IGF CultureWatch

I HAD A DREAM THE OTHER NIGHT. I was at a benefit performance of a new Andrew Lloyd Webber extravaganza, called "Stonewall: The Musical." It reminded me of "Les Miserables" (not a Webber musical, but this was, after all, a dream). The central character was a drag queen named Sylvia, and instead of the dramatic high point of the show taking place atop a barricade on a Paris street in a confrontation between government troops and a band of youthful revolutionaries, the climax in "Stonewall: The Musical" was set in Greenwich Village's Sheridan Square. To the beat of "Supermodel," a chorus line of Ru Paul look-alikes high-kicked in from stage left as a phalanx of goose-stepping New York City policemen - actually the 1970s disco group, the Village People, dressed in riot gear - marched in from stage right.

In the moment before the police started beating heads and ripping bodices, I stood up on my seat and started yelling that this wasn't the way it happened. Sylvia, who was at the center of the chorus line, stopped mid-kick, glared down at me from her ten-inch platform shoes (they didn't wear platform shoes in 1969!), dramatically rolled her eyes, and with hands on hips yelled back at me, "Honey, get over it. Everyone likes this story better." My friend John pulled me back into my seat and the show went on without further interruption. I woke up that morning with a splitting headache.

It's only been 25 years since the real riots broke out at the Stonewall Inn on Christopher Street in Greenwich Village, but like a ridiculously long game of telephone, the Stonewall legend that's emerged from the end of the line is only an echo of the original event. It kind of reminds me of the lessons I learned in elementary school about "How The West Was Won." Great story, and even a fun movie starring Debbie Reynolds, but not nearly as interesting or complex as the real thing.

The story of what really happened at Stonewall has yet to be distorted and embellished beyond the point of recognition, but it's well on its way. The myth gets a boost every time someone writes about how "heroic drag queens started a riot at the Stonewall Inn, which marked the beginning of the gay rights movement."

After writing Making History, which is about the gay rights struggle from 1945 to 1990, and interviewing people who were at Stonewall Inn the night of the riot, and having read eyewitness accounts of what actually happened, the much-repeated telescoped myth makes me want to scream. Some of my friends have told me to give it up, that the tide is against me. But on the twenty-fifth anniversary of the riot at the Stonewall Inn, I thought I'd make one last effort to set the record straight about a remarkable event that marked a key turning point in the history of the gay and lesbian rights struggle. It also happens to be a great story. So pull up a chair, because it's a couple of minutes to eight, and the curtain's about to rise.

Act I

Location:

The Stonewall Inn: a nondescript two-story building at 53 Christopher Street, just off of Sheridan Square in New York's Greenwich Village.

Dawn Hampton, a torch singer and hat check girl, who went to work at the Stonewall when it opened in 1966, recalled that Stonewall Inn was "the biggest after hours gay dance palace in the city at that time. The place there now is much smaller than the original."

When Ms. Hampton first went to work there, you didn't just walk into the Stonewall, you had to be admitted. "You had to be identified by someone at the door who either assumed or knew you were of that life. I had worked at so many of the gay bars as a performer and hat check girl that I was often called to the door and asked, 'Do you know this person?' You see, at that time there was a lot of entrapment going on. Police would come to a gay bar and pretend that they were of that life. They would try to get someone to make sexual advances, arrest the poor fellow and later come back and bust the bar for allowing deviates and undesirables to be there."

As thoroughly documented by Martin Duberman in his book, Stonewall, the Stonewall Inn was opened by "three Mafia figures... who spent less than a thousand dollars in fixing up the club's interior." The late Morty Manford, who was a nineteen-year-old college student in 1969, recalled that the Stonewall was a dive. "It was my favorite place, but it was shabby, and the glasses they served the watered-down drinks in weren't particularly clean."

eyond the front door and past the coat room, where Dawn Hampton presided, the Stonewall had a main bar, a dance floor, and a juke box. There was another bar in back, with tables where people could sit.

The Patrons:

The Stonewall Inn attracted an eclectic crowd, from teenage college students like Morty Manford to conservatively dressed young men who stopped in with their dates after the theater or opera. "It was a different mind-set then," recalled Dawn Hampton. "On weekends, men dressed up. A lot of them were dating and they would dress in coat and tie."

There was also a sprinkling of young radicals, people like Ronnie Di Brienza, a twenty-six-year old long-haired musician who didn't consider himself gay or straight. "I must consider myself a freak."

The Stonewall Inn was not a generally welcoming place for drag queens, although as Martin Duberman notes, "...a few favored full-time transvestites, like Tiffany, Spanola Jerry, a hairdresser from Sheepshead Bay, and Tammy Novak... were allowed to enter Stonewall in drag..."

The nightly crowd at the Stonewall Inn did include, however, quite a few men that Dick Leitsch described as the "fluffy sweater" type. "It wasn't drag queens. They were sissies, young effeminate guys, giggle girls." Leitsch, who was then executive director of the Mattachine Society, a gay rights group founded in 1950, said you rarely saw people in full drag because "in those days you got busted for dressing up unless you were on your way to or from a licensed masquerade ball."

Sylvia Rivera recalled that if you were a drag queen, you could get into the Stonewall if they knew you, but he favored the Washington Square Bar at Third Street and Broadway. When he dressed up, Sylvia liked to pretend that he was a white woman. "I always like to say that, but really I'm Puerto Rican and Venezuelan."

If men dressed as women were an uncommon sight, real women at the Stonewall Inn were rarer still. More often than not, when Dawn Hampton worked at the Stonewall, she was the only woman there, yet felt fully accepted. "A lot of the kids called me 'Mommie.'"

The Mood:

June 27, 1969, was not an average Friday night at the Stonewall Inn. Earlier that week, on Tuesday night, the police had raided the Stonewall "to gather evidence of illegal sale of alcohol."

Ronnie Di Brienza later wrote in an article in The East Village Other, "On Wednesday and Thursday nights, grumbling could be heard among the limp-wristed set. Predominantly, the theme was, 'this shit has got to stop!' ...It used to be that a fag was happy to get slapped and chased home, as long as they didn't have to have their names splashed onto a court record. Now, times are a-changin'. Tuesday night was the last night for bullshit."

The late film historian, Vito Russo, didn't know about the Tuesday night raid, but he was in a foul mood on Friday night as he approached the Stonewall on his way home from work, because earlier that day he'd attended Judy Garland's funeral. He recalled, "The day before the funeral thousands of people had waited in the street to view the body. They were lined up all the way down Eighty-First Street and on Fifth Avenue by Central Park. They kept the funeral home open around the clock, and more than twenty thousand people filed through. It was a spectacle to behold."

There also happened to be a full moon on the night of June 27, 1969.

Scene 1: The Raid

Morty Manford was at the Stonewall Inn when several plainclothes officers entered the bar around 2:00 a.m. "Whispers went around that the place was being raided. Suddenly, the lights were turned up, the doors were sealed, and all the patrons were held captive until the police decided what they were going to do. I was anxious, but I wasn't afraid. Everybody was anxious, not knowing whether we were going to be arrested or what was going to happen."

"It may have been ten or fifteen minutes later that we were all told to leave. We had to line up, and our identification was checked before we were freed. People who did not have identification or were under age and all transvestites were detained."

Of the two hundred people ejected from the Stonewall that night, five who were dressed as women were detained. According to Village Voice reporter Howard Smith, as he wrote in an article entitled "Full Moon Over The Stonewall," "...Out of five queens checked, three were men and two were [transsexuals], even though all said they were girls." Smith had coincidentally been accompanying the police on the Stonewall raid that night.

Scene 2: The Riot

After being released from the bar, Morty Manford watched and waited outside. "As some of the gays came out of the bar, they would take a bow, and their friends would cheer." It was a colorful scene, Morty recalled, but the tension began to grow.

Howard Smith observed, "Things were already pretty tense: the gay customers freshly ejected from their hangout, prancing high and jubilant in the street, had been joined by quantities of Friday night tourists hawking around for Village-type excitement... Loud defiances mixed with skittish hilarity made for a more dangerous stage of protest; they were feeling their impunity. This kind of crowd freaks easily." The crowd grew to more than 400 people.

Lucian Truscott IV, who was also at the Stonewall that night reporting for the Village Voice, wrote that the scene was initially festive: "Cheers would go up as favorites would emerge from the door, strike a pose, and swish by the detective with a 'Hello there, fella.' The stars were in their element. Wrists were limp, hair was primped, and reactions to the applause were classic. 'I gave them the gay power bit, and they loved it, girls.' 'Have you seen Maxine? Where is my wife - I told her not to go far.'"

Truscott reported that the mood changed once the paddy wagon arrived and three drag queens, the bartender and the doorman were loaded inside. The crowd showered the police with boos and catcalls and "a cry went up to push the paddy wagon over, but it drove away before anything could happen... The next person to come out was a dyke, and she put up a struggle - from car to door to car again."

At this point Smith reported that the police had trouble keeping "the dyke" in the patrol car. "Three times she slid out and tried to walk away. The last time a cop bodily heaved her in. The crowd shrieked, 'Police brutality!' 'Pigs!'"

Sylvia Rivera was watching the whole scene. "It was inhumane, senseless bullshit. They called us animals. We were the lowest scum of the Earth at that time... Suddenly, the nickels, dimes, pennies, and quarters started flying. I threw quarters and pennies and whatnot. 'You already got the payoff, and here's some more!' To be there was so beautiful. It was so exciting. I said, 'Well great, now it's my time. I'm out here being a revolutionary for everybody else, and now it's time to do my thing for my own people.'"

The tension continued to rise. Truscott writes: "Limp wrists were forgotten. Beer cans and bottles were heaved at the windows." Reporter Howard Smith retreated inside the bar along with Deputy Inspector Seymour Pine, and the police officers who had conducted the raid. Once inside the bar, they bolted the heavy front door.

From his vantage point outside the bar, Morty remembered seeing someone throw a rock, which broke a window on the second floor of the Stonewall Inn building. "With the shattering of the glass, the crowd collectively exclaimed, 'Ooh.' It was a dramatic gesture of defiance. For me, there was a slight lancing of the festering wound of anger that had been building for so long over this kind of unfair harassment and prejudice. It wasn't my fault that many of the bars where I could meet other gay people were run by organized crime."

Inside the Stonewall, Smith heard the shattering of glass, including at least one of the two large plate glass windows on the first floor. The windows, which were painted black from the inside, were backed by plywood panels.

There was pounding at the door and people yelling. Smith writes: "The door crashes open, beer cans and bottles hurtle in... At that point the only uniformed cop among them gets hit with something under his eye. He hollers, and his hand comes away scarlet... They are all suddenly furious. Three run out to see if they can scare the mob from the door. [Inspector Seymour] Pine leaps out into the crowd and drags a protester inside by the hair."

Outside, with the crowd still growing, Truscott observes, "At the height of the action, a bearded figure was plucked from the crowd and dragged inside... the crowd erupted into cobblestone and bottle heaving. The reaction was solid: they were pissed. The trash can I was standing on was nearly yanked out from under me as a kid tried to grab it for use in the window-smashing melee."

Ronnie Di Brienza, the long-haired musician picks up the story here: "A bunch of 'queens' along with a few 'butch' members, grabbed a parking meter, and began battering the entrance until the door swung open."

