Democrat Kate Brown was newly sworn in as Oregon governor after the incumbent resigned in yet another green energy/government corruption scandal. As the New York Times reports, Brown:
is also bisexual, having come out in an essay on a website about elected officials who are “out,” and is being recognized by gay rights groups as the first openly bisexual governor in the nation.
Also widely noted, Brown has been married to Dan Little, who has worked for the U.S. Forest Service, since October 1997.
The Christian Science Monitor reports:
Ms. Brown, 54, who lives in Portland with her husband of 15 years Dan Little and two stepchildren, has been open about her sexuality throughout her long political career….
While gay rights have been expanding at the national and state level, bisexual people—the “B” in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) community—have had particular challenges. Fred Sainz, vice president of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), says bisexuals may in some respects face greater challenges than gays and lesbians.
In terms of behavior, however, Brown might, in fact, seem more akin to an ex-LGBT living a heterosexual lifestyle who acknowledges same-sex attraction, unless (and this isn’t clear from the coverage, which seems adamantly not to want to go there) she has an open marriage. But if you’re going to make a celebration of bisexual identity your story, you’d think clearing up that matter would, well, matter. Whatever.
As a liberal in a very progressive state, the Times observes:
her sexual orientation is unlikely to raise much of a fuss, and in some areas, it could probably be a plus. “I just learned that she’s bisexual,” said Jared Dahle, 28, who works as a window cleaner and in a bar in Portland. “That’s cool.”
18 Comments for “The Bisexual Governor Story”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I agree with the assessment that Governor Brown’s sexual orientation will make little difference.
Although I recognize that an “openly this-or-that” sexual orientation (as in “openly gay so-and-so”) is still an issue among social and religious conservatives, it isn’t among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents.
I say that with some certainty because I assisted four Wisconsin Assembly candidate campaigns in 2012, doing the analysis of voting patterns, identifying target voters and helping develop mail/media/GOTV strategies.
In three of the campaigns, the general election vote came in within 1-2% of the expected ranges. In one of the campaigns the candidate outperformed expectations.
Two of the candidates were straight, one a man and one a women, one of the candidates was a lesbian, and the last of the candidates was post-surgical transgender.
All ran good campaigns, and three of the candidates, including both the lesbian and the transgender candidate, came in just about on the target vote.
The candidate who outperformed expectations was the straight male (3% above expected result) was an exceptional candidate who was assisted by having an opponent who was an arrogant young snot, six months out of law school, who claimed to be a “tax lawyer” and a “constitutional lawyer” who would “hit the ground running” in the Assembly and turn things around. He was so arrogant that a friend, who heads up our county’s “Right-to-Life” organization, called me and privately told me that he couldn’t stand him. So we had a case of an unexpected assist in that case.
But here is the point: If sexual orientation among Democratic targeted voters were a negative, the lesbian and transgender candidates would have been expected to underperform against expectations. It didn’t happen.
I don’t know the political situation in Oregon, but the Democrat and Democratic-leaning demographic is probably similar enough to Wisconsin’s that Governor Brown’s sexual orientation won’t be an issue with the voters she needs to attract.
It stands to reason, when you think about it, given other indicators, such as the very strong support among Democrats and independents for marriage equality.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
A quick correction: The election cycle was 2014, not 2012. Typo.
posted by JohnInCA on
… Did Miller seriously just suggest that a person stops being bisexual just ’cause they’re in a monogamous relationship? Am I being unfair here? I’m not sure what other way to read this:
“In terms of behavior, however, Brown might, in fact, seem more akin to an ex-LGBT living a heterosexual lifestyle who acknowledges same-sex attraction, unless she has an open marriage.”
Dude, I was a gay virgin for years. Even if I go celibate, I’ll still be gay. Hell, I go for months on end without getting laid ’cause my husband goes to school two state lines away, I don’t become “ex-gay” during that time. There’s more to being LGBT then sex. So even if Ms. Brown never lays another finger or tongue on a woman in her life, she’ll still be bisexual. And her being (presumably) faithful to her husband does nothing to diminish that.
