The White Peril 白禍

Speaking of resignations that fail to make me cry: Gay Orbit reports that Cheryl Jacques is resigning as the head of the Human Rights Campaign, and contends that those who defend her record are misreading it. Unfortunately, there's no evidence that anyone's considering Michael himself as her successor, since that first post of his is one of the most economical statements of how gay activists need to frame and enact their positions that I've read in ages. (He also mentions the tricky what-do-the-'rents-get-the-boyfriend-for-Christmas problem. Last year, my parents hilariously solved it by getting us, jointly, an all-American Hickory Farms gift set. What made it hilarious was that they decided--I AM NOT making this up--on this one. As soon as I opened the box, I started guffawing so hard I couldn't inhale, and when I finally calmed down, I was like, "Darling, I would say this is a symbolic gesture of approval, but I don't think it was intended to have that much subtext." We kept the little condiment knife as a memento. I value it more than my Wedgwood cups. Where was I?)

My feeling is that the election will probably, in hindsight, prove to have activated quite a few gays who didn't go much for politics before--just not in the way leftists have been hoping for. Loud-mouthed activists tend to get little more than eye-rolling from most gays who are just living open-but-unshowy live and don't think the sky is constantly falling, which has allowed the recent record of intrusive public-school programs and marriage-or-bust campaigning to go relatively unopposed from within gay ranks. The 11 state marriage amendments that passed may, one can only hope, rouse a few quiet types to wonder just what that hell big gay organizations are pushing supposedly on their behalf. It's a shame that it has to be that way--I'd prefer government intrusion in daily life to be limited to the point that thinking about it all the time was not necessary in order to be an informed and responsible citizen--but the way things work is the way things work. The big-guns organizations need to know that they're being watched by constituencies beyond their usual urban groupies and yes-men.

1 December 09:51 EST

So today, between going from my college friends' place in DC to my college friends' place here in New York, I was able to meet Agenda Bender and Classical Values Eric in Philly. Eric has not changed in appearance and demeanor since Friday; Tom turned out to be, unsurprisingly, a big, strapping Irish guy. I'm getting the sense that, to be a Philadelphia-area gay guy with a blog, you're required to be (1) cute, (2) built, and (3) mellow. Which explains why the whole blogging thing didn't get going until I'd long been graduated and gone to another continent.

Speaking of which, living in Japan gets you totally unaccustomed to being blatantly cruised while, say, walking down the street or in line to buy a train ticket. Last night with my friends (in Adams-Morgan), and today in Philadelphia and New York, I kept thinking, Ooh! Cute boy! But what the hell's he looking at me like that for? My fly open, or something? I also keep waiting for cab drivers to open the door for me from inside the car; luckily, no one's actually concluded I'm a moron and driven away from me yet. Maybe by the time I'm ready to fly back I'll be used to all this again. Fun day, though.

29 November 23:30 EST

John Corvino, one of my favorite writers who post at IGF, has a terrific piece about the state of gay marriage advocacy after the election. It's a very even-handed call for self-examination. The only reason it doesn't hearten me more is that...well, it's not the people at IGF who are the problem. They may not always be right--and I don't think that, as a group, they were on the right side of the gay marriage argument--but the whole reason they're part of that organization is that they stand for independent thought. A willingness to face up to cold, hard reality tends to be a natural corrective to untenable positions.

The people I do worry about are the activist types (both lefty gays and their straight sympathizers) who may feel even more alienated from the center-right range of the electorate than before. They still seem to be kind of reeling, so where they're ultimately going to land is anyone's guess. But if marriage bans in 11 states are the point at which a critical number start seriously reassessing their approach, things could be prevented from getting too much worse.

27 November 04:03 EST

Michael Demmons gives the HRC's Cheryl Jacques a well-earned pummeling for that organization's endorsement of Arlen Specter's opponent in our recent Pennsylvania senate race. The pretense that supporting Joseph Hoeffel represented advocacy of the best interests of gays rather than Democratic party hackery was always tissue-thin, and the HRC's obstinate failure to recognize that it did something stupid is embarrassing. At least the Log Cabin Republicans appear to be engaging in better-late-than-never self-criticism. Something Michael points out that is obviously meaningful to him (as it is to me from the other direction): Specter could support the Permanent Partners Immigration Act, which I think is probably not politically viable at the moment but is a good idea to be circulating as part of the general gay marriage/civil unions discussion.

Mrs. du Toit asked a question in a comment the other day:

[Jim McGreevey] cheated on his wife, committed fraud against the people he took an oath to protect and represent, lied about the lover because he was going to blow the whistle on him (making him the scapegoat for his fraud), and I'm supposed to be happy for the guy because he "came out"?

The question was rhetorical, but a friend (who has to remain nameless) obligingly sent a message that constitutes a reply, anyway:

The McGreevey mess illustrates classic tribalism at work. He is GAY, so he must be GOOD. The fact that he offends people (not necessarily because he's gay) gives him that kewl countercultural cachet that is a must for an icon.