Inside, Smith and the police duck as more debris is thrown in through the open door. In response, Smith writes, "The detectives locate a fire hose, the idea being to ward off the madding crowd until reinforcements arrive."

Lucian Truscott describes what happens next: "Several kids took the opportunity to cavort in the spray, and their momentary glee served to stave off what was rapidly becoming a full-scale attack."

Smith grows fearful as the tension escalates. He observes, "By now the minds eye had forgotten the character of the mob; the sound filtering in doesn't suggest dancing faggots any more. It sounds like a powerful rage bent on vendetta..."

The crowd then heaves the uprooted parking meter through one of the plate glass windows. The plywood behind the window gives.

Smith writes, "It seems inevitable that the mob will pour in. A kind of tribal adrenaline rush bolsters all of us; they take out and check pistols. I see both policewomen busy doing the same, and the danger becomes even more real. I find a big wrench behind the bar, jam it into my belt like a scimitar... [Inspector] Pine places a few men on each side of the corridor leading away from the entrance. They aim unwavering at the door... I hear, 'We'll shoot the first motherfucker that comes through the door!'"

From outside the bar, Truscott recalls, "I heard several cries of, 'Let's get some gas.'" Smith notices an arm at the window. It belongs to a man whom Ronnie Di Brienza describes as a "small scrawny, hoody-looking cat." He is holding a can of lighter fluid.

A stream of liquid pours in through the broken window. Smith writes, "A flaring match follows. Pine is not more than 10 feet away [from the window]." Pine aims his gun at the shadows framed by the window. But he doesn't fire.

Smith writes, "The sound of sirens coincides with the shoosh of flames where the lighter fluid was thrown. Later, Pine tells me he didn't shoot because he had heard the sirens in time and felt no need to kill someone if help was arriving. It was that close."

Once reinforcements arrived, in the form of New York City's Tactical Police Force, the streets were cleared in coordinated sweeps of the area. According to newspaper accounts in the days that followed, thirteen people were arrested that night and three policemen suffered minor injuries. No mention was made of civilian casualties.

ACT II

Scene 1: The Aftermath

By the time Vito Russo happened on the scene in front of the Stonewall, the riot was over, although people were still out on the sidewalks yelling at the police. He recalls, "I didn't get to see a lot of the hysteria that's been described in the press because I got there too late. I went to the little triangular park across the street and sat in a tree on a branch. I watched what was going on, but I didn't want to get involved. People were still throwing things, whatever they could find, mostly garbage. Then somebody came along and spray painted a message to the community on the front of Stonewall that this was our neighborhood, and we weren't going to let them take it away from us, that everybody should calm down and go home. But that's not the way it worked out because there were constant confrontations for the next two nights."

Dick Leitsch heard about the melee at the Stonewall on the radio and hurried downtown from his apartment on West 72nd Street. "Considering my position at the time as Executive Director of The Mattachine Society and being in charge of anything gay in New York at that time, I stopped what I was doing and headed down there."

Despite the fact that "things got out of hand," Leitsch remembers the first night as having had a fun and campy atmosphere. "This was uniquely gay. It was much different than the burning of the cities, which happened the year before, and the riots in Chicago at the democratic convention. This was more camp. It was more like satire. I think the funny, campy behavior made more of a point than just the trashing."

The next day, Inspector Pine tried to enlist Mattachine's help in calming the neighborhood. "We'd had a relationship with the police for years," Leitsch recalls. "We'd already gotten them to curtail entrapment and stopped the harassment of licensed bars." (The Stonewall was unlicensed).

Among gay people themselves, both the organized gay community and those who remained on the sidelines, there was intense debate over how to respond to the riot. On one side were those who wanted the riots and mass protests to continue, and on the other were many who wanted an immediate end to the violence and public demonstrations. One fear among those who wanted peace restored was that the police would retaliate with increased bar raids, harassment, and arrests.

Saturday night, the crowds gathered once again in front of the Stonewall, and this time included "onlookers, Eastsiders, and rough street people." Dick Leitsch recalls, "It was all these poor pitiful people who were still thinking that the revolution was going to come because they thought this was it - all the New Left and the tired old 1930s radicals who were waiting for the Communist revolution since 1917. Instead of just defying the cops, they got nasty."

But the majority of the hundreds of people who crowded onto Christopher Street and jammed Sheridan Square were young gay men. And despite some nasty confrontations with the police, there was plenty of humor and camp left over from the previous night. As Lucian Truscott reported: "Friday night's crowd had returned and was being led in 'gay power' cheers by a group of gay cheerleaders. 'We are the Stonewall girls/ We wear our hair in curls/ We have no underwear/ We show our pubic hairs!' ...Hand-holding, kissing, and posing accented each of the cheers with a homosexual liberation that had appeared only fleetingly on the street before."

Not every gay person was thrilled with the very public displays of gay camp and freely expressed same-sex affection. As Truscott observed, "Older boys had strained looks on their faces and talked in concerned whispers as they watched the up-and-coming generation take being gay and flaunt it before the masses."

New York City's Tactical Police Force returned again on Saturday night to clear the hundreds of protesters from the streets. Truscott reported: "The TPF...swept the crowd back to the corner of Waverly Place, where they stopped. A stagnant situation there brought on some gay tomfoolery in the form of a chorus line facing the line of helmeted and club-carrying cops. Just as the line got into a full kick routine, the TPF advanced again and cleared the crowd of screaming gay powerites." By 3:30 a.m. Christopher Street was once again calm, but a new era in the gay rights struggle had already dawned.

Fade to black

Curtain

Epilogue

Isn't that an inspiring story? So the streets weren't filled with drag queens in sequins and heels. So the Stonewall riot didn't mark the start of the gay and lesbian rights struggle. (It wasn't even the first time that gay people challenged police repression.) But gay people - fluffy sweater boys, dykes, sissies, college students, boys in chinos and penny loafers - did in fact challenge police repression. They were finally pushed to the point where they'd had enough, and they fought back.

We can all relate to the sense of frustration and indignity that the Stonewallers experienced. And we can take pride in the actions of those young people in 1969 who lashed out in a way that plenty of us have fantasized about. The notion of bashing back has great visceral appeal, even if it's rarely the appropriate response.

The violent challenge to police harassment and repression at the Stonewall Inn was more than enough to earn the riot a place in gay history - in American history. But the impact of the Stonewall riot went far beyond the confines of Greenwich Village and Manhattan island. For a variety of reasons, the riot was a key turning point in the gay rights struggle across the country. It led to a virtual explosion of activity and organizing, primarily among young people, in the months and years immediately following.

At the time of the riot there were perhaps four dozen gay organizations across the country. By the early 1970s, there were more than four hundred, ranging from college and university groups to chapters of the Metropolitan Community Church - and, the gay liberation movement erupted on the political scene in cities across the country.

As we honor the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Stonewall riot, there is no harm in celebrating what actually happened at the Stonewall Inn. The Stonewall myth has plenty of appeal, but the true story is far more dramatic, exciting, and inspiring than any tale, even if it's seven feet tall (in platform shoes).

In five Canadian cities, Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, Calgary and Winnipeg, legislation is being introduced to extend civil marriage rites to same-sex couples. I was asked to offer a short response, stating my opinion on the issue as an Orthodox rabbi. The opportunity to write about this matter triggered my own thinking about the areas where religion and public culture rub up against each other.

My Response

1. I am an ordained Rabbi of America's largest Orthodox Rabbinical Seminary, Yeshiva University's Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary. I held an Orthodox pulpit early in my career and have been a Senior Teaching Fellow at CLAL-The National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership since 1985.

2. I have been asked to address the religious basis for the extension of civil marriage to homosexual couples. The usual split on this issue has been between the religious right and the secular left. The religious right desires to see certain religious values (in this case, exclusive heterosexual marriage) reflected in the society at large, while the secular left wishes to keep the public square free from specific religious values which undermine legitimate individual freedoms.

3. Marriage as an institution has deep roots in every religious tradition. However, the very idea of "civil marriage" was both a blow to the authority of the church (which until then was the only venue for enacting a marriage) and a direct import from religion into secular/civic affairs.

Orthodox Jewish Law - Halacha

4. The Hebrew halacha is translated as Jewish law. It is derived from the verb "to walk." Halacha is a society-building enterprise that maintains internal balance by reorganizing itself in response to changing social realities. When social conditions shift, the halachic reapplication is not experienced as "departure from the law," but as the proper commitment to the Torah's original purposes. While that shift in social consciousness in regard to same-sex relations has not occurred in Orthodox communities, it surely has in the larger society. Orthodox rabbis are beginning to understand that their gay and lesbian congregants are not freely choosing to be gay, but are simply discovering themselves to be essentially different.

5. Under Orthodox Jewish law as it currently stands, same-sex marriage is not permitted. The religious rites of kiddushin can only be enacted between two Jews, one male and the other female. While the rejection of homosexual relations is still normative in most Orthodox communities, halachists are beginning to include in their deliberations the testimony of gay people who wish to remain faithful to the tradition. New halachic strategies, I believe, will, in time, appear under these changing social conditions.

6. Orthodox Judaism places many restrictions on marriage that differ from those placed on civil marriage. Interfaith couples cannot be married. Indeed, a number of couples that might desire the state of matrimony, under Orthodox Jewish law, could not be married. The traditional Jewish community does not marry a male member of the priestly lineage with a divorcee or a convert, nor can a child of an adulterous union marry any Jew at all.

7. Despite the fact that civil marriage is offered to each of these couples, one hears no protest from the Orthodox community over the violation of its sensibilities. Orthodox communities have grown accustomed to the challenges of living in secular societies. Orthodox synagogues in Canada, were they to hire an "improperly married" or intermarried individual, would recognize the civil marriage and provide the appropriate marriage benefits for such persons. Rabbi Novak's speculation that Orthodox Jews would reject civil marriage were same-sex marriages included runs counter to the Orthodox community's historical acceptance of civil marriage as an institution governed by secular society.

Marriage is not a natural institution.

8. Marriage is an institution structured by societies. All marriages are "according to the laws" of some communal body that honors them. They are a feature of civilization, not nature. Marking homosexual marriage as contrary to some natural laws is reminiscent of the justifications put forward in the U.S. for laws prohibiting interracial marriage.

9. Moreover, all sorts of ideas about marriage have changed. Abraham ended up with a wife and a concubine, Jacob with two wives and two concubines. In the Talmud, the famed scholar Rav would travel and call out, "Who will marry me for the day?" This custom of "day marriages" was common in Babylonia among those men who could afford them. While surely not ideal, the rabbis of the age did not protest this use of marriage by one of their most revered teachers. Families are always a subset of the society of which they are a part. Marriage, likewise, is conditioned by the values and sensibilities of the social context. As society has come to understand the essential unchosen nature of same-sex desire, the offering of new forms of matrimony that support such couples would seem consonant with a contemporary sense of justice and social responsibility.

10. Same-sex marriage, like marriage generally, is a conservative institution expressing lifelong commitment, caring, love and support. It is fundamentally not about rights, but about duties. Central to Orthodox Jewish teaching is the importance of family. The rejection of gay coupling is hardly an expression of family values. Indeed, it is just the opposite. It is surely in the interest of families to support such unions that glue us all together by the force of our loving commitments to each other.