I’m really hoping that’s just a poorly written line.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I read Stephen’s odd wording as gay male projection, with a social conservative twist.
It seems to me that gay male projection is present in the implicit assumption that women’s sexuality is identical to men’s. What studies exist suggest that women’s sexuality is significantly less binary — that is to say, significantly more fluid in that regard — than men’s. Women seem to be much more likely to move back and forth across the gender line when falling in love. Some men to, too, of course. Some people just are attracted to other people of both genders, but the studies suggest that this is much more common in women than in men, whose sexuality seems to be more binary.
I also read the comment as projecting the gay male experience in suggesting that Governor Brown might me an “ex-LGBT living a heterosexual lifestyle”. I suspect that idea reflects (and projects) the experience of gay men his and my age (coming of age in the 1950’s, 1960’s and 1970’s, and probably even into the 1980’s in conservative areas of the country). Many of us had the experience of being gay, but living as straights, for many years. We decided, for whatever reasons, to “settle down and marry”, despite our sexual orientation. For many of us, it — including monogamy — worked fine. For others, it didn’t.
That didn’t mean that we were “ex-LGBT” during our life in the straight world, though, as you correctly point out, and I don’t think that Stephen thinks that our sexual orientation switches teams, either. He couldn’t possibly be that clueless.
Instead, I read the “ex-LGBT” and “heterosexual lifestyle” wording (and the suspicion that hers must be an “open marriage”) as reflecting a social conservative way of thinking on Stephen’s part.
It certainly isn’t the first time his wording of this or that has suggested that philosophical orientation. My conviction that Stephen has absorbed social conservative thinking at some level stems from more than his adopting of social conservative wording — “ex-LGBT” (read “ex-gay”) and “heterosexual lifestyle” (read “homosexual lifestyle”) — in this post.
As long as I can remember, Stephen has treated the “libertine” aspect of gay culture — ranging from male promiscuity to drag queens to flamboyancy of one kind or another — with disdain. Stephen seems to want all of us to be well-scrubbed, harmless, boyish gays in suits and wing tips, sending off Ralph Reed-ish vibes to conservatives, disarming them into wishing their sons were so wonderful. That kind of thinking is a bunch of horse manure as far as I am concerned, but Stephen certainly sends off that vibe.
Stephen’s aversion to those aspects of gay culture is reflected in his writing about marriage. I have never read anything in which he suggests (as Jon Rausch does) that “marriage is good for gays”. It has all been about “marriage (as opposed to promiscuity) is good for acceptance of gays”.
Nary a hint that large numbers of gays and lesbians — particularly “progressive” gays and lesbians — might want to marry.
I wonder from time to time if Stephen’s attitude toward marriage (marriage as a political/cultural expedient rather than as expression of deep human desire) is the reason why he seems so clueless about the “ground-up” nature of the marriage movement among gays and lesbians, and so honestly perplexed that “progressive” gays and lesbians have been involved in the fight for marriage.
In any event, figuring out Stephen isn’t really responsive to the post. Stephen doesn’t seem to know whether or not Governor Brown’s sexual orientation will hurt her in upcoming elections. The answer is “No, it won’t.”
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Yes, the fact that she is married to a man, does not mean that she suddenly stops being bisexual. I am not bisexual, but sometimes it is….. amazing to see people — gay and straight — have a hard time with it or think that bisexuals are just really, really, really slutty people.
Anyways, I do not think that her sexual orientation will be an issue in here blue/purple-leaning State.
posted by craig123 on
TJIII:” the fact that she is married to a man, does not mean that she suddenly stops being bisexual.”
Stephen: Brown may be someone “living a heterosexual lifestyle who acknowledges same-sex attraction.”
TJIII: “Anyways, I do not think that her sexual orientation will be an issue in here blue/purple-leaning State.”
Stephen: “As a liberal in a very progressive state, the Times observes: ‘her sexual orientation is unlikely to raise much.'”
