IGF CultureWatch

First published February 2, 2005, in the Chicago Free Press.

College freshmen's attitudes toward legalized gay unions seem to have been influenced, at least temporarily, by the dire warnings emanating from last fall's Republican presidential campaign and the controversies over state and federal constitutional amendments barring gay marriage.

That, at least, is the most plausible conclusion to draw from a survey of nearly 290,000 college freshmen conducted during freshman orientation last August and September by the Higher Education Research Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Although the annual survey chiefly collects demographic information and education and career plans, it also includes 16 statements about social and academic issues that the freshmen are invited to agree or disagree with. Two of those statements relate to gay unions.

In the fall 2003 survey, 59.4 percent of the freshmen agreed with the statement, "Same-sex couples should have the right to legal marital status." But in the 2004 survey, just released at the end of January, that support fell slightly to 56.7 percent, a decline of 2.7 points.

The language "legal marital status" was originally developed back in 1997 - when the statement was first added to the survey - to delimit the meaning to the legal elements and avoid the religious implications many people have with the word "marriage." Nevertheless, it is possible that some freshmen interpreted the statement to refer to religious marriage and responded accordingly.

The other statement the freshmen were invited to agree or disagree with was, "It is important to have laws prohibiting homosexual relationships." In 2003, barely a quarter (26.1 percent) agreed with that statement. But last fall, support climbed to 29.9 percent, a rise of 3.8 points. That was the largest single change in support for any statement in the survey.

When that statement was added to the survey in 1976, it referred to sodomy laws. Sodomy laws were still in force in a majority of states while gay marriage, civil unions or domestic partnerships were not even a blur on the horizon for most people. But now more than a quarter century later, the statement is undoubtedly interpreted to refer to so-called "defense of marriage" laws or constitutional bans on gay marriage.

And in that light, while it is not encouraging that support for such laws rose almost 4 points in the last year, it is not surprising, and it is in a way encouraging that given the absence of any nationally prominent political or religious figures actually arguing for gay marriage, the change was as small as it was: More than 70 percent of all freshmen still oppose such restrictive laws.

There are two other factors that might contribute to the 2004 loss of support. One is religion. This year's student sample had slightly more Baptists (up by 0.7 points) and Mormons (up 1.0 points), both extremely anti-gay denominations, and 0.6 points fewer members of the United Church of Christ (a liberal denomination).

In addition the sample was 1.9 points less Catholic, and Catholics (unlike that church's hierarchy) tend to be more accepting of gays and gay unions than many Protestant denominations. In fact, support for gay "legal marital status" actually rose slightly in 2004 among freshman men at Catholic schools.

The other factor influencing the results was the polarizing effect that the issues and the rhetoric of the past year's prolonged election season seems to have had on young people as well as adults. Those may have increased unease about gays and lesbians among conservative-leaning moderates.

The number of students describing themselves as politically "middle-of-the road" fell to 46.4 percent, its lowest point in more than 30 years. The percentage describing themselves as "liberal" or "far left" increased 2.5 points to 29.5 percent and the number describing themselves as "conservative" or "far right" increased 1.5 points to 24.1 percent.

If "defense of marriage" laws were taken to be part of the conservative package, and for many they probably were, then the 24.1 percent who are conservative or far right constituted the vast majority of support for those laws. But that also means that almost none of the "middle-of-the road" students supported "defense of marriage" laws - specifically, only one in eight.

One interesting sidelight is that although women have always been more supportive of gays than men have by at least 15 percentage points - and that was true again this year - the decline in support among women was slightly greater this year than among men.

One possible interpretation is that young heterosexual women feel more invested in the idea of marriage than men do and respond more readily to claims that the institution is under attack. This may not be reasonable, but how many fears about gays are?

On other issues: 58.6 percent think colleges should ban racist and sexist speech, but only 43.7 percent think colleges have the right to ban extreme speakers. More than half (53.9 percent) think abortion should be legal but only 37.1 percent think marijuana should be legalized and only 33.2 percent think the death penalty should be abolished.

****

Author's note: I have corrected a small statistical error in the original print version.