11. While it is true that procreation is one of the intents of marriage in our society, same-sex marriages would not prevent such endeavors any more than heterosexual marriages require them. Surely we would not claim that sterile couples or couples who choose not to produce children are not "really" married. Under Jewish law such couples might not be fulfilling the duty to reproduce, but that would have no bearing upon the legitimacy of their marriage. Moreover, adoption and surrogacy offer to gay couples the same potential as they do to heterosexual couples unable to reproduce.

12. Gay people cannot be asked to be straight, but they can be asked to "hold fast to the covenant." Holding fast to the covenant demands that gay people fulfill the mitzvot that are in their power to fulfill. Same-sex couples cannot procreate without outside assistance, but there are other ways to build a family and a marriage.

13. The wisdom of a religious practice lies not in the number of people that support it. Rabbi Novak raises the issue of the size of a religious community to impugn the views of Reform Judaism. It seems unimaginable to me that a Jew, a member of a religion that has endured such relentless persecution coincident with its minority status, should invoke this notion. As a minority religion in North America, the religious marriages of Jews are given civil recognition despite the fact that they are not in keeping with the beliefs of the majority. The comfort Rabbi Novak draws from allegedly being in the majority regarding religious views on same-sex marriage is frightening.

Civic institutions are crucial for religious freedom.

14. While religious organizations might have a hard time admitting it, the institution of civil marriage is one of the public frameworks that allow religious communities to thrive. It allows synagogues and churches to do what they do, to restrict or extend membership and offer or deny access to their services and rites according to their principles. Civil alternatives for contracting a legally recognized marriage insure the freedom of religious communities to shape their own rules. Without civil and diverse religious alternatives for contracting a legally recognized marriage, those who do not conform to religious rules would put great pressure on religious organizations to change.

15. Civil marriage provides an umbrella under which we all can live, despite our very passionate differences. The state ensures that marriage is not denied to anyone based on a couple's particular religious beliefs or their lack of any religious beliefs. Civil recognition is extended to secular marriages and to marriages according to diverse religious traditions, practices and beliefs, including to persons who do not meet the criteria of one or more religions. Conversely, the state does not require any religion to marry anyone who does not meet its criteria (for example, an Orthodox rabbi cannot be compelled to marry a Jew to a Gentile). This situation is not a cause for concern, but rather for celebration. That the civil concept of marriage and diverse religious conceptions of marriage can co-exist not only demonstrates the ability of civilly recognized marriage to be flexible and to be separate from religious practice, but it also ensures the ability of religious marriage to choose its own course. That is certainly a victory for freedom of religion.

AN INCREASINGLY COMMON objection to same-sex marriage takes the form of a slippery-slope argument: "If we allow gay marriage, why not polygamy? Or incest? Or bestiality?" This argument is nothing new, having been used against interracial marriage in the 1960's. But what it lacks in originality it more than makes up for in rhetorical force: given the choice between rejecting homosexuality or accepting a sexual free-for-all, mainstream Americans tend to opt for the former.

Unfortunately, sound-bite arguments don't always lend themselves to sound-bite refutations. Part of the problem is that the polygamy/incest/bestiality argument (PIB argument for short) is not really an argument at all. Instead, it's a challenge: "Okay, Mr. Sexual Liberal: explain to me why polygamy, incest, and bestiality are wrong." Most people are not prepared to do that - certainly not in twenty words or less. And many answers that leap to mind (for example, that PIB relationships violate well-established social norms) won't work for the defender of same-sex relationships (since same-sex relationships, too, violate well-established social norms).

In what follows I respond to the PIB challenge. But first, I wish to set aside two popular responses that I think are inadequate. Call the first the "We really exist" argument. According to this argument, homosexuality is different from polygamy, incest, and bestiality because there are "constitutional" homosexuals, but not constitutional polygamists, incestualists, or bestialists. As Andrew Sullivan writes,

Almost everyone seems to accept, even if they find homosexuality morally troublesome, that it occupies a deeper level of human consciousness than a polygamous impulse. Even the Catholic Church, which believes that homosexuality is an "objective disorder," concedes that it is a profound element of human identity....[P]olygamy is an activity, whereas both homosexuality and heterosexuality are states."

Sullivan is probably right in his description of popular consciousness about homosexuality. Yet traditionalists may reject the idea that homosexuality is an immutable given. At a June 1997 conference at Georgetown University, "Homosexuality and American Public Life," conservative columnist Maggie Gallagher urged her audience to stop thinking of homosexuality as an inevitable, key feature of an individual's personality. Drawing, ironically, on the work of queer theorists, Gallagher proposed instead that homosexuality is a cultural convention - one that ought to be challenged.

If Gallagher and her social constructionist sources are right, the "We really exist" argument must be abandoned. But whether they're right or not, there are good pragmatic reasons for abandoning this argument. "We really exist" sounds dangerously like "We just can't help it." And to this claim there is an obvious response: "Well, alcoholics really exist, too. They can't help their impulses. But we don't encourage them." Though the alcoholism analogy is generally a bad one, it underscores the rhetorical weakness of claiming "We really exist" in response to the (rhetorically strong) PIB challenge.

A second response to the PIB challenge is to argue that as long as PIB relationships are forbidden for heterosexuals, they should be forbidden for homosexuals as well. Call this the "equal options" argument. To put the argument more positively: we homosexuals are not asking to engage in polygamy, incest, or bestiality. We are simply asking to engage in monogamous, non-incestuous relationships with people we love - just like heterosexuals do. As Jonathan Rauch writes,

The hidden assumption of the argument which brackets gay marriage with polygamous or incestuous marriage is that homosexuals want the right to marry anyone they fall for. But, of course, heterosexuals are currently denied that right. They cannot marry their immediate family or all their sex partners. What homosexuals are asking for is the right to marry, not anybody they love, but somebody they love, which is not at all the same thing.

Once again, this argument is correct as far as it goes, but it doesn't go far enough - at least not far enough to satisfy proponents of the PIB argument. As they see it, permitting homosexuality - even monogamous, non-incestuous, person-to-person homosexuality - involves relaxing traditional sexual mores. The fact that these mores prohibit constitutional homosexuals from marrying somebody they love is no more troubling to traditionalists than the fact that these mores prohibit constitutional pedophiles from marrying somebody they love, since traditionalists believe that there are good reasons for both prohibitions.

In short, both the "we exist" argument and the "equal options" argument are vulnerable to counterexamples: alcoholics really exist, and pedophiles are denied equal marital options. (Indeed, traditionalists are fond of pointing out that, strictly speaking, homosexuals do have "equal" options: they have the option of marrying persons of the oppostite sex. Such traditionalists usually remain silent on whether this option is a good idea for anyone involved, but so it goes.)

There is, I think, a better response to the PIB argument, one that has been suggested by both Sullivan and Rauch (whose contributions to this debate I gratefully acknowledge). It is to deny that arguments for homosexual relationships offer any real support for PIB relationships. Why would proponents of the PIB argument think otherwise? Perhaps they assume that our main argument for homosexual relationships is that they feel good and we want them. If that were our argument, it would indeed offer support for PIB relationships. But that is not our argument: it is a straw man.

A much better argument for homosexual relationships begins with an analogy: homosexual relationships offer virtually all of the benefits of sterile heterosexual relationships; thus, if we approve of the latter, we should approve of the former as well. For example, both heterosexual relationships and homosexual relationships can unite people in a way that ordinary friendship simply cannot. Both can have substantial practical benefits in terms of the health, economic security, and social productivity of the partners. Both can be important constituents of a flourishing life. Yes, they feel good and we want them, but there's a lot more to it than that. These similarities create a strong prima facie case for treating homosexual and heterosexual relationships the same - morally, socially, and politically.

"But wait," say the opponents. "Can't you make the same argument for PIB relationships?" Not quite. It is true that you can use the same form of argument for PIB relationships: PIB relationships have benefits X, Y, and Z and no relevant drawbacks. But whether PIB relationships do in fact have such benefits and lack such drawbacks is an empirical matter, one that will not be settled by looking to homosexual relationships.

To put my point more concretely: to observe that Tom and Dick (and many others like them) flourish in homosexual relationships is not to prove that Greg and Marcia would flourish in an incestuous relationship, or that Mike, Carol, and Alice would flourish in a polygamous relationship, or that Bobby and Tiger would flourish in a bestial relationship. Whether they would or not is a separate question - one that requires a whole new set of data.

Another way to indicate the logical distance between homosexual relationships and PIB relationships is to point out that PIB relationships can be either homosexual or heterosexual. Proponents of the PIB challenge must therefore explain why they group PIB relationships with homosexual relationships rather than heterosexual ones. There's only one plausible reason: PIB and homosexuality have traditionally been condemned. But (whoops!) that's also true of interracial relationships, which traditionalists (typically) no longer condemn. And (whoops again!) they've just argued in a circle: the question at hand is why we should group PIB relationships with homosexual relationships rather than heterosexual ones. Saying that "we've always grouped them together" doesn't answer the question, it begs it.

The question remains, of course, whether PIB relationships do, on balance, have benefits sufficient to warrant their approval. Answering that question requires far more data than I can marshal here. It also requires careful attention to various distinctions: distinctions between morality and public policy, distinctions between the morally permissible and the morally ideal, and - perhaps most important - distinctions between polygamy, incest, and bestiality, which are as different from each other as they each are from homosexuality. In what remains I offer some brief (and admittedly inconclusive) observations about each of these phenomena.

Polygamy provides perhaps the best opportunity among the three for obtaining the requisite data: there have been and continue to be polygamous societies. Most of these are in fact polygynous (multiple-wife) societies, and most of them are sexist. Whether egalitarian polygamous societies are possible is an open question. Whether egalitarian polygamous relationships are possible (as opposed to entire societies) is an easier question. Though I find it difficult to imagine maintaining a relationship with several spouses - having had enough trouble maintaining a relationship with one - I have no doubt that at least some people flourish in them.

This conclusion leaves open the question of whether such relationships should be state-supported. As my acquaintance Josh Goldfoot put it, "Marry your toaster if you like, but please don't try to file a joint tax return with it." Whatever reasons the state has for being in the marriage business (and this point is a matter of considerable debate), these may or may not be good reasons for the state to recognize multiple spouses.

Polygamy also provides the most troublesome case for the traditionalists, since polygamy has Biblical support. True, the Bible reports troublesome jealousies among the sons of various wives, which perhaps should be taken as a lesson. But polygamy is clearly a case where the religious right can't point to "God's eternal law."

Incest, too, is common and expected in some societies - typically in the form of rites of initiation. In our own society incest typically results in various psychological difficulties, difficulties that should at least give pause to the supporter of incest. But one can easily construct a case that circumvents most (if not all) of these difficulties: imagine two adult lesbian sisters who privately engage in what they report to be a fulfilling sexual relationship. Can I prove that such activity is wrong? No - at least not off the top of my head. On the other hand, I don't think it's incumbent upon me to do so. If there are good arguments against such a relationship, they will remain unaffected by the argument in favor of homosexuality. And if the only argument traditionalists can offer against such a relationship is that longstanding tradition prohibits it, so much the worse for traditionalists. Again, that same argument is applicable to interracial relationships, and history has revealed its bankruptcy.