Glad to see TJIII agrees with Stephen.
posted by Mike in Houston on
Nice parsing, but a fuller quote would include the offensive “In terms of behavior, however, Brown might, in fact, seem more akin to an ex-LGBT living a heterosexual lifestyle “.
posted by Houndentenor on
The unstated assumption in Stephen’s post is that bisexual people can’t or won’t be monogamous. We are all attracted to people we don’t have sex with. She is under no more compulsion to sleep with women while married to her husband than she would be with other men were she exclusively heterosexual. To imply otherwise without evidence is libelous. It also buys into the religious right lie that sexuality is about behavior rather than attraction and orientation. More than anything it draws attention for the need for more bisexual people to be out and to address such nonsense head on if even a gay man like Stephen is so ignorant on this matter.
posted by craig123 on
It’s almost laughable the extent to which the blogger-bashers go to disparage Stephen, day after day. If Stephen said “the sky is blue,” Houdentenor and Tom S would have a snarky comment about what a fool Stephen is. As for the above, Houdentenor shares this wisdom: “The unstated assumption in Stephen’s post is that bisexual people can’t or won’t be monogamous.”
Which of course is not what Stephen said. He pointed out, correctly, that if you’re topic is bisexual identity and you are reporting on a public figure who is female married to a male, you might want to clarify what being bisexual means to the figure in question. Either she has been in a committed hetero relationship for 15 years or she hasn’t, and if the former, to what extent is she a bisexual trail-setter.
posted by Houndentenor on
As I said, it was implied not stated. And of course craig, right on cue, decides to attack the messenger rather than the message. I guess that’s all you can do when you know you are wrong and your own positions are so indefensible.
posted by Jorge on
Well, it’s not like there are many bisexual public figures, period. She becomes a bisexual trailblazer by doing absolutely nothing but raising a good old-fashioned, all-American family, going to work, and going to gay (lesbian, bisexual, transgender) pride parades in a boring shoulder-length hairstyle and an hourglass-shaped suit jacket.
posted by Don on
That’s not at all what I got from Stephen’s post. He said it might “seem” that she is living an ex-gay lifestyle to some. I don’t think the religious right will buy that for one minute. Because she is an unrepentant bisexual. She has made it an issue as an identity.
Now some on the center-right may grab that fig leaf, but no way the far right evangelical crowd buys it. Until she renounces the idea of same sex attraction being acted upon by anyone anywhere, she is a heretic bound for hell.
Ask evangelicals if people who deliberately vote only pro-choice are going to hell for helping to kill babies, even if they have never had an abortion themselves.
posted by k.c. on
As a lesbian “lurking” here and a New Yorker, I can tell you that after the publicity with Mayor DeBlasio’s wife there was a certain amount of in-family “See, you can have lesbian romances when you’re young, put those feelings aside and still settle down with a man.” So, the perception here is not going to always be what those in very liberal circles think it will be, an affirmation of some kind of platonic bisexuality as an identity. I’m not against what Governor Brown has done by making her bisexuality public, just saying the message can be heard one way by the LGBT community and another way by those outside of it.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
But if you’re going to make a celebration of bisexual identity your story, you’d think clearing up that matter would, well, matter. Whatever.
I’m not sure that it is entirely accurate to suggest that Governor Brown “makes a celebration of bisexual identity [her] story”. I think that it might be more accurate to say that Governor Brown “is open about her bisexuality”. The former implies, at least to me, that Governor Brown puts her bisexuality front and center of her public identity, the latter implies instead that Governor Brown acknowledges her bisexuality without putting her sexual orientation front and center.
Governor Brown came out publicly in 1991, after the Oregonian disclosed her sexual orientation. She did not shrink or hide, but she did not trumpet, either. And that, as far as I can tell from reading news reports from various points in her political career, has been her pattern throughout her public life. While she has been a strong, pragmatic voice against discrimination and for equality, she doesn’t run as “bisexual”.
