgrace. And for all, the closet is about duplicity and deception — lying about who and what we are is the essence of the closet for everyone who lives in it.
Second, living in the closet “in this day and age” is to know that you could live differently, because so many other gays and lesbians do so, openly, unafraid and joyfully, and the sense that “I’ve done this to myself …” exacerbates the damage, because at the center, closeted gays and lesbians living today know that it is all unnecessary because there is a better way to live, a way to find freedom and happiness.
Is it any wonder, then, that so many gays and lesbians who live in the closet in these times become emotionally twisted?
posted by Debrah on
Tom–
That must be the draft of your first book.
A virtual gay ontology.
You’ve explored many key themes with which most people are familiar.
Core foundations of the story remain unexplored; however, writing about the personal responsibilities that people should take for their own lives takes a back seat to the embellished melodrama.
There is nothing remotely analogous with being gay and being a member of a particular ethnic or racial group. The whole idea is offensive and this is always lazily used as a convenient tool or crutch.
It ends up weakening any argument made for so-called “gay rights”.
And with regard to the AIDS epidemic, I never see coverage of the ghastly irresponsible—nay, defiant—sexual behavior of many gays at that time. No documentation of that? It has cost this nation untold billions.
The film “Milk” was a perfect example of this runaway melodrama in full bloom. So much embellishment by director Gus Van Sant (former lover of Ian Mckellen, if you can believe it), excitable screenwriter Lance Black, and by a Tinsel Town gone mad for a definitive “gay movie” of substance that they forgot to put together a real film.
As someone on another forum opined after the Oscar awards that year:
**************************
“Harvey Milk, whom I admire for all his accomplishments, was not ‘the first gay man to be elected to a major political office’.”
“Black [Lance] continued his ignorant hagiography writing today before the CA state senate [not in DC as someone misread] committee today claiming, ‘Milk’s campaigns against prejudice and bigotry “lit the fire” for the national and international gay rights movements’.”
“Uh, no, Mr. Black. You apparently still need to expand your ‘exhaustive research’ beyond the fantasies and revisionism of Cleve Jones. Milk’s assassination increased the temperature somewhat of an already boiling movement, but before then he was still almost entirely a local/state phenomenon.”
**************************
Tom, you make this “closet thing” a very scary place……..as if a holocaust awaits those for whom remaining unidentified as openly and certifiably “gay” is a choice.
And it’s often a place they work to keep untouched for self-serving reasons.
Many enjoy mulcting from society as a whole with no formal responsibility to their gay “brethren” unless they so choose on any given day or when it’s convenient.
It seems to me that such men do this because they personally prefer not being labeled “gay”. And this is not necessary at all. Don’t blame society for the choices of the individual.
Quite honestly Tom, no one……and not one group of people are significant enough and contribute enough to the planet to spend such an inordinate amount of time talking about themselves constantly as they demand that their sexual natures (or choices) be accepted and glorified by all.
Everyone should work for equality, but in our 21st century this idea has been bastardized into a hydra-headed and monotonous set of trivial pursuits.
posted by Tom on
Debrah: “Tom, you make this “closet thing” a very scary place……..as if a holocaust awaits those for whom remaining unidentified as openly and certifiably “gay” is a choice.”
I imagine that it must be “scary” worry about being “found out”, particularly if you are a man like Roy Ashburn, built a political career serving a district that is likely to throw him to the wolves now that he has acknowledged that he is gay, despite his 100% “right” voting record on LGBT issues.
But that isn’t the point of my comment. The point of my comment is that “you are only as sick as your secrets”, as the saying goes.
I acknowledge that many gays and lesbians — teenagers and young adults dependent on social conservative parents, men and women in our Armed Forces, teachers in many parts of the country, gays and lesbians living in areas of the country where physical attacks are common, and so on — have legitimate reasons to stay closeted, in whole or in part. What I am saying, though, is that choices have consequences, and the choice to remain hidden and duplicitous, in this day and age, comes at a relatively high price.
As an aside, I don’t believe, as you seem to think, that being “out” entails constantly barraging all and sundry with the fact, or, for that matter, ever talking about private matters such as sexual activities. All being “out” does mean that you get to live your life honestly, letting other people deal with you according to their own lights.
I live in a rural area of Wisconsin and my views are shaped by that experience. The town I live in has a population that is smaller than most urban high schools. I was born into the community, of a family that goes back before statehood, so I have a place in the community by reason of birth. My partner and I live together and raised kids, now young adults, in the community. It would have taken an extraordinary effort for us to hide the fact that we were a couple from our neighbors and anyone else. So we didn’t and don’t. We simply lived and continue to live our lives as part of the community, and are generally treated as just another couple.
My experience is particular, though, and not universal.
I don’t have much experience with life in the large cities, which seems to give gays and lesbians much more ability to compartmentalize than we have in this rural area. I might be overstating the “twisted” factor as it applies to gays and lesbians who live in the cities, where everyone lives anonymously, behind locked doors literally and figuratively, to some extent or other.