The bestiality analogy is the most irksome of the three, since it reveals that the traditionalists are either woefully dishonest or woefully dense. To compare a homosexual encounter - even a so-called "casual" one - with humping a sheep is to ignore the distinctively human capacities that sexual relationships can (and usually do) engage. As such, it is to reduce sex to its purely physical components - precisely the reduction that traditionalists are fond of accusing us of. That noted, claiming that bestial relationships are qualitatively different from human homosexual relationships does not prove that bestial relationships are immoral. Nor does the lack of mutual consent, since we generally don't seek consent in our dealings with animals. No cow consented to become my shoes, for example.

To be honest, I feel about bestiality much as I feel about sex with inflatable dolls: I don't recommend making a habit out of it, and it's not something I'd care to do myself, but it's hardly worthy of serious moral attention. I feel much the same way about watching infomercials: there are better ways to spend one's time, to be sure, but there are also better things for concerned citizens to worry about.

Why, then, are we even discussing bestiality? Perhaps it's because traditionalists have run out of plausible-sounding arguments against homosexuality, and so now they're grasping at straws. And then there's the emotional factor: mentioning homosexuality won't make people squeamish the way it once did, but mentioning bestiality and incest will at least raise some eyebrows, if not turn some stomachs. In short, the right wing knows that it's losing its cultural war against homosexuality, and it's trying to change the subject. We should steadfastly refuse to join them.

Introduction

WHY IS IT that so many people seem to have negative attitudes towards homosexuality? The thesis that I wish to present is that these attitudes are emotional in character, and that they are not really the result of intellectual analysis, which some pretend or mistakenly think to be the case. I refer to these negative attitudes as "homophobia."

In fact, I propose that intellectual analysis can be used to demonstrate that these emotions are untenable and unreliable as a proper guide to how one should view other people and as a guide to public policy. I furthermore argue that these emotions can and should be altered, although that is a somewhat difficult process; at least, they should not be allowed to form the basis of how one treats fellow human beings, neither in person nor in legislation.

It is important, at the outset, to understand that I view homosexuality as a non-chosen, non-changeable sexual orientation which entails emotional-sexual attraction between persons of the same sex. When I speak of homophobes, I primarily refer to heterosexual men, as they seem to display it more than other categories.

The Crucial Role of Emotional Reactions

There is a lot that unites human beings, but it is also the case that there is a lot that separates us. Although most of us have a capacity for empathy (to which I will appeal later in this essay), it is really quite difficult for us to truly understand how another person experiences life. By analogy, we can interpret many things that others go through in a way which is similar to the way they interpret them, but especially in cases which are unfamiliar to us, we are at a loss when it comes to genuine comprehension. I suggest that many a heterosexual person cannot truly understand the feelings and experiences of a homosexual person, and vice versa.

If it were the case that a heterosexual could truly understand same-sex attraction, and all that goes with it, then I submit that he would not view it negatively. Then he would easily accept the co-existence of this different category of persons on the basis of a realization that it is merely an expression of harmless and edifying love between consenting persons?something which, on reflection, should be acceptable to all.

But the fact is that many heterosexuals do not feel accepting towards homosexuality. Why is that? Because they cannot truly understand homosexuality, as it is a trait of some human beings which they have not themselves experienced, and hence they evaluate it on purely emotional grounds. That is to say, when straight men hear "homosexuality," they proceed to imagine themselves in a situation of homoeroticism, possibly kissing or having anal sex with a man they find unattractive, to which their feelings respond strongly and negatively. They experience disgust at this thought experiment. And that is no surprise, since their nature is wired so as to feel erotically attracted pnly towards persons of the opposite sex. As a result, these people talk and act in a way which communicates this homophobia, and they dislike legal reform which is beneficial to homosexuals for the same reason.

This theory as to the origin of homophobia seems to conflict with the popular notion that negative attitudes towards homosexuality reflect an intellectual analysis, the outcome of which is the presentation of valid reasons, of a non-emotional character, for disliking and working against homosexuality. My view is that there is such a conflict and that my theory is the correct one, which among other things implies that negative attitudes towards homosexuality are primarily fueled by emotional reactions from hypothetical, homoerotic thought experiments performed by heterosexuals. Without such an emotional basis, I posit that there would be virtually no attempts to formulate ostensibly intellectual arguments against homosexuality. The order of causality is

1. emotional disgust when considering homosexuality
2. "intellectual" reasons for disliking homosexuality

and not the other way around. That is, the emotional reactions predate any rules, laws, or other injunctions against homosexuality.

I have personally found this understanding of things confirmed in conversations with some homophobic heterosexuals. They have started out by giving "intellectual" reasons for why they dislike homosexuality (e.g., "it does not produce children"), so as to give a serious impression to the effect that this dislike is based on properly reflected-upon arguments. But then I have inquired what they think of lesbianism, and then they almost always respond by voicing their approval. This, I think, clearly reflects that these men use the thought-experiment procedure I described earlier: and then, they found the thought of their having sex with another man disgusting, whilst they found the sexual fantasy of two women having sex arousing and, therefore, acceptable. In spite of lesbian sex not bringing forth children, I might add.

However, it is important to note that the source of emotions?all of them psychological in character?can be both biological and cultural. The type of emotions described thus far, I mainly take to be of a biological character. But there is also another source of homophobic emotions, namely, the cultural or social influence. If a person is born into a culture where heterosexuality is predominant in all contexts and if it permeates family life, the media, the religions, and legislation, then the biological tendency for a heterosexual to react negatively towards homosexuality is reinforced by the society around him. This is especially the case if, in addition to the total dominance of heterosexuality, explicit homophobia is part of the culture. I think that cultural attitudes of this sort mainly stem from biologically induced emotions, which means that the instinctive homophobia of heterosexuals leads them to incorporate a pro-heterosexual attitude into their life environments. (On the concept of "instinctive homophobia," see Simon LeVay, Queer Science, Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1996, p. 294.)

Hence, I think that the ordinary heterosexual who is in possession of negative attitudes towards homosexuality has them because of a combination (in varying degrees) of a biologically based, instinctive feeling of disgust and a cultural, internalized disapprobation. The latter, in turn, is the result of other persons having had a biologically based, instinctive feeling of disgust at the thought of homosexuality which they thought proper to spread via modes of upbringing, religious books and sermons, legislation, etc.

Are Homophobic Emotions Acceptable?

If this thesis as to the origin of homophobia is correct, how can these emotions, and the attitudes that go with them, be evaluated? Does the existence of anti-homosexuality emotions display rational moral intuitions, in the sense that they can be shown to contribute to the realization of some reasonable moral value? In other words, are heterosexual homophobes justified in displaying homophobic attitudes? I think not. What I have tried to do above is merely to explain, as a factual matter, the origin of homophobia. Whether homophobia is normatively acceptable is another matter entirely.

As I view the culturally transmitted disapproval of homosexuality as an extension of the biologically based, instinctive dislike, and as I do not think that any occurrence in nature (i.e., anything of biological origin) automatically makes it morally acceptable, we must evaluate emotions rationally and see if their existence is conducive to the attainment of some moral value?or, indeed, if their existence is detrimental to the attainment of some moral value. That is, "is" does not necessarily imply "ought."

So let us begin by specifying that the moral value that we are interested in is the furtherance of the highest possible amount of subjective preference satisfaction in some population. (For a more detailed discussion of this moral principle, and why I deem it reasonable, see my essay My Personal Moral View, available at my personal home pages.) Given this goal, two things follow. First, mere homophobic attitudes cannot really be said to be either good or bad, so long as they remain mere attitudes and are not reflected in any action.

Second, if these attitudes lead to homosexual persons feeling substantially less satisfied in life (perhaps as the result of discriminatory legislation or practices, or as the result of verbal admonitions), then the manifestations of these attitudes can be said to constitute behavior which is inconsistent with our goal. And hence they are irrational. (This assessment rests on the reasonable assumption that such maltreatment of homosexuals induce only minor feelings of satisfaction in homophobes; for more on utilitarianism and the maltreatment of minorities, see R. M. Hare, Moral Thinking: Its Level, Method and Point, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981, pp. 140-2.) Now, it is possible that there is some other moral value which is better attained by such manifestations, and then they are not irrational, but nevertheless bad, from my moral point of view.

The outcome of this line of reasoning is that actions rooted in negative feelings towards homosexuality are to be discouraged. This could be done in three basic ways.

First, it is perhaps possible, although probably quite difficult, to alter a person's feelings towards homosexuality. After childhood, when it seems that humans are most open to influences of this sort, I would think that such a procedure requires the explicit cooperation of the individual whose feelings need to be changed. One similar example is my own personal feelings towards masturbation. As a child, I felt shame after having masturbated, but as I grew up, I reflected on this act and found it perfectly healthy and beneficial. I then gradually worked at eliminating the negative feelings, and eventually I succeeded.

Second, even if a person retains an instinctive dislike of homosexuality, in the sense that he would not like do engage in same-sex acts himself, he may realize, on an intellectual level, that such feelings are personal, rooted in biology, and not beneficial as a basis for behavior towards other humans. My heterosexual friend Fredrik Bendz is an example of such a person, as told in his essay Homosexuality, available as a link from my personal web pages. My experience tells me that this type of insight often reflects personal contact with someone who happens to be homosexual and whom the instinctive homophobe likes and respects as a person. Such contacts help the heterosexual person gain a bit more understanding of what homosexuality is all about: the simple manifestation of love between persons of the same sex. And such a thing should not be feared or discouraged.

Third, one could impose legal sanctions on persons who defame, discriminate against, or attack homosexuals on the basis of their sexual orientation. In my view, the second approach is the most realistic and functional.

Some Possible Counter-Arguments

But does this account of the origin of homophobia explain the case of homosexuals who have negative attitudes towards their own homosexuality? I will discuss two cases, but I think this phenomenon can be explained by the influence of internalized cultural attitudes. That is, these feelings are not instinctive and biological in origin, but they stem directly from the process of upbringing and the surrounding society (of which organized religions are part). Thus, these feelings really reflect the biologically induced, instinctive attitudes of some heterosexual homophobes of the past.

The first case is my own case. Between the ages of 16 and 27 I was a Christian of the born-again, fundamentalist, bible-believing sort. Before the age of 16, I had felt attracted to other boys for as long as I could remember. As a Christian, I gradually came to regard homosexual acts as sinful, which made me dislike my homosexuality strongly. However, deep down inside, I liked the way I was: it was me, it felt good, and it was about love! Eventually, when I began to realize that Christianity was not true, I could drop the culturally imposed categorization of homosexual acts as sinful, and live my life in accordance with my true self. (Read more in My Personal Story: Growing Up Gay, available at my home pages.)

The second case is about recent similar experiments at the University of California at Berkeley and at the University of Georgia. At each experiment, a group of self-identified heterosexual male students were enrolled, and on the basis of their answers to various questions, such as their attitude towards homosexuality, they were divided into two subgroups: one with stated heterosexuals who were accepting of homosexuality and one with stated heterosexuals who were homophobic. All students were then showed different pornographic films, during which their degree of sexual arousal was observed (by measuring the degree of erection carefully).

It turned out, in both experiments, that a large majority of the homophobic "heterosexuals" were sexually turned on by gay pornography, whereas only a small minority of "homo-friendly" heterosexuals were turned on by these films. It seems that Freud's discussion of reaction formation was vindicated in these experiments: homophobes may, to a large extent, be homosexuals who have internalized cultural attitudes of dislike and disgust towards their own sexual orientations (probably unconsciously in most cases). Again, negative attitudes towards homosexuality are the result of culturally transmitted homophobia of some heterosexuals of the past, who felt instinctive revulsion at the thought of engaging in homosexual acts.