First published January 27, 2005, in Bay Windows.

Back in the days of racial segregation, clubs known as "black-and-tan clubs" arose in many cities, where black and white people intermingled despite the taboos of the day. Gay people of different colors often frequented those clubs because they felt at home. The proprietor of one such club was Jack Johnson, the first black heavyweight boxing champion, who openly consorted with white women despite frequent death threats.

Johnson and those clubs came to mind as I read the recent essay "How To Survive In 2005: A Message to the LGBT Leadership" by Jasmyne Cannick. Ms. Cannick is a board member of the National Black Justice Coalition, a black gay rights group organized in 2003. I was reminded of the black-and-tan clubs because of how far away they seem amid the racial mistrust reflected by Cannick. (For a different take on Cannick's essay, see "Black Voices Needed In Gay Rights Movement.")

Don't get me wrong. Cannick's essay has much to recommend it. In 2004, she notes, "Black pastors were being used by right-wing conservatives" in the fight against same-sex marriage. I call this their search for camouflage in the culture war. As Cannick correctly states, "The LGBT community cannot push forward without gays of color and together we need to develop a strategy that works towards addressing LGBT issues in all communities."

One jarring note in Cannick's essay is the essential otherness she conveys about black gay people, such as by using "same-gender-loving" instead of "gay," which is now treated in some circles as a white cultural construct rather than simply a word for same-sex orientation. More troubling is the sweeping generalization displayed by her statement, "I don't ever want to see a white gay man stand before a camera again and equate his struggle to the Black civil-rights movement."

Since Cannick is a member of the National Association of Black Journalists, she must be familiar with journalism's five Ws: Who, What, When, Where, and Why - unless these too represent a white standard that does not apply to black people. Who exactly among the population of white gay men has equated (not just compared) gay rights with the black civil rights movement? When did they do so, and with what exact words? Doesn't the legacy of the civil rights movement belong to everyone, and isn't some comparison legitimate despite the differences between the two movements? What specific organizations have denied what specific black people "the same salary, benefits and support" as white employees, as Cannick claims? What complaints or lawsuits were filed in response to this illegal discrimination? The devil is in the details.

Is there no white person in the entire gay movement that Cannick is willing to give any credit? If not, that suggests we have made no progress despite discussing racism in the gay community for decades. If the situation is as hopeless as that, why keep bothering? In fact, however, this tactic of blaming white people works all too well. Race-baiting, and in general using the language of designated victims and designated oppressors, is effective in putting people on the defensive. But lumping all white people in the same category hardly seems conducive to racial justice.

The voices of Cannick and her same-gender-loving colleagues are very much needed in the fight against the theocratic Christian Right, particularly given the Right's attempt to hijack, in the cause of intolerance, the very churches in which the civil rights movement was organized. But the raising of those voices does not require the silencing of white ones. The national conversation that we need on gay rights is a multifaceted one crossing all of the cultural fault lines in our nation - lines that also cut across the gay community. Our inevitable mistakes can be pointed out without injecting the poison of a generalized racial suspicion that discourages conversations rather than encouraging them.

Jack Johnson's confident, taunting smile in the boxing ring, preserved on film in 1910 and featured in the new Ken Burns documentary Unforgivable Blackness, outshines all his persecutors who correctly saw his defiant excellence as a threat to white supremacy. It is that excellence, not grievances and demands, that marks the path toward overcoming racial injustice. A true leader does not merely demand respect, but commands it. When the negative and lecturing tone addressed to the demonized specter of "white gay men" - so popular with Cannick and others and so unproductive - is replaced by the assertive and confident smile of a champion, then we will know that Jack Johnson's ghost is once again in the house. And the black-and-tan club will be back in business.

First published January 26, 2005, in the Chicago Free Press.

C. A. Tripp's posthumously published book The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln has caused considerable controversy for its presentation of extensive historical and psychologically penetrating evidence that Lincoln was bisexual and probably predominantly homosexual.