And, of course, I have no experience at all with the world you come from, the world of “glam” and the arts, where (as you suggested) self-absorption seems to be the norm and is often raised to an art form. It might be that your views are as much shaped by the experience of living in that community as mine are by living in the community in which I live.
I read what you have to say about gays and lesbians with, well, almost disbelief. I don’t know gays and lesbians who are as self-centered, self-absorbed or self-focused as the gays and lesbians you describe. We’ve got a few gay men who are on the edges — a biker couple in the next town over, for example, who throw a biker-equivalent of a “white party”, inviting several hundred leather crowd gays to their farm for a long weekend every summer, and a florist who is over-the-camp. By and large, though the gays and lesbians I know are part of the fabric of the community — social workers, teachers, farmers, business owners, nurses and so on — who live pretty much like everyone else.
I suspect that our views about gays and lesbians comes from experience with gays and lesbians who are quite different.
I imagine that’s why you keep saying “most gay men are not like you”, and for you, no doubt, that is true. You probably don’t know many gay men like me.
My experience is different. Most of the gays and lesbians I know have much more in common with me than they do with the gays and lesbians you describe.
Provincialism isn’t confined to the provinces, necessarily. I think that the “gay ghettos” are as provincial in their own way as we are in the provinces.
posted by BobN on
Debrah,
This chihuahua has long understood you to be quite irreligious. It was your lap dog poodle who asserted that you would agree with St. Paul.
I realize the droning can induce sleepiness, but, please, do try and pay attention.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Really? ‘Cause I would argue that ACT UP’s entire reason for existing was to browbeat non-gay people into accommodating a particular “way of being gay” by spending their tax dollars to subsidize the health consequences of a specific sort of “gay lifestyle” that far too many gay men had learned to treat as a birthright.
If ACT UP had been at all morally serious, there should’ve been 10 or 20 “die-ins” at gay bathhouses and gay bars and gay porn studios for every “direct action” they staged outside a church.
posted by Debrah on
“I realize the droning can induce sleepiness, but, please, do try and pay attention.”
*****************************************
Oh, I will, BobN…….for I know that you are thoroughly captivated by the essence of the Diva magic!
LIS!
posted by Debrah on
“If ACT UP had been at all morally serious, there should’ve been 10 or 20 ‘die-ins’ at gay bathhouses and gay bars and gay porn studios for every ‘direct action’ they staged outside a church.”
********************************************
Exquisite laser-beam fare, as always.
Just think how many people would be alive today if the gay community had taken “their own” to task.
posted by Throbert McGee on
One needn’t even use the subjunctive mood to talk regretfully about how things could have been done differently way back in the 1980s — the collapse of the short-lived stigma against barebacking is a problem RIGHT NOW, but most gay male “health educators” are in complete denial about the extent to which gay male culture promotes and glamorizes the practice.
(So many gay men can barely muster the will to scold each other for SPREADING HIV, and Tom is naive enough to assert that we would somehow, magically, make a “no gay sex outside of gay marriage” campaign work, if only those social conservative meanies would stop blocking gay marriage?)
posted by Debrah on
“I suspect that our views about gays and lesbians comes from experience with gays and lesbians who are quite different.”
*******************************************
In part, perhaps; however, I realize that there are committed and stable couples out there, but they appear to be outnumbered by the ones of the non-committal nature.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with my opinions. It’s a fact, in bold relief, and on every site that has to do with gay issues. There seems to be a fascination for heightened sexual exhibitions……from the ads on the sides of the pages…….to defiant dialogue sans critical and introspective dialogue.
Sex is played up as a condiment for everything.
And I’m not concerned with the tastes of other people until they begin wondering aloud—as gay “activists” do—why observers view their cause as one which is superfluous.
You’re right, Tom, in that many gays I’ve known are a bit “flashier”, simply because of where I’ve lived in addition to professional relationships I’ve had.
But obviously, there are stable couples which can be seen all the time. Until last year my neighbors across the street were a gay male couple. One stayed at home and the other “brought home the bacon”. They moved because the professional one got a better position in Florida and they wanted to live near the shore once again.
The stay-at-home guy in that couple would invariably design the most amazing decorations on their front veranda for Halloween, Thanksgiving, and X-Mas holidays.
The Halloween decor was unbelievable and all the kids flocked to their place for snacks which was designed to look like a haunted house.
The professional partner in that couple and I became close because of our concern for a cat which seemed to have no home. He would open their garage when the temperature dropped so that it would have a warm place to sleep. We were constantly conferring and schmoozing over the fate of the gorgeous cat and I think our “chumminess” even irritated his stay-at-home partner. LOL!
In any case, Tom, that’s just one example to illustrate that, of course, I’m aware that there are many stable couples out there like you and IGF’s Aubrey.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Speaking of taking “one’s own” to task — the existence of groups like Q.U.I.T. (Queers Undermining Israeli Terrorism) shouldn’t be the slightest bit surprising, because blaming other people for self-created problems is a time-honored pastime for Queers and Palestinians alike.