Let me illustrate that my understanding of the emotional basis of homophobia is confirmed by many anti-homosexuality rules and laws. For instance, the old testament of the Bible contains a harsh injunction against same-sex acts in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. However, if the basis of this anti-homosexuality attitude was rational reasoning, and not emotions, then how can it be explained that lesbianism is not condemned anywhere in the old testament? Rather, this omission shows us that the basis of these rules are the biologically based and instinctive homophobia of some male Jewish leaders against male homosexuality; but since they did not feel revulsion when contemplating sex between two females, they did not think it immoral.

Also, the laws against homosexual acts in Britain and the states of the U.S. have almost always excluded lesbian sexual acts. How can this be explained, if the basis of these laws is some sort of general, intellectual argument of the type exemplified above? Again, the more plausible interpretation of this omission is that the laws were designed by homophobic heterosexual males, influenced wholly by their biologically and culturally induced feelings, who wanted to make life miserable for many homosexuals, whom the heterosexuals spontaneously disliked.

But if the origin of heterosexuals disliking homosexuality is biological, why do we not see "heterophobic" homosexuals? If they think of themselves having sex with persons of the opposite sex, do they not feel disgusted, just as heterosexuals feel disgusted when contemplating having sex with persons of the same sex? I would say that many homosexuals probably have negative feelings towards engaging in heterosexual sex, but this is not as big a problem as homophobia. It should be remembered that homosexuals have grown up in a heterosexualist culture, where it is expected that everyone is heterosexual and where heterosexual sex and love is utterly dominant (in the family, in the media, in the laws, in the traditions, etc.).

For this reason, homosexuals are much more used to heterosexuality than heterosexuals are to homosexuality. (This is partly because there are far fewer homosexuals in the general population.) The point here is that homosexuals are thus better equipped for understanding heterosexuality than vice versa. This helps them, in spite of not wanting to engage in opposite-sex acts themselves (due to a biologically induced feeling of repulsion or indifference), to accept that others are different from themselves?and that this is acceptable. This acceptance is partly stimulated by the experiences of many homosexuals, of not being accepted themselves. Through empathy, it is recognized that acceptance of persons, irrespective of their sexual orientation, is paramount.

Conclusion

To conclude: the basis of heterosexuals having negative feelings towards homosexuality is originally biological and instinctive (when they thought about having sex with someone of the same sex, they were repulsed). Then, successive generations of heterosexuals were influenced towards having these negative attitudes both because of the same biological instinct, but also because of the cultural disapproval of homosexuality, conveyed in rules, laws, and verbal statements from others. This cultural influence has also affected many homosexuals to view their own homosexuality negatively.

But it is usually not the case, for homophobic persons, that the basis of their attitudes towards homosexuality is rational reasoning, or intellectual argumentation. Such endeavors have, as a rule, been added afterwards, to try to give the homophobia a nicer and more respectable framing. However, these attempts to argue intellectually against homosexuality are utter failures. Alas, if I am right about homophobia being emotionally based, then this realization, of the arguments being faulty, will not cause homophobes to change their attitudes. For them to get to know someone who is a homosexual might.

The Pleasure Principle: Sex, Backlash, and the Struggle for Gay Freedom.
By Michael Bronski, St. Martin's Press, $24.95. 294 pages.

THERE ARE TWO basic schools of thought as to what the gay rights movement should be about. Some of us, who are often erroneously described as assimilationists but who should more accurately be called integrationists, feel that the movement should seek to achieve acceptance, equal rights, and full integration into the present social and political structure. We believe that gay people are not terribly different from straight people, and that we have a realistic hope of achieving (if you will) a place at the table if we intelligently and responsibly address the ignorance and fear of homosexuality that are our chief barriers to full acceptance and equality.

Others, who are usually known as liberationists, maintain that the movement should seek to transform society in radical ways. In their view, gays differ profoundly from straights; our homosexuality represents an extreme challenge to the established order, and obliges us to be instruments of revolutionary social transformation. If we integrationists have sought to shape a practical gay politics -- a politics capable of effecting real improvement in the lives of gay people -- many liberationists cheerfully admit that their own politics are impractical and unrealistic. Among these is Michael Bronski, who in The Pleasure Principle admits that his own "vision of human liberation" involves "an almost utopian desire to remake the world." Some liberationists envision a Marxist heaven; Bronski's utopian dreams are not about economics but about sex.

There is much in this book with which many integrationists will readily agree. Bronski is right, for instance, when he says that Americans have hang-ups about sex, and that these hang-ups play a role in shaping straight attitudes toward homosexuality. When heterosexuals think of homosexuals, in short, they tend to think of sex. They think we have more sex than they do, or better sex than they do, or both, and many of them resent and/or fear us on this account. Most integrationists feel that the best way to address this problem is to get out the word that gay lives are not necessarily any more about sex than straight lives are. Bronski takes the opposite tack: he embraces the notion that homosexuality is all about sex and that gays know more about sexual pleasure than straights do. For this reason, he insists, we should become "pleasure-teachers" who seek to transform society's attitudes toward the joys of the flesh.

Only in a culture with strong Puritan foundations and a deep streak of native romanticism could so smart a writer argue such a silly thesis. It's in the nature of Puritanism, after all, that it spawns not only extreme sexual repression but also, in reaction, a childlike conviction on some people's part that the answer to all of life's problems lies in sexual freedom. (If only!)

In recent years, as more and more gays have come out, it has become increasingly clear that most of us lead more or less conventional lives and hold values far more traditional than stereotypes would suggest. Nothing could be more threatening to gay liberationism, the fortunes of which are tied to the image of gay people as radically different, threatening, and hypersexual. Accordingly, when integrationists have dared to make the simple point that most gays aren't very different in most ways from most straights, liberationists have felt obliged to shoot them down. Bronski, for his part, trains his sights on a passage from my 1993 book A Place at the Table in which I recalled a clean-cut teenage boy whom I had seen in a bookstore, nervously picking up a gay publication that turned out to be full of drag and S&M photos. "Bawer's presumption," writes Bronski, "is that the young boy would be so frightened by images of overt gay male sexuality that he would panic. This conjecture is indicative of how readily the assimilationist trend in the gay movement would separate sexuality from gay identity and from manifestations of gay culture."

"Frightened" and "panic" are Bronski's words, not mine. As I made clear in the book, my concern was not that the boy would be "frightened by images of overt gay male sexuality" but that he would not relate to the particular sexual variations depicted in that publication and would think either "Well, if that's what it means to be gay, then I guess I must not be gay" or "Well, I'm gay, so I guess I'd I'd better try to become like that" or "Well, I'm gay, but I refuse to become like that, so I guess the only alternative is to repress it and marry." As I wrote in the book, "Don't let anyone, straight or gay, tell you who you are." The anecdote resonated with scores of readers who told me in letters and at public appearances: "That boy was me."

Indeed, that boy is legion. But to gay liberationists like Bronski, he needs to be denied, ridiculed, misrepresented, rendered invisible. The survival of gay liberationist ideology depends on it. Bronski denounces conformism - but what The Pleasure Principle reflects, more than anything else, is its author's manifest anxiety over the growing number of gays who fail to conform to his favored model of gay life and thought. Bronski would have us all fall into lockstep and become models of social transgression; but that's not any fairer than pressuring us all to stay in the closet.

Fortunately, there is much in this book that is genuinely valuable and that you don't have to agree with Bronski's thesis in order to appreciate. His discussion of American attitudes toward young people's sexuality, the highlight of which is his analysis of the downfall of Pee Wee Herman and Father Bruce Ritter (of Covenant House fame), is particularly discerning. Bronski is, it must be said, a much better thinker and writer than most liberationists. Yet his program for gay America is so far removed from the reality of most American lives as to be useless. I've gone on more radio call-in shows than I care to remember and fielded calls from evangelical Christian mothers who, in dulcet tones, have told me that as a gay man I'm a tool of the Devil; I tremble to think of what it might be like to grow up gay in their homes. To my mind, gay politics must seek to make things as good as possible as fast as possible for young people in such situations. Bronski's sexual utopianism, alas, fails that test miserably.

MY COMPANION AND I were sitting in an Amsterdam cafe recently when I picked up a newspaper and saw the headline: The bishops of the Anglican Communion, at their every-ten-years Lambeth conclave in England, had voted 526 to 70 to declare homosexuality incompatible with Scripture. Liberal Anglicans, I read, were in shock.

Well, I wasn't. I knew that while the Episcopal Church (to which I belong) is one of America's most liberal denominations, the Anglican Communion (to which it belongs) is overwhelmingly conservative. Its greatest numbers are in Africa, where its leaders-excepting the saintly Desmond Tutu and a few brave likeminded souls-tend to be fundamentalists who view homosexuality as a "Western disease."

That less-than-attractive side of Anglicanism showed its face a few years ago when Anglican bishops in Zimbabwe seconded President Robert Mugabe's support for antigay violence. The incident was brought to mind by an encounter at Lambeth between a gay Christian leader and a Nigerian bishop who, shouting "Repent!", laid hold of the man and attempted to exorcise his homosexual demons.

Repent indeed. The same issue of the Amsterdam newspaper that reported the Lambeth vote also profiled a Zimbabwean soccer player who was in town for the Gay Games. In an accompanying photograph, the anonymous player covered his face with a soccer ball. This, the article explained, was necessary given that "homosexuality is forbidden in Zimbabwe and can be punished with ten years in prison." That punishment enjoys the support of Zimbabwe's Anglican bishops.

No, the antigay vote at Lambeth didn't surprise me. What did surprise me was the tepid reaction of supposedly pro-gay Episcopal bishops, who with few exceptions responded to vicious antigay bullying with either total silence or tame demurrals. Most outrageous of all, the Episcopal Church's relatively new Presiding Bishop, Frank Griswold, who has presented himself as gay-friendly, abstained on the antigay resolution and waited a week before offering up, by way of explanation, an elegantly worded-but, to me, thoroughly unconscionable and cowardly-apologia for appeasement.

Like Griswold, most of the liberal American bishops at Lambeth seemed less concerned with championing justice for gay people than with the fear that by defending us they would open themselves up to charges of divisiveness or racism. The one U.S. bishop who did speak up prominently for the gay and lesbian members of his flock, John Shelby Spong of Newark, was in fact accused of racism and ended up apologizing for suggesting that some African bishops' theology was less advanced than his own.

It was bizarre to read of the Lambeth vote in the Netherlands, where antigay bigotry is almost entirely unheard of. I was struck by the irony that an essentially secular country could make me feel so spiritually whole while my own church was capable of such spiritual destructiveness. Somehow the Dutch have no trouble choosing sides when hatred is in the air; yet American bishops whom I had been persuaded to think of as pro-gay chose to sit on the fence while bullies beat up on us.

In light of all this, I've been wondering: why do I remain an Episcopalian? I became one, some ten years ago, largely because I admire the Anglican theological tradition, with its regard for mind, conscience, reason, experience, and theological diversity. Yet that tradition plainly means little to many Anglican bishops. I've done my share of evangelism, bringing friends to church and talking up the joys of Episcopal worship; after the Lambeth vote, however, I won't be encouraging anyone to join a church whose leaders refuse to stand up unequivocally for its gay and lesbian members.