Governor Brown does not run on her private life at all, as far as I can tell. She neither trumpets her sexual orientation nor holds herself up as an exemplar of “family values”.
So I guess I’m puzzled about why the press should be chided about not inquiring into whether or not her marriage is “open”, and why she should be chided for “not clearing up that matter”. We do not expect the press to inquire into whether straight politicians’ marriages are “open”. We don’t expect the press to inquire into the private lives of out gay or lesbian politicians, either. So why Governor Brown?
Craig, a comment at you:
I think that Stephen’s paragraph about Governor Brown and her marriage (“In terms of behavior, however, Brown might, in fact, seem more akin to an ex-LGBT living a heterosexual lifestyle who acknowledges same-sex attraction, unless (and this isn’t clear from the coverage, which seems adamantly not to want to go there) she has an open marriage. But if you’re going to make a celebration of bisexual identity your story, you’d think clearing up that matter would, well, matter. Whatever.“) is just about the oddest thing I’ve read on IGF over the last decade-plus.
It vibrates with undercurrents, with unstated assumptions and judgments. It seems off-topic and off-key. In a private conversation, face to face, I say to Stephen, “What the hell is that all about, Stephen?”
In retrospect, that’s what I should have done in this case, rather than speculate about the undercurrents. So that’s what I’m trying to do in this comment — ask.
posted by Joseph Dunsay on
Plenty of gays and lesbians are monogamous. So are many bisexuals. A bisexual doesn’t stop being bisexual just because she settles down with a husband. Would you say she is lesbian and not bisexual if she settled down with a wife?
posted by Tom Jefferson da 3rd on
Stephen said: In terms of behavior, however, Brown might, in fact, seem more akin to an ex-LGBT living a heterosexual lifestyle who acknowledges same-sex attraction, unless
Wow! OMG! WTF! Comparing being bisexual to being ex-gay.
posted by Jorge on
As a lesbian “lurking” here and a New Yorker, I can tell you that after the publicity with Mayor DeBlasio’s wife there was a certain amount of in-family “See, you can have lesbian romances when you’re young, put those feelings aside and still settle down with a man.” So, the perception here is not going to always be what those in very liberal circles think it will be, an affirmation of some kind of platonic bisexuality as an identity. I’m not against what Governor Brown has done by making her bisexuality public, just saying the message can be heard one way by the LGBT community and another way by those outside of it.
The papers called Chirlane McCray a “former lesbian” for the better part of a year. Somehow that flies under the radar when “ex-gay” would not be acceptable, but “former lesbian” is a lot shorter to write than “once wrote of being a lesbian”. I’ve spoken to people you’d think would be liberal who literally didn’t understand how Ms. McCray could even exist. I think she said it quite well when asked if she considers herself a bisexual, “I’m monogamous, I’m happy in my marriage, but I’m not dead. And neither is he.” Then you have someone like Jim McGreevey who denies to Oprah that he was repulsed by straight sex, but we call him gay.
Mr. Miller says that clearing up the matter of whether she renounces any former lesbian identity would matter, and unfortunately I agree with him. I also think it should be done at her own pace. In Ms. McCray’s case, I think anyone who’s read her first essay would easily conclude she’s bisexual and be done with it. Her follow up occurred some six months after the story broke–which was the right time. But because the GLBT community became such a strong supporter of the de Blasio campaign (and I think that was purely demographics), I think something of an explanation is appropriate.
I also happen to think her essay already clears up the matter. She came to understand her identity in her early 30s. That’s not so unusual in our world. That is enough. It’s just a matter of repeating the story until people get it. Sexuality is a private matter and she has chosen to share more about other people’s perceptions of her than about her own personal life, and she is entitled to that. There is a self-doubt hinted at in the linked essay. But where it comes from, and whether her public sort of outing forced her to encounter current self-doubt or powerful echoes of past self-doubt is not known, and not our business.
posted by Jorge on
Oh, yes. There’s also the matter of Ms. McCray’s reunion with her old sisters at City Hall’s pride event last year, but that’s not really my story to tell.