Lincoln May Well Have Been Gay…

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.

Welfare on Demand/Good;Marriage & Fatherhood/Bad.

An e-mailed press release from the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force hypes "Why Welfare Reform Is a Queer Issue," a panel and "speak out" to be held at NYC's LGBT Community Center on Jan. 26. On the agenda, NGLTF's Jason Cianciotto will explain the "overt homophobia in welfare - abstinence promotion, marriage promotion, fatherhood initiatives." Also according to the press release:

Policy experts will address the harmful impact of the 1996 welfare reform laws on the LGBT community and what's in store for the LGBT community with reauthorization.... Discussion will include how new welfare proposals increase funding for homophobic policies like marriage promotion and fatherhood initiatives.

I remember how when Clinton signed the GOP welfare reform bill requiring able-bodied, long-term welfare recipients to take available jobs, left-liberals predicted our nation would again be filled with Hoovervilles (i.e., homeless tent cities). Instead, a record number of long-term welfare recipients actually (gasp) took jobs.

As for welfare reform being anti-LGBT because it promotes marriage and fatherhood, one could certainly argue that not allowing gays to marry increases the liklihood that poor gays would need welfare, since studies show married couples are better able to lift themselves out of poverty. But I suspect we're actually seeing a hint of what the activists at NGLTF actually feel - marriage itself is an oppressive institution, so encouraging folks to marry (and, especially, encouraging single mothers to marry one of their children's fathers) simply reinforces the evils of patriarchy.

Update: If you haven't done so, click below and read the comments posted on this item. We don't always get intelligent debate; this time we did.

Mormon Non-Marriage.

No, not polygamy. But a bill granting some marriage-like rights passed Utah's state senate, reports the Salt Lake Tribune. The bill, for example, would

...allow two adults - be it a same-sex couple or a grandmother and granddaughter - to register with the state Health Department and check which benefits they want, including hospital visitation privileges and inheritance....

In addition to granting hospital-visitation rights and inheritance benefits to those who register for reciprocal rights, the bill would allow them to make organ-donation decisions, make funeral arrangements and also make emergency medical choices for the other person.

The bill comes less than three months after voters overwhelmingly passed a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage and restrict benefits in any "domestic union" outside marriage.

Now, one could argue that allowing a man to "reciprocal partner" with his grandmother is far more likely to weaken traditional marriage than letting two unrelated gay adults wed. But being optimistic, maybe if people get used to same-sex couples "reciprocal partnering," it would make them less fearful of same-sex marriage (or at least civil unons!) - even in Utah.

Update: Well, so much for that, as Utah lawmakers kill partners bill.

More on the Media and ‘Gay Lincoln.’

A follow-up on responses from left and right to the controversial "gay Lincoln" theory. Columnist Doug Ireland, gay and of the left, writes that a grotesque Lincoln cartoon in The Nation, the leading leftwing political magazine, "showing Lincoln's head on a woman's body with an ample, protruding bosom and dressed scantily in 19th century women's lingerie," is much worse than even the rightwing Weekly Standard's gay-stereotype Lincoln cover. And it is. Scroll down Ireland's blog and take a look.

More Recent Postings
1/16/05 - 1/22/05

On Freedom.

I've been out of town with limited computer access these past few days, which explains the lack of postings. I hope to get caught up next week. But I did want to check in and note a few passing thoughts.

On Bush's inaugural theme of freedom and liberty: It's easy to point out the obvious - he wants to deny gay couples the freedom to marry. True enough, but endorsing individual freedom as the foundation for social advancement is still worth celebrating, and Bush's rhetoric can be used to hold the GOP accountable when it attempts to use the power of the state to elevate the prejudices of the majority over the rights of all to equal treatment under the law (including the right to equal participation in the institutions created or regulated by the state). Remember, Thomas Jefferson was a slaveholder but his proclamation that "all men are created equal" nevertheless provided the inspiration to abolish slavery.

But by the same token, freedom also means free individuals may choose with whom they wish to affiliate and associate in the private sphere, and the state should not intervene even if private country clubs choose to discriminate against gays and not recognize gay families. That is simply one of the tradeoffs of freedom.

A Path Ahead?

Rich Tafel's blog reports on a local GOP event where Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie was asked, by Republican Unity Coalition founder Charles Francis, about the place of gays in an inclusive GOP. Rich writes:

Gillespie went on to explain that the GOP needed to reach out to all groups if the party is to become a majority party....My impression is that the Republican leaders are looking for opportunities to mend fences with gays in the party....For gays to move forward they'll need to educate those who don't understand us in the same way the Gillespie's father educated him about the immigration issue. It looks like there are opportunities now to build bridges between gay Republicans and the GOP.

That's a hopeful message for inauguration week, but time will tell whether the GOP's leadership is intent on becoming a big tent, or just blowing smoke.

Oprah Nation.