Hanging outside almost every Episcopal church is a little blue and white sign that reads "The Episcopal Church Welcomes You." I used to be happy when I saw one of those signs on my travels; they made me feel I wasn't far from home, after all. The vote at Lambeth-and, especially, my Presiding Bishop's abstention-changed that. The signs now seem to me, frankly, something of a lie.

November 30, 1999

AFTER THE SEMI-SUCCESSFUL campaign in Britain to reduce the age of consent for homosexuals, British gays are debating what should be the next campaign. Many are advocating that the priority should be anti-discrimination laws. Such a policy ignores the essential distinction between equal rights with straights and special rights for gays. This article advocates the former, and opposes the latter. The term 'Gay Rights' blurs this significant distinction. To the extent that gay rights simply means that gays should be afforded the same rights as straights, it should be strongly supported, but when it implies rights that belong only to gays but not to all straights, it should be vigorously opposed. 'Equal Rights, not Special Rights' has unfortunately become a slogan of the Christian Right. However they do not mean it, as is demonstrated by their opposition to an equal age of consent. Gays, and all those committed to equality under the law, must restate and recapture this principled position.

Equal rights would mean:

• an equal age of consent for gays and straights
• the right of gays to serve in the military
• the legal recognition of same sex unions, preferably marriage
• the right of adoption by gay families
• the right of inheritance for a gay partner if the other dies intestate, without a will

A philosophy of equal rights would oppose:

• hate crime legislation, which creates an additional penalty if the crime was an expression of hatred against gays
• legal prohibitions on anti-gay speech, unless it is threatening, in which case it is covered by the existing laws that apply to all
• laws making discrimination against gays illegal for private persons in employment, housing and so-called public places

The three principles that underpin this approach will be presented, followed by the case against anti-discrimination laws. It should be emphasised that state discrimination against gays should be ended and gays should be entitled to the same rights in law as straights, the principle of Civil Equality, while private discrimination should be condemned but not outlawed.

Three Principles

1. 'Gay rights' are neither human rights nor civil rights.

A Right is a moral entitlement. A Human Right means that it belongs to all human beings, regardless of nationality, gender, race, religion, or sexual orientation. Human Rights must meet three criteria: 1) they must be universal, applying to every human being , wherever and whenever they lived, 2) they are absolute, except when they come into conflict with each other, 3) they are inalienable, and so cannot be surrendered, e.g. no-one can sell themselves into slavery. These human rights were expressed by John Locke as 'life, liberty and property', in the French Declaration on the Rights of Man as 'liberty, property and security', and in the American Declaration of Independence as 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'.

Civil Rights, or Civil Liberties, seek to embody these human rights into law, turning them into positive rights that can be claimed. Every person has an equal right to be free from interference by the state and others, in aspects such as freedom of speech, freedom of contract and freedom of association.

If Gay Rights are rights that only belong to gay people by virtue of being gay, ie they belong only to members of a particular group rather than to all individual human beings, they cannot be human rights because they do not meet the necessary criteria, notably the universality principle. Thomas Sowell has discussed how the black civil rights movement shifted from demanding equal rights to special rights in his book Civil Rights.

2. It is not the role of the law to impose morality.

This has been one of the biggest debates in political philosophy, between liberals and moral majoritarians. John Stuart Mill in On Liberty articulated the principle that people should be allowed to do as they pleased unless they do harm to others: the harm principle. This principle has been used extensively to promote equal rights for gays, e.g. in the Wolfenden Report. As the time Mill was strongly opposed by James Fitzjames Stephens. A more recent debate was between Lord Patrick Devlin, who thought that the law should express condemnation of that deplored by the majority of people, against Oxford philosopher H.L.A. Hart, who took a more liberal position. In such debates, gays have sided with the liberal view that it is not the role of the state to impose a particular conception of the good, even one endorsed by the majority. The law exists to enable people to go about their business, as long as they do not interfere with the rights of others. Ronald Dworkin expressed this principle of liberal neutrality as: No person is entitled to elevate his/her beliefs about how others should act above those of anyone else. It is very important to emphasise that for the state to allow an action is not to favour it.

3. Maximise the private.

The distinction between private and state (usually expressed as 'public') is extremely important in a free society. Unfortunately the definition of the private has become narrowed to include only the person's home, and sometimes not even that. The distinction between private and public should be ownership, not who goes there. 'Public' should mean government owned, not open to the public, as in a bar or club. Private property means that government has no right to interfere with that property unless someone's rights are being denied. A wide definition of private and a narrow definition of public (state) is the best protection for gays. The alternative is that government can legislate and interfere in areas open to the public e.g. at the Stonewall Inn, or sexual activity in cinema clubs, or sado-masochistic sex on private property (Operation Spanner). Those who control the power of the state will use it for their own purposes and preferences.

Anti-Discrimination Laws

Anti-discrimination laws would outlaw discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation in employment, housing and 'public' areas. This was proposed in the US federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), and exists in many US states and local jurisdictions. The Labour party conference in 1983 endorsed the idea, and many gay activists want this proposal to be at the forefront of gay campaigns.

Such laws should be opposed on the grounds that they would threaten civil liberties, society in general, and gays.

1. The Threat To Civil Liberties

Firstly, they attack freedom of association, the freedom to associate, and not to associate, with whomever we choose for whatever reason, good, bad or none. These reasons can be criticised but if some motives are made illegal, then one is no longer free. Anti-discrimination laws would force a Catholic to rent his property to someone whose activities he views as abhorrent. A fundamentalist school would have to hire homosexuals against their deepest beliefs (the cause that brought Anita Bryant into anti-gay crusades). A gay bar owner could not employ only gay barmen and women. Gay clubs could not exclude straights. Do not believe that these laws would only apply against straights. In Provincetown, Massachussetts, a male gay bar was refused a renewal of its alcohol licence because it excluded women and straight men, as was a lesbian bar in New York for its policy. In San Francisco a gay landlord was prosecuted for prefering gay men to women as tenants. The principle of freedom of association does not defend anti-gay discrimination, but recognises that bigots have rights too.

Secondly, they undermine freedom of expression. Anti-gay discrimination will occur, but employers and workers will not be allowed to express their true motives and will find other excuses to act. Employers would become legally responsible for the speech of their own employees, as in the case of the Irish worker compensated for the anti-Irish jibes of his fellow workers. Of course employers should seek to create an environment in which all workers feel able to carry out their works in a relaxed and comfortable environment, but it should not be the job of the employer to seek to regulate the speech of his or her workers unless it affects the business.

Thirdly, they are an attack on private property rights. One should set own one's rules on one's own property. In the famous US Supreme Court case, Hardwick versus Bowers, Hardwick was found guilty of anti-sodomy laws in his own home. Local anti-gays tried to prevent a lesbian retreat in Mississippi. Freedom of association and respect for privacy can only be protected by property rights, which allow individuals to carry out acts between consenting adults free from invasion. The recognition of private property rights is one of the great safeguards for gays, which they threaten at their peril.

Fourthly, they deny the free exercise of religion. A church which believes that homosexuality is a sin should not be forced to employ someone who does not accept a basic principle of the church. Church members and others of course could (and should) advocate that the church should change its position on homosexuality. However the church should be allowed to exercise its religious principles, as long as it does not seek to translate them into law simply because they are its principles. Laws would bring the state into the doctrinal affairs of the different churches and cause intense resentment amongst them.

2. The Threat to Society

Firstly, it will damage the economy. Unemployment is the biggest economic problem facing not only Britain but every western society. Most economists agree that a major factor in unemployment is what they call rigidities in the labour market. These are things which discourage employers offering work and workers accepting it. Anything which raises the cost of employment reduces the number of employment opportunities. One example is the minimum wage which will discourage employers from taking on inexperienced workers whose job productivity is difficult to predict. Another discouragement is employment legislation which makes it more difficult to sack a worker. If it is difficult to remove workers, then employers will be more cautious in taking on new workers. The fear of litigation if a gay claims to have been sacked on grounds of sexuality will discourage employers from offering employment.

This is not to advocate or defend discrimination. Discrimination has a price in the labour market because the employer is not employing the best, and will lose out to his competitors. This argument is developed in detail by the Chicago economist Gary Becker in The Economics of Discrimination.

Secondly, it undermines the political system. Such laws will contribute to what Arthur Schlesinger describes as the Balkanisation of politics. Government becomes a battleground between special interests seeking to use the power of the state to further their own interests. In the process, the public interest is ignored. Every group seeks to get its nose in the public trough, regardless of the cost to the rest of society. Special interest legislation divides society by emphasising differences in interests rather than common interests. This argument is developed more fully by public choice writers such as the Nobel Prize winner James Buchanan, and Mancur Olson in The Rise and Decline of Nations.

Thirdly, they will make the UK a more litigitious society. There is now considerable concern in the US with the massive costs in litigation, which raises the cost of products,services and employment considerably. (See Walter Olson, The Litigation Explosion.) There is now a strong movement for tort reform to reduce the problem. Anti-discrimination laws create yet another basis for additional litigation. Already considerable sums have ben awarded in the UK to those who claim some sort of discrimination, but little attention is given to who pays and the broader costs to society.

Fourthly, such laws will lead inevitably to quotas, government mandated preferences for government favoured groups. Despite claims to the contrary, and sometimes explicit references in legislation banning quotas, they are an almost inevitable consequence of such legislation .Why? These laws penalise motive, but motives are difficult to establish. If the motive is illegal , discriminators will not admit it. Those seeking to implement the laws move from a concern with 'disparate treatment,' i.e. with intent, to 'disparate impact' I.e. with effects. The question then becomes how many blacks or women or gays are employed.

To avoid costly litigation, compensation, and bad publicity, employers impose quotas. Even without legislation, the Bar Council is demanding 5% ethnic representation in barristers' chambers. This destroys equal treatment because prospective employees are not treated equally on the grounds of merit but because of certain characteristics. It is this which has created resentment and backlash against affirmative action. It may not be the intent of the law to create quotas but it is an unintended consequence.

3. The Threat to Gays

Firstly, they will perversely reduce employment and housing prospects for gays. If you are an employer making an appointment, you are aware that you may have to sack the worker in the future, because he or she is unsatisfactory, or because business requires it. The employer may be reluctant to employ someone gay, or who appears to be gay, because the employer faces the prospect that the employee would claim that he or she was dismissed because of his/her sexuality. Better to avoid the risk and not employ the person in the first place. Similarly, one of the biggest fears of any one renting out property is how difficult it may be to remove the tenants if they fail to pay the rent or damage the property.

Anti-discrimination law adds another potential obstacle to removing them. This creates an incentive to the owner to favour renting to a straight rather than a gay, providing he/she can find another reason to favour the straight. It would be yet another example of the perverse effects of laws leading to the opposite to that which was intended.

Secondly, they will contribute to a backlash against gays. In 1992 there were two referendums on gays in the states of Oregon and Colorado. The former was defeated, while the latter passed. The difference was that the Oregon proposition sought to condemn homosexuality in the state constitution, while the Colorado one sought to ban local authorities from passing anti-discrimination laws for gays. The moral majoritarian slogan against special rights for gays resonated with ordinary straights because there was an element of truth in it, whatever the motivation of its promoters. Appeals to equal rights will appeal much more to straights that appeals to special rights, and anti-gays will be quick to blur the distinction.