Well, that's not the only issue, at least for the gay press. Coming out--being a private decision that, when added to those of others, can have a cumulative public effect--is an ethically thorny subject. The attempt to understand why other gays live differently is laudable, but it often devolves into the making of ethical allowances the same commentator wouldn't under other circumstances.

It's all very well to point out that the social changes of the last three decades were not in effect when men and women who are now around 50 and over were coming of age. Anyone who remembers how to subtract is aware of that. But an important component of personal liberty is self-criticism and self-awareness. It would be nice to see it also pointed out, occasionally, that gay liberation did not happen on some planet that guys like McGreevey haven't traveled to.

I don't fault people who believe their homosexuality is sinful, and try not to act on it, for keeping it hidden. Nor do I think there's anything wrong with being gay but thinking your sexuality is your own private business and not something you discuss. It's safe to say, however, that people who think in those ways are not the ones who end up coming out in front of a press conference and expecting everyone to read it as bravery.

And while I'm on the subject of coming-out-related lameness: another group that routinely drives me around the bend is the "I would come out to my parents if only..." crowd. These are not people who are on the fence about their sexuality. These are not people who have fathers who threatened to get out the shotgun if one of their sons turned out to be a faggot. These are not people who have mothers who are dying of cancer and can't take any shocks. These are people who know they're gay, who never have any intention of being anything but gay, and who take advantage of all the conveniences of urban gay life.

Trust me--it's not as if I were the type to ask whether and why someone isn't out to his parents. It's not any of my business. But if you're going to volunteer that you're still closeted and justify it with some face-saving rationalization, try to choose one that actually saves face for you. Hint: "See, my parents still give me some of the money I live on, and I'm afraid they'll cut me off if they find out I'm gay" does not save face for you. My primarily straight readership may be interested to know that I hear that one constantly, from people around or even over my age, in complete expectation that I'll be all understanding.

Well, sorry. Just as being perpetually broke and living on your friends' couches makes you charmingly raffish at 20 and a loser at 50--even though there's no single point on the gradient in between when you clearly stop being one and start being the other--not coming out is perfectly understandable when you've only known you're gay for a few years and ridiculous when you've known you're gay for a decade. Once again, I'm not talking about those who treat their sexuality, consistently in word and deed, as a private matter. I'm talking about the ones who bitch about how our activists are handling the marriage issue, who complain about places where domestic partner benefits are lacking, and who expect friends to recognize their relationships. These are people who clearly think they should be out but also want to wait until it's risk-free.

"But," I'm sometimes told, "it's easy for you, because your parents are understanding." Uh, yeah, and do you know how I found out my parents are understanding? By coming out at 23 and dealing with the consequences. I was actually close to 100% convinced that they'd disown me--not because they're nasty but because they're strictly religious, and I assumed they'd feel obliged not to countenance a way of life they thought was a sin. No longer getting them to supplement my grad school stipend was not the thing I was most worried about, but it did cross my mind. My plan if they withdrew their support, which I persist in thinking was rather clever, was to spend less money.*

Getting back to the McGreevey case, it's possible that his wife decided that, while their daughter needs her father around, she herself doesn't want to be married to a man who isn't bonded to her as she thought he was. It doesn't strike me as the most likely of the possible scenarios, but it's not unlikely, either. In any case, people who are initially sorry only about getting caught often do, if they have a conscience, learn to be genuinely remorseful about what they've done to themselves and those around them. (Screwing over an entire state of 10 million people is, of course, in a very special class of doings.) Putting McGreevey in a position of giving other people guidance seems to me not to be getting the order quite right, though.
* I suppose a truly honest account here would include the information that I didn't manage my credit cards so hot while I was in my mid-20's, but I paid everything off in a few years and don't carry any debt now besides a little left on my student loans.

Fan-fricking-tastic. Jim McGreevey, no longer governor of New Jersey, is being courted by gay advocacy groups. And why not? All that alleged bad behavior was months ago:

Michael Adams, spokesman for the gay civil rights group Lambda Legal, said McGreevey's tarnished 35-month tenure would not taint his star power within the gay populace or among other special interest groups. "The reality is, we're a country that believes in rebirth and people moving beyond prior mistakes," Adams said. "Any community would look to 'What kind of contribution are you willing and able to make moving forward?' not 'What have you done previously?'"

The writer of the Advocate piece is only too happy to let bygones be bygones, too:

Some personal concerns are on McGreevey's upcoming short list: tending to his ill parents, helping his wife and daughter move into their new house in Springfield while he takes up residence in Rahway, and taking a little time off. "A lot of healing has to go on in that family," said Lesniak. "They want to use this to get closer as a family, not farther apart. There was a barrier before because of the governor's denial of his sexuality."