I would go so far to assert that “blaming outsiders” has often been a defining feature of both identities. In other words, a cis-Jordanian Arab Muslim who primarily blames other cis-Jordanian Arab Muslims for his daily problems (instead of blaming the JOOOOS and Israel and the JOOOS and America and the JOOOS and Zionists and the JOOOS) is, in some sense, not really Palestinian — he’s just an Arab Muslim who happens to live in or near the disputed territories west of the Jordan. And, similarly, a homosexual who doesn’t blame his daily problems on homophobia and heteronormativity and “Christianists” and homophobia and Republicans and homophobia isn’t really “Queer”.
posted by Debrah on
“…..the collapse of the short-lived stigma against barebacking is a problem RIGHT NOW, but most gay male ‘health educators’ are in complete denial about the extent to which gay male culture promotes and glamorizes the practice.”
****************************************
No doubt about that.
If Tom doesn’t believe it, I can direct him to a few sites on YouTube for illustration.
There, among middle-age gay men and those as young as 14….teens and twenty-somethings…..they subscribe to a network and upload as many raunchy videos of men as will be allowed by YouTube.
But in such networks, its the “hidden” ones they deem as “private” that they share, as well as web cam grotesquerie, that really represent what Throbert talks about.
There are professionals who subscribe to the sludge which makes it all even more grotesque and unbelievable.
Yet those same people want to wax self-righteous about “gay rights” and slam two-digit-IQ-hetero-twenty-something-beauty-queens because they speak out against the brown stains lifestyle and the idea of “gay marriage”.
What role models for “marriage” such men are!
Tom, you are also correct that in large urban centers like NYC and its boroughs like Brooklyn, for example, there’s a gay Mecca.
These are environments which virtually cater to gays in every way and the idea that such people live amid “hostility” is laughable.
posted by Debrah on
Throbert–
Great analogy at (9:39 AM)!
posted by Tom on
Debrah, a few questions for you.
Why, exactly, does the “brown stain lifestyle” justify denying women equal treatment under the law?
Why, exactly, does the fact that straights are unlikely to have a successful marriage justify denying straights the right to marry?
Why, exactly, does opposition to practicing “safe sex” to control HIV justify denying Roman Catholics the right to marry?
And a thought: If you want to see really nasty “sludge”, sign on to X-Tube, answer “I am male …” and “I am interested in females …” and take a look for a half hour. That’s the sort of stuff straight men watch on their computers. It isn’t any much different as far as I can see.
You seem to live a very sheltered life.
posted by Debrah on
Tom–
Your litany of links has been covered here by the commentariat many times.
And as I’ve said here before, the hetero world certainly has its grotesquerie, as well as rampant pornography.
We can go ’round and ’round with it again if you wish.
Those links are no cover for your anger, but it wasn’t I who invented anal sex or its stigma.
I didn’t invent AIDS and the fact that the tissue of the anal cavity spreads disease into the blood stream unlike the vaginal cavity or any other body cavity, thus, rendering that particular “style” of sex the most dangerous.
And let me say once again: I don’t care who practices it, it’s icky, and as someone in the medical field (who shall remain nameless) said recently–“It’s the nastiest activity that any human can take part in.”
I, and I assume others, don’t concern ourselves with the social and religious manifestations or anything else regarding this issue.
It’s simply the unadulterated unhygienic aspect. Get it?
Here’s the huge difference: In the hetero world, men who go to those sites openly and engage in the “sludge” are considered to be on the edge of society. The gutter.
But it seems to be celebrated much more openly and engaged much more openly among gay men.
Please ask Throbert to once again give you a rundown on this reality since he has first-hand experience.
Lastly, the hetero world will enthusiastically lambaste such people–openly.
Where is the gay community on such matters when “respectable” gay men are the ones taking part in such activity?…….even as they whine about “marriage rights”?
These personal choices only become an issue when demands are made on society alongside defiant double standards.
It should be highlighted that lesbians as a group do not seem to suffer such a backlash. A positive, it would seem, and one area in which women have the upper hand inside a culture war.
posted by Tom on
Debrah, you didn’t invent anal sex, you didn’t invent AIDS, you didn’t invent sleeping around, you didn’t invent unstable relationships, you didn’t invent opposition to condoms … but you do use all of them as excuses for denying gays and lesbians equal treatment under the law. You didn’t invent that, either, of course, but you don’t think beyond your own biases.
posted by BobN on
Debrah has yet to explain why Throbert should be denied the right to marry a fellow frottagist.
posted by Tom on
BobN: “Debrah has yet to explain why Throbert should be denied the right to marry a fellow frottagist.”
Because there would be too much friction between them, perhaps?
posted by Debrah on
LOL!!!
ROTFLM-T’s-O !!!
Tom, that was such a good one.
LOL!!!
posted by Throbert McGee on
“Frotestant.”
(Deeply sorry, but the ex-Catholic in me couldn’t resist.)
posted by Tom on
Throbert: “Frotestant”.
Evangelical Frotestant in Throbert’s case.