Thirdly, they reduce the self-esteem of gays by creating a victim mentality: that gays have no power but are dependent on the state to protect them. There is now a debate between victim and power feminism, between those who portray women as victims who need the protection against men, and these who emphasise the power and potential power of women. The power approach would be best for gays. The psychology of the victim leads to resentment not betterment. As Andrew Sullivan of the New Republic noted, "By legislating homosexuals as victims, it sets up a psychological dynamic that too often only perpetuates cycles of inadequacy and self-doubt". Gays are then led to assume that they cannot succeed without special protection, and straights will assume gays are successful because of preference not merit. The difference between power and victim approaches is reflected in the debate on the existence of the Pink Pound. On the one side are those who emphasise the existence of substantial economic resources in the hands of gays, and view gays as success stories. On the other, the victim gays seek to deny the power of the pink pound and prefer to present gays as poor and downtrodden.

Fourthly, anti-discrimination laws rely on the power of government, yet government has been the chief oppressor of gays. Gays will always be a permanent minority. It is very dangerous to rely on laws passed by the majority to protect them. These laws would legitimise interference in private matters. These are more likely to be used against gays in the longer term . The state should be seen as a threat to gays, not an ally.

Conclusion

Discrimination against people simply because of their sexual orientation exists and is wrong, but it is not the role of the law to correct every wrong. Law is not, and has not been, the solution to sex and racial discrimination and will not be for sexual orientation.

There is no easy or permanent solution to anti-gay discrimination. Gays can however seek:

• equality before law
• maximum freedom of association
• social disapproval of discrimination.

Gays must have equal rights to straights. They are entitled to nothing less� but also nothing more.

---

Suggested Reading

• Bruce Bawer, A Place at the Table: The Gay Individual in American Society, Simon & Schuster, 1994.
• Gary Becker, The Economics of Discrimination, University of Chicago Press, 1974.
• Richard Epstein, Forbidden Grounds: The Case Against Employment Discrimination Laws, Harvard University Press, 1992.
• Sean Gabb, What To Do About Aids, Libertarian Alliance Pamphlet No.12, 1989.
• Brian Mickelthwait, Gay and Lesbian Rights: Property is Better than Politics, Libertarian Alliance, Political Notes No. 69, 1992.
• Mancur Olson, The Rise and Decline of Nations, Yale University Press, 1982.
• Walter Olson, The Litigation Explosion, Plume, 1992.
• Richard Posner, Sex and Reason, Harvard University Press, 1992, chapter 11.
• Jonathan Rauch, Kindly Inquisitors, Chicago University Press, 1993, chapters 5,6.
• Thomas Sowell, Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality, Morrow, 1984.
• Andrew Sullivan, The Politics of Homosexuality, New Republic May 10, 1993.
• Gay Rights or Human Rights? Economist February 6, 1993, pp.15-16

Saw one of your writers on C-Span last night and loved it! I think your writings are great. Please keep up the important work.
- Rochester, Minn.

---

...I was very impressed with his proposals and ideas and am anxious to hear more... I have always considered myself a partisan when it comes to politics but your representative made a lot of sense in suggesting that in the new millennium we progay voters more rightly belong in the independent centrist position. He articulated well many of my own thoughts in recent years since I left the closet and have become more open about promoting my thoughts in public.....Thanks for the good work that you are doing.
- Alexandria, Va.

---

I just saw Mr. Rauch on C-Span. As a gay woman (41) I really related with his ideas....Thank you very much.
- Cincinnati, Ohio.

---

Appreciate hearing a diversity of views. Keep up the good work.
- Seattle P-FLAG newsletter editor

---

Please let your associates know how valuable your program and outlook of true diversity is for the greater culture and for those of us as self identified gays.
- California

---

Great talk by Jonathan Rauch
- Duluth, Minn.

---

How refreshing, a gay site that is not porno!
- Seal Beach, Calif.

---

Caught your C-Span seminar today. Was impressed by your non-threatening demeanor, intelligence and political acumen.
- San Diego

---

I had no idea that this organization even existed! I almost fell out of my chair when I realized that there are other gays out there that share my political views. I mean I truly couldn't believe it. Gays have been for so long associated with left wing views that I thought I was all alone out there. I used to voice my political stance to my peers and they thought I was speaking in some foreign language. I began not to even share my political views when the subject came up, because there was never any support. It's like being torn between what you believe in, and what you are! Never having any support even for yourself to take a stance because neither political party seems to want you. Then when I saw these gay and lesbian speakers last night, sharing most of my views and issues, I can't describe to you what I felt. I literally was cheering them on over the television set with no one in the room but my partner whom also shares my stance. I guess what I'm trying to say in a lot of words is to keep on getting out there! I truly believe that there are more of us out there and that the only way to reach them is to get more and more into view! For now I just wanted to express my enthusiasm for what you've all done for me personally. I am truly excited - thank you so much!
- Las Vegas, Nev.

---

I'm an old "liberal" from way back, but after hearing Mr. Rauch speak on C-Span at the LCR convention, I felt that the independent party had something to say that spoke to my heart. I am socially progressive, yet fiscally conservative, & feel betrayed by the Democrats, whom I have supported a great deal (although not exclusively) in the past. Thank you very much! Good luck!
- Atlanta

---

Saw your rep at the C-Span. WOW. May I get involved, especially as a former Minister (guess why) who wants to continue to use his gifts, education, and experience.
- Ohio

---

Thanks for the great web site. Maybe I've found a home finally. I've always been more libertarian than anything, but given a choice between the dems and the party of Bauer and Buchanan, I'd have to vote Democratic. Maybe there's an alternative - Thanks!!!
- no location listed

---

I wanted to let you know Jonathan Rauch's speech was awesome. Actually, everyone was great, but I forgot the other names.
- Santa Cruz, Calif.

---

...always thought of myself as a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat but I've now having second thoughts. I'll be interested to read the views of your contributors. In addition, I'm always on the look out for good commentary.
- Connecticut

---

Was impressed by Jonathan Rauch.
- Indianapolis, Ind.

---

Happened to watch CSPAN this evening and was very appreciative of the forum, its content, its participants and most of all, the effect it had on cementing a somewhat slowly drying foundation of thought.... The pendulum has swung from left to right and is finally, coming to rest in the middle. I think that the gentleman from CSPAN is correct. The radical center is where the truth is going to be found. The radical independents, the free thinkers, the Reformists and the Libertarians are going to be coming into their own very quickly. All of us have found ourselves pushed and shoved by the rancor of our legislators, the expediency of our activists and the violent hateful rhetoric of the far right. Our sensibilities have been assaulted and insulted and we want peace, tolerance and respect. The greater portion of society is moderately oriented, but many do not realize it. If you ask one hundred people what political affiliation they belong to, I bet more than 40 percent of them will identify as independent if you give them three options to choose from. Ask around and you will see. Now is the time for the moderates and the reformists to emerge. Opportunity is knocking. The question is who will answer the door and when?
- Omaha, Neb.

---

I myself am not gay, but I hold very strong feelings about the unfair treatment of a minority. I come from Green Bay, WI where the only racial diversity is our football team, and open homosexuality seems to not be an option at this time....good luck with this site and everything you have to say. I know I will listen carefully.
- Green Bay, Wis.

---

I heard Mr. Rauch at the annual Log Cabin meeting in N.Y.C. I was so excited by his ideas. I have been thinking like this for years with absolutely no one who agrees to even discuss this stimulating topic. Thank you so much.
- New York City

---

Well said.
- St. Paul, Minn.

---

I am joining this list because of Jonathan Rauch's brilliant speech at the convention for Log Cabin Republicans - finally a gay man speaking a language I can understand!
- Carbondale, Ill.

---

It was a pleasure hearing what Mr. Rauch had to say
- Austin, Tex.

---

Thank you C-SPAN. I just caught J. Rauch speaking at the Log Cabin event in N.Y. Now I know something like this group exists. Registered non-partisan, former Republican, but can't embrace Clinton/Gorism. His analogy of Reagan/Christian Right vis-a-vis Clinton/Gay Rights I've often used myself.
- Los Angeles

---

I was watching C-SPAN recently, and I was impressed.... Thanks for doing this service to our community!
- Wisconsin

---

Greatly appreciate the good work you do!
- co-President, Chautauqua, N.Y. P-FLAG

---

What a fabulous site! I cannot tell you how refreshing it is to finally hear other gays express the ideas I've kept inside these last twenty years or so. At last, we are becoming as pluralistic as the society at whole...a true ten percent! Keep up the great work.
- Georgia

---

Was thrilled to hear about this website. I actually had been searching the web earlier in the day looking for articles and sites dedicated to queer thought and politics. Even at 26, I've tired of the proliferation of "sex sites" and have become frustrated by the lack of gay websites pertaining to arguing social and governmental progression for the G/L/B/T community. I would like to extend a "Thank You" to you and your colleagues for creating this site filled with interesting and provoking articles. Again, thank you for this site. I feel as though I finally have a place to vent my feelings about current issues that face the gay community.
- Brooklyn, N.Y.

---

Mr. Rauch was a breath of very fresh air. Finally!
- Houston, Tex.

---

EDITOR'S NOTE: In deference to writers' privacy we've generally removed identifying details from the letters.

Originally appeared in "TRB From Washington," The New Republic, Nov. 22, 1999.

WHY DOES MATTHEW SHEPARD still figure so prominently in the national psyche? More than a year after his murder, the interest has not subsided. The trials of his killers have received hefty media attention; his name is ritually invoked in the debate over hate-crime laws; long articles have appeared in publications as diverse as Harper's and Vanity Fair. He's made the cover of Time. Gay rights groups have been particularly intent on making Shepard a symbol of homosexuality in our time, sending out countless direct-mail pitches featuring him (my mailbox is full of them) and using his story in multiple press releases and TV ads. Last month, the largest gay rights group, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), raised more than half a million dollars at a gala black-tie dinner in his honor. His parents made distraught appeals for HRC's legislative agenda from the podium.

If the Shepard case proved the need for hate-crime laws, this emphasis might make sense. But the case is a somewhat spectacular example of their superfluity. Shepard's murderers were swiftly caught and brought to justice without any such laws. The first is behind bars for life. The second, denied a "gay panic" defense, may get the death penalty. Even advocates of hate-crime legislation concede this point. They know that such laws would primarily affect much less grave misdemeanors.

Similarly, if Shepard's fate proved the ubiquity of anti-gay murders, then his elevation to totemic status might also make sense. But, again, the evidence shows that Shepard is representative of very few gay Americans. According to the FBI, in 1997, the year before Shepard was killed, a total of three hate-crime murders of homosexuals were recorded in the entire United States. This number is not a fiction. Murders are the least underreported of crimes, because bodies have to be accounted for, and the FBI's number is the total reported by some 10,000 reporting agencies across the country. But let's assume that the FBI understates gay hate-crime murders by a factor of five. That makes 15 anti-gay murders a year. Further assume that around five percent of the population is gay. That means that the chance of a gay American meeting the same fate as Matthew Shepard is about one in a million. Or about the same as being hit by a railroad train.