On Martin Luther King Day, "The Oprah Winfrey Show" focused on Nate Berkus, a regular guest who talks about interior design, and who just survived the tsunami disaster in Sri Lanka. Sadly, his partner, photographer Fernando Bengoechea, was lost in the waves. Berkus told a very moving story of fighting to stay together and cling to one another as they were both swept into the ocean, and then being pulled apart by the water's force. Many in the audience wept. It was Oprah's highest rated show of the season, and another example of how Americans from all walks are getting to know gay people and our lives.

Update: Writing in Salon, Jennifer Buckendorff's "The Oprah Way" explains why "to change people's minds on issues like gay marriage, liberals [I'd say supporters of gay equality] need to learn to tug at their heartstrings."

Civil Discourse on Civil Unions

Some of the nastiest mail I receive is not from right-wing homophobes, or even bitter ex-boyfriends, but from members of our own community who think I'm not progressive enough. For example, shortly after I argued in Second Thoughts on Civil Unions that we ought to fight for civil unions now and marriage later, I received an e-mail message with the following subject-line:

"Why are you such an Uncle Tom faggot?"

There was no text to the message, and no signature - just the subject-line. With some ambivalence, I wrote back:

"I received a message from you with the subject-line 'Why are you such an Uncle Tom faggot?' but no text. Was there supposed to be text, or did the question in the subject-line exhaust what you have to say on the issue?"

I didn't expect a response: I just wanted to remind the writer that there was a person receiving his e-mail on the other end of cyberspace. Not that it did much good: a few weeks later I received a message with a similar subject-line and a long tirade accusing me, in the most obnoxious terms possible, of selling out our rights.

That kind of attack is unfortunate for a number of reasons, not least of which that it distracts us from the productive dialogue we should be having instead. I'm the first to admit that I could be wrong in the strategy I proposed for securing equal marriage rights. But if you're going to attack that strategy, please try first to understand it. In brief, I argued that:

  1. Properly crafted civil-unions legislation could grant all of the legal incidents of marriage (albeit under a different name). I am not talking about "watered-down" civil unions here; I'm talking about the full legal enchilada.
  2. The difference between such unions and marriage, since it is not a difference in legal incidents, appears to be a difference in level of social endorsement carried by the "m-word."
  3. Our best strategy (in most states) for securing the tremendously important legal incidents is to fight for them under the name "civil unions."
  4. Our best strategy for securing the social endorsement (i.e., marriage under the name "marriage") is first to secure the legal incidents. Then people will look at our civil unions, realize that they are virtually indistinguishable from marriages, start calling them marriages, and gradually forget why they objected to doing so before. That's what happened in Scandinavia, and it's happening elsewhere in Europe.
  5. Attempts to force the social endorsement too quickly (by demanding the name "marriage" above and beyond the legal incidents) may backfire, resulting in state constitutional bans not only on gay marriage but also on civil unions. The upshot would be to delay both the legal incidents and the social endorsement.

Any of the above points could be debated by reasonable people, but (4) and (5), especially, merit further discussion, including careful analysis of countries where similar strategies have been attempted. But rather than providing such analysis, my critics accuse me of endorsing a "separate but equal" line akin to that espoused by racial segregationists. Why should we settle for the back of the bus?

The segregationist analogy is a poor one. First, while it is certainly objectionable that we should ride on the back of the bus, we are barely even at the bus stop yet, much less on the bus. Let us not forget that in most places in this country, our relationships have no legal recognition whatsoever.

Second, and more important, I have argued that we should fight for identical legal incidents to those of marriage. This is not the back of the bus or a different bus: it's the same bus with a different name.

Is that name difference silly? Yes, it's silly - maybe even insulting. But when health benefits are denied to committed same-sex couples, when a person can't get bereavement leave upon the death of her same-sex partner; when loving couples are split apart because one partner is a foreigner and can't get citizenship, that's far worse than silly or insulting - it's downright cruel. I contend that we have a fighting chance at ending such cruelty, and that once we do so we'll have an even better chance at ending the silly name-difference (again, see Scandinavia).

I could be wrong, but calling me nasty names doesn't show why I'm wrong. More to the point, it doesn't get us any closer to the front of the bus.

For What Purpose, HRC?

While watching Fox's "The O'Reilly Factor" Tuesday night I was surprised to see an ad from the Human Rights Campaign attacking George Bush. Was this a mistake, left over from the campaign? No, it appears that HRC is proudly blasting Bush during his inaugural week.

But just what is the purpose of buying time on Fox TV, Republican central, to let die-hard conservatives know just how much gays hate President Bush? And this, within a week of Bush's statement that his administration wouldn't be pushing the Federal Marriage Amendment (thus igniting an uproar among social conservatives)?

But HRC would rather attack Bush than in any way, shape or form try to work with the administration in power for the next four years. What a sorry state of affairs.