Tripp argues: that Lincoln did not want to marry, married only for political purposes and the marriage was a disaster, that he far preferred the company of men to women, that early puberty like Lincoln's correlates with greater homosexuality, that Lincoln's known sleeping arrangements with at last three men (Greene, Speed and Derickson) and perhaps a fourth (Ellis) strongly suggest sexual intimacy and that he was infatuated with a fifth man (Ellsworth).

New York Times reviewer Richard Brookhiser cautiously accepted Tripp's view, as did historical novelist Gore Vidal writing in Vanity Fair Online. But in a 13-page "Respectful Dissent" at the end of Tripp's book, Lincoln scholar Michael Burlingame asserts that Tripp "does a disservice to history for the evidence Dr. Tripp adduced fails to support his case."

And in a vengeful 6,500-word attack published in the anti-gay Weekly Standard, Tripp's former editorial assistant Philip Nobile called the book "a hoax and a fraud," claiming that Tripp "massaged favorable indicators, buried negative ones, and papered over holes in his story with inventions."

Although not all of Tripp's interpretations are equally convincing, and critics have pointed to some apparent errors, the critics seem to make mistakes of their own, misread what Tripp wrote, pick on insubstantial disagreements and demonstrate strong resistance to the idea that male intimacy might involve anything like homosexuality.

But what would convince doubters like the Lincoln expert who told Tripp he would not believe Lincoln were gay even if Lincoln himself told him so? There are no photographs of Lincoln in bed with a man, no surviving letters discussing sexual episodes. So we have to search for previously overlooked indications in contemporary records and recollections.

But most of us are not scholars of the vast and contradictory literature about Lincoln so all we can do is see how well the objections of Tripp's critics hold up under careful scrutiny. So far, not well. Some examples: Tripp notes that immediately upon meeting Lincoln Joshua Speed invited him to sleep in the same bed with him, which Lincoln then did for four years. Critics object that it was common for men to sleep in the same bed for short periods or when traveling. Tripp himself explicitly acknowledges just that fully four times (pp. xxix, 30, 47, 128), but Tripp adds, "though to stay on for years was not."

Tripp says that Speed was the only person on whom Lincoln "repeatedly lavished his most personal and most endearing 'Yours forever' " in his letters. Critics countered that Lincoln used the closing in letters to six other men. But Tripp's point is that Lincoln used it "repeatedly" with Speed but rarely with others - and never with women.

Citing a comment about Lincoln's lanky frame by a man who met him when Lincoln was 10, Tripp places Lincoln's puberty at a remarkably early 9 or 10, and points out that Kinsey's found that men with very earlier puberty had higher rates of homosexuality.

Nobile complains that Tripp's source is unclear about the age for Lincoln's sudden growth. But the chart on page 35 shows little difference in the incidence of homosexuality between men who reached puberty at ages of 10 or 12, so even if Tripp misread his source, his point remains valid.

Billy Greene told an early Lincoln biographer that he thought Lincoln was "well and firmly built: his thighs were as perfect as a human being could be." The two men regularly shared a cot "so narrow that when one turned over the other had to do likewise," Greene said.

As the critics argue, Tripp may over-interpret Greene comment about Lincoln's thighs as indicating a preference for femoral intercourse. But the sleeping arrangement itself implies close intimacy. And how often do heterosexual men comment on another man's "perfect thighs"?

Contrary to the critics, Tripp makes no claim that Lincoln had sexual contact with the "definitely and explicitly heterosexual" Elmer Ellsworth. But Lincoln was clearly infatuated, probably in love with him. That is as significant in assessing Lincoln's orientation as sexual contact.

Lincoln had "a special interest" in Ellsworth, one friend wrote, intrigued to lure him to Springfield and called him "the greatest little man I ever met." On becoming President, Lincoln obtained preferential assignments for him and when Ellsworth was killed early in the Civil War Lincoln was inconsolable. Finally, it is reliably reported that Lincoln particularly befriended one of his security detail, David Derickson, and often invited him to share his bed - when Mary was out of town. But Lincoln and his wife slept in separate bedrooms, so Lincoln cannot have just wanted to remedy an unaccustomed solitude in bed. He must have wanted Mary not to notice.