No, the resilience of the Shepard case is about political and cultural symbolism. It is about the need for a victim so blameless and a crime so heinous that a story about the relationship between gay Americans and straight Americans can be told in which there are no complexities and no doubts. So Shepard becomes a martyr, even though, unlike martyrs, he did not choose to die. Shepard is "crucified," even though, in reality, he was tied to a post, his body and head slumped on the ground. After a while, as in the case of the religious right's Columbine "martyr," Cassie Bernall, the facts cease to matter. What matters is the message. And the message is that homosexuals are innocent victims and heterosexuals are either saviors or menaces. You are either enlightened or a bigot � on the side of the victims or on the side of the murderers.

The political use of Shepard began early. Just after his death, there were appropriate outpourings of grief and shock. But then the organized memorials became political rallies in which any opposition to various legislative initiatives was deemed equivalent to complicity in Shepard's murder. The result was a kind of political blackmail--and it continues to this day. Any qualms, for example, about hate-crime laws, and you are deemed a heartless hater. When the Hate Crimes Prevention Act failed in a House-Senate conference last month, HRC's executive director, Elizabeth Birch, declared that the decision "showed a callous disregard for hate-crime victims and their families." As simple as that. Are you a bad person or a good one?

The marketing of Shepard is also a damaging symbolic statement about who gay men still are in this culture. Other recently murdered homosexuals have not achieved anywhere near the same level of attention. Billy Jack Gaither was killed shortly after Shepard, in Alabama, by two men who bludgeoned him to death and then burned his body on a stack of rubber tires. Unlike Shepard, Gaither had reason to trust his attackers - one of them was a drinking buddy. But, unlike Shepard, Gaither is barely remembered. Or take Private Barry Winchell, a gay soldier stationed in Kentucky, murdered at the same age as Shepard. In a barracks fight, Winchell had bested a soldier who gay-baited him. In retaliation, the straight soldier and a gang of other soldiers allegedly dragged Winchell from his bed and beat him to death with a baseball bat. This crime was committed by U.S. soldiers against someone serving his country and supposedly under the protection of the government. The military is still investigating, but a court-martial of the suspected murderer has been scheduled. Barely heard of the incident? It occurred four months ago, but it has none of Shepard's staying power.

The reason, I suspect, is that Shepard's image serves certain political purposes. Winchell and Gaither were clearly men, not boys. One was a soldier; the other was a middle-aged, burly, working-class figure with only average looks. They weren't upper-middle-class; they weren't well-educated; they weren't waifs. They provoke far more mixed reactions. They threaten the weak, effeminate stereotypes of gay men that the victimologists require and that many heterosexuals are more comfortable with. They were more prudent than Shepard was. Confronted with violence, they were more likely to fight, as Winchell did, than to retreat. They suggest a gay world that is strong and grown-up and mainstream--exactly the kind of world that has no need for pity. They suggest the kind of homosexual world that needs protection from crime - as we all do - but has no need for special sympathy or treatment; a world in which a man might want to serve his country or marry another man, but in which the desire for special state protection is less pressing than the desire to be left alone.

Such a world does not exist in the iconography of Shepard or the politics he has inspired. The way he is discussed suggests a child rather than an adult. The name of his memorial website, www.matthewsplace.com, summons up the idea of a child's safe space. The website depicts him crouched sparrow-like on a waterfall, gazing cherubically into the distance while music plays. The point of this iconography is to divest Shepard of any maturity, any manhood, any adult sexuality - for that matter, any true humanity. It is literally to infantilize him, to turn him into a symbol that is at once pitiful and utterly unthreatening to the stereotypes that still burden most homosexual men, stereotypes that continue to weaken our self-confidence and self-respect.

There was a time when African American men were also routinely referred to as "boys," but I don't think civil rights groups ever emphasized this image in order to gain equality. They realized instead that it was only when black Americans stopped being viewed as children that equality was conceivable. The marketing of Matthew Shepard in death is nowhere near as horrifying as what was done to him in life. But that doesn't make it any more palatable. Or any less detrimental to the cause of homosexual equality as a whole.

Originally appeared in the Times of London, November 20, 1999.

Peter Wildeblood, diplomatic correspondent for a British newspaper, was convicted and imprisoned in 1954 for homosexual relations, his case a cause c?l?bre in the United Kingdom. His real crime was that he refused to be ashamed.

---

"I DID NOT BELIEVE such things could happen in England, until they happened to me." Thus wrote Peter Wildeblood 44 years ago, his name then a household word. He died last week in Vancouver, aged 76, forgotten. Today I doubt whether one Briton in a thousand would know a thing about him.

Our obituary page this Tuesday summed up accurately if bleakly: "In March 1954 Peter Wildeblood, then diplomatic correspondent of the Daily Mail, was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment for homosexual offences, together with Lord Montagu of Beaulieu and Major Michael Pitt-Rivers. The Montagu case, as it came to be known, was a cause c?l?bre. It had a direct influence on the Wolfenden Committee, whose report in 1957 recommended that homosexual acts between consenting adults in private be legalised, proposals which were finally passed into law in 1967."

I learnt the name of the man who had exercised so profound an influence on my own and others' lives three years ago, when asked to review for The Times a somewhat luridly entitled book, Heterosexual Dictatorship. The book, a study of male homosexuality in postwar Britain, by Patrick Higgins, proved careful and scholarly - and gripping. Wildeblood irritates Dr Higgins, as he irritated many of his contemporaries, but his story is recounted fairly.

He did not irritate me. So when, earlier this year, the publishers Weidenfeld & Nicolson asked me to write a new preface to Wildeblood's book, I was eager to read it.

Against the Law, first published by Weidenfeld in 1955, had long fallen out of print. It caused a sensation in its time. Even The Daily Telegraph of the day thought it "a very courageous, honest book which can do a great deal of good," though public libraries declined to stock the book, while many bookshops kept it out of sight.

Weidenfeld has republished now as part of its 50th anniversary - as it turned out, almost on the day the author died.

Though undoubtedly a partial account (and though, like Higgins, I doubt Wildeblood's conspiracy theories) the story is remarkable. Remarkable, of course, for the tale it tells of arrests, harassments and police persecution; of the trial and of the imprisonment in Wormwood Scrubs which followed. But more remarkable for the snapshot it gives us of attitudes to homosexuality in 1950s Britain, a world in which the judge in the trial, summing up to the jury, could call Wildeblood's (seized) correspondence "nauseating" and imply that anyone who admitted to being homosexual was so vile that the chances were that he was a criminal as well.

The case involved consensual behaviour of an unexceptional kind between adults, all over 21, in private, at Beaulieu. That one of the accused, Wildeblood, was not prepared to slink off into the release of the shadows afterwards but determined to tell his story in an unashamed way, was considered incredible. This book made publishing history - and as late as 1955, when half my readers today will have been alive. It was not long ago, yet almost another world. That is what is most remarkable of all.

"That night, a woman spat at me," Wildeblood wrote. "She was a respectable looking, middle-aged, tweedy person wearing a sensible felt hat. She was standing on the pavement as the car went by. I saw her suck in her cheeks, and the next moment a big blob of spit was running down the windscreen.

"This shocked me very much. The woman did not look eccentric or evil; in fact she looked very much like the country gentlewomen with whom my mother used to take coffee when she has finished her shopping on Saturday mornings. She looked thoroughly ordinary, to me. But what did I look like to her? Evidently, I was a monster."

Around this time, the Daily Mirror printed a photograph of Wildeblood, his lips touched up by the newspaper to make him appear to be wearing lipstick. What so troubled the Establishment of the day was not that homosexual practices went on - everybody knew they always had and always would - but that anybody would openly declare himself to be "a homosexual." At the time (Patrick Higgins explains) the ruling wisdom on these matters was a kind of pseudo-science. Once discredited, science is always renamed "pseudo-science," but it seemed as solid then as our science on social questions - such as drugs - may be today.

According to that science, a homosexual act was something into which almost any man might fall if exposed to what experts believed could become an epidemic unless suppressed. Those who did sometimes fall were called "perverts." A smaller group (it was held) were born homosexuals with no potential to be heterosexual, and were the victims of a sort of medical misfortune. Such unfortunates were classified as "inverts." There was some sympathy for inverts, none for perverts, these latter being in some sense the spreaders of the rot.

To such a view, outgoing Peter Wildeblood, willing to trumpet his sexuality and (worse) to claim that there were many like him, and to speak the language of rights, was an infuriating phenomenon.

Sir John Wolfenden did not care for him at all. The name Wolfenden has become associated with liberal reform but from Higgins's scrupulous account of the Wolfenden Committee's work, Sir John emerges as a cold and ambitious man with an eye to the main chance. He and his committee, charged with reviewing the law on homosexuality and prostitution, found it distasteful to name either, so, taking their cue from a biscuit of the same name, dubbed the objects of their inquiry "Huntleys" and "Palmers."

"What about our Huntleys," Wolfenden wrote to the secretary of his committee, "...they are not likely to come as official witnesses and if they did they would hardly be at their best when cross-examined by a committee." But he did want some of his committee to talk to some Huntleys, off the record, about their lives.

Wildeblood (now out of prison, his book published) wanted to talk on the record. A reluctant Wolfenden conceded. Nobody knows (though I doubt it) whether Wildeblood's evidence itself influenced the final report as much as his earlier trial and book had, by troubling public opinion, influenced the climate which triggered the whole inquiry.

Wolfenden's son, Jeremy, admired Wildeblood and it is said they later became friends. Before winning a scholarship to Oxford, Jeremy had told his father he was gay. John Wolfenden was horrified, writing to suggest "we stay out of each other's way for the time being." Jeremy died, probably of alcoholism, about twelve years later.

These are strange tales. Wildeblood and Wolfenden are gone. Other figures - Kenneth Tynan, who acted as surety for the arrested Wildeblood; Peter Rawlinson, his defence counsel; John Gielgud, whose own trial in 1953 stirred public anxiety alongside Wildeblood's; Lord Longford, who greeted him from prison; Lord Montagu himself - flourished into a new age.

For a while Wildeblood enjoyed something of a second career as a scriptwriter, but never shook off the suspicion that he had been a bit of an attention-seeker. His last years were spent, after a stroke, quadriplegic and speechless. The modern gay establishment has been no kinder to him than the 1950s, regarding his plea for tolerance for "good" homosexuals as Uncle Tomism. Like so many human bridges between eras, he is charged with insurrection by the old, dismissed as a compromiser by the new.

And attention-seeking? The same words were chosen by Alastair Campbell to describe me last year when I mentioned something known but for some stupid reason not acknowledged about Peter Mandelson.

Attention-seeking is what irritates us about Peter Tatchell. It is an often unlikeable quality, but I wonder where many just causes would be without it?

In saluting Peter Wildeblood I prefer to remember the courage which accompanied the self-advertisement. Everyone counselled silence, and he chose noise. He did not choose to be exposed but, placed at the mercy of events, he chose to become their master.

His book was a voluntary act. "Very faintly," he wrote, "as though at the end of a tunnel, I could see what I must do. I would make a statement ... I would simply tell the truth about myself ... I would be the first homosexual to tell what it felt like to be an exile in one's own country. I might destroy myself, but perhaps I could help others."

Peter Wildeblood had a difficult life. I would like to think I might have spoken in his cause even at the risk of being called an attention-seeker. From one attention-seeker to another, Peter, rest in peace.