By the way, I was watching Bill O'Reilly because his guest was Philip Nobile discussing the "gay Lincoln" theory put forth in the new book by the late C.A. Tripp, with whom Nobile worked before a falling out. O'Reilly clearly thought Nobile would blast the theory but instead, while criticizing Tripp's work, Nobile argued that "there's more evidence for the gay-Lincoln than for the completely-straight-Lincoln theory." This did not please O'Reilly, who was clearly miffed.

At one point when Nobile pointed to accounts that Lincoln, on several occasions, had surreptitiously invited Captain David Derickson to share his bed in the White House when Mrs. Lincoln was away, O'Reilly countered that perhaps they were simply having "a pajama party."

Illinois’s Gay Rights Bill — and Other Signs of Life

First published January 19, 2005, in the Chicago Free Press.

In a vulgar and half-crazed speech delivered at New York's Cooper Union shortly after last November's presidential election, playwright and drama queen Larry Kramer pronounced the gay-rights movement "Dead." Dead. Deceased. Over. Finished.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the funeral: The state of Illinois passed a gay nondiscrimination law. It was as if the corpse suddenly sat up and started waving a cheery hello to the mourners.

On January 10, the Illinois Senate passed the bill by a vote of 30-27. It was the bare minimum necessary for passage, but winning with the minimum votes is a lot better than coming up one vote short of the minimum. In politics, as Eisenhower pointed out, there are no moral victories. You either win or lose.

The next day the Illinois House passed the bill by a vote of 65 to 51, well over the minimum votes necessary, and Governor Blagojevich, as promised, signed it expeditiously on January 21.

One might notice a few things in passing that offer lessons for other states less far along. The law represents the culmination of some 30 years of effort by successive teams of activists starting in 1974 when the Illinois Gay Rights Task Force (then so-named) was formed to work for passage of a nondiscrimination law. The bill's first sponsor was state Rep. Susan Catania, a Republican.

Passage was more or less hopeless during the '70s and '80s. The gay movement was young, desperately underfunded and understaffed. It received little support from a timid and politically passive community. And public opinion was far from taking seriously the idea of equality for gays.

Passage took years of painstaking lobbying in the legislature, public advocacy in the mass media, and a vastly increased number of gay people coming out. Over the years gays were significantly aided by conscientious reporters and supportive columnists in the print media such as Jean Latz Griffin and Eric Zorn at the Chicago Tribune, and Tom Brune, Howard Wolinsky and Neil Steinberg at the Sun-Times - and unnamed editorial writers at both papers.

But even more, passage required a well-funded and fully staffed political organization created by Equality Illinois, able to help legislators win primaries and elections, able to create political obligations, able to generate multiple thousands of letters, calls and e-mails to legislators. Politics, we are reminded, has little to do with what is right and everything to do with political power.

In the end, the law was passed in the first legislative session in which Democrats controlled both chambers of the legislature and the governorship. Although earlier GOP governors, moderates all, had said they would sign the bill, conservative legislative leaders kept the measure bottled up.

And the bill was approved after the November election, not before, so legislators felt less vulnerable. Three GOP senators and 12 GOP House members joined the majority of Democrats in voting for the bill. Without mentioning any names, it actually helped to have a crazed loony or two on the other side.

But someone might object that one swallow does not make a summer. Well, I hate to sound like Little Mary Sunshine. Gloom and doom always seem so much more profound. And alarm always sells well to people whose egos depend on the feeling that they are significant because they are threatened. But here, more briefly, are other signs of gay progress in January alone.

  • The publication of the late C. A. Tripp's long-awaited book The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln, arguing that Lincoln was predominantly homosexual in orientation, even if it does not convince everyone nevertheless decisively alters the landscape by raising the issue in a thoroughgoing way. Reviewing the book for the New York Times, conservative National Review senior editor Richard Brookhiser seemed to accept the general thrust of Tripp's argument. Consider the impact of the book on high school students doing reports on Lincoln or projects on the Civil War.
  • Responding to the urging of New York City Comptroller William C. Thompson, Jr., who acted on the basis of stocks held by the city's pension funds, six more Fortune 500 companies indicated that they would include sexual orientation in their nondiscrimination codes - United States Steel, Alcoa, AllTel, Harrah's Entertainment, Owens-Illinois and Coventry Healthcare.
  • Bishops of the Episcopal Church of America, responding to theologically untutored, fundamentalist Anglicans in third world countries, said they "deeply regret" not, mind you, having consecrated an openly gay bishop, but the fact that their doing so caused "pain" to some people. In other words, "We're sorry if you are upset." Clearly they felt they were in a strong theological and institutional position and, unlike feckless Anglicans in Britain, were unwilling to back down.
  • A study panel of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, with an eye to the controversies embroiling Episcopalians, recommended that their church maintain its current policy forbidding same-sex union ceremonies and non-celibate gay clergy, but should "tolerate" (i.e., allow) churches and pastors that practice otherwise. In effect, this gives a green light to speeded up "doctrinal change from below."

This column honors the memory of Al Wardell, valued friend and long-time head of the Illinois Gay and Lesbian Rights Task Force.