As a Georgetown-educated lawyer with a master's in education from Harvard, McGreevey has an enviable educational pedigree. But he also comes from a modest background--his father was a Marine drill sergeant, and his mother a nurse--so whatever he winds up doing, "he has to earn a living," said Lesniak. "The governor has never thought much of his economic welfare and he's not a flashy guy, so it's not high on his priority list. But it has to be a consideration."

Mom was in one of the caring professions! Dad was a man in uniform! Jim and Dina are moving into separate houses to draw closer as a family! And Sean is about to ram chopsticks into his ears and swirl them around to take the edge off the pain of reading this crap.

I mean, am I just imagining this, or is McGreevey accused of corruption? Did he or did he not have some guy he thought was a hottie in charge of anti-terrorist policy for a state with a population of 10 million, when the man wasn't a citizen and didn't have any security clearance? I'm glad McGreevey's finally being honest with himself, and if his family's willing to stick by him and make an arrangement that accommodates everyone as much as is possible, I think that's great. But gay advocacy is a public responsibility. Not as weighty as a governorship, no, but a duty to serve the interests of others nonetheless. It does not need another self-serving blame-shifter.

BTW, every link to "First Person" commentary on the front page of the Advocate site goes to some wanker piece about post-election depression. Has to be seen to be believed, but you can be excused for not bothering.

Janis Gore, who occasionally sends me gently inquiring e-mails about the most contentious topics imaginable, asked what I thought of Andrew Sullivan's tone when discussing the election results. His take is, naturally, that Karl Rove used his evil Karl Roveness to lure all those anti-gay religious zealots out of their Alabama bunkers. I was going to comment at Ms. Gore's place, but I'm afraid I may get a bit riled up, which would spoil the respectful atmosphere she maintains.

So.

Here's her terse and (I think) accurate assessment:

No, Mr. Sullivan, gay activists thought this would be the perfect year to push for a new initiative. Talk about blowback. I suspect they've put rights back at least ten years.

What's she talking about? She wrote that yesterday, but I think it applies very aptly to Sullivan's latest series of posts. I'll start with the third part:

STAND TALL: But one more thing is important. The dignity of our lives and our relationships as gay people is not dependent on heterosexual approval or tolerance. Our dignity exists regardless of their fear. We have something invaluable in this struggle: the knowledge that we are in the right, that our loves are as deep and as powerful and as God-given as their loves, that our relationships truly are bonds of faith and hope that are worthy, in God's eyes and our own, of equal respect. Being gay is a blessing. The minute we let their fear and ignorance enter into our own souls, we lose. We have gained too much and come through too much to let ourselves be defined by others. We must turn hurt back into pride. Cheap, easy victories based on untruth and fear and cynicism are pyrrhic ones. In time, they will fall. So hold your heads up high. Do not give in to despair. Do not let the Republican party rob you of your hopes. This is America. Equality will win in the end.

I basically agree with this. I mean, I don't think the dignity of my gayness comes from God any more than from the tooth fairy, but I also don't think it depends on other people's approval. I wonder whether Sullivan actually believes it, though. Through his writing there's a clearly discernible thread of nagging desire for acceptance that I think seriously compromises his pro-gay marriage arguments.

I'm not coming at this as a principled non-conformist. I believe in living as you see fit; I do not believe in getting a rise out of people for the hell of it at every opportunity and then bitching when they shun you. I want people to like me, and my feelings are often hurt when they don't.

But that's not a matter for public policy. Which leads me back to where Sullivan started:

I've been trying to think of what to say about what appears to be the enormous success the Republicans had in using gay couples' rights to gain critical votes in key states. In eight more states now, gay couples have no relationship rights at all. Their legal ability to visit a spouse in hospital, to pass on property, to have legal protections for their children has been gutted. If you are a gay couple living in Alabama, you know one thing: your family has no standing under the law; and it can and will be violated by strangers. I'm not surprised by this. When you put a tiny and despised minority up for a popular vote, the minority usually loses. But it is deeply, deeply dispiriting nonetheless. A lot of gay people are devastated this morning, and terrified.

I'm neither devastated nor terrified. What I am is furious. 0° Kelvin furious. The gay marriage advocates decided it was a good time to get pushy and single-minded. They decided they'd figured out what marriage was about to most people and that further arguments from the opposition warranted no more than ritual responses. They were wrong. Those who oppose gay marriage have not just said that the Bible disapproves of homosexuality and therefore we should all reform. They've thought things through and come up with more sophisticated arguments. Those arguments need to be answered. (Don't expect me to do it--I'm not one of the people yammering for gay marriage. Hospital visitation and power of attorney are fine for me, though I'd like transferrability of social security and immunity from testifying against your partner, too. Call my relationship whatever makes you happy--that's the least of my concerns. In any case, if you're gay, is your partner worth devoting your life to? Then do it. And stop flooding us with bilge about how we can't live by moral values we ourselves supposedly hold "deep down inside," just because straight people refuse to throw rice at us! Gyah!)

Gay marriage activists need to remember that history did not start with the '60's and that, in the other direction, there will be gays in every generation after us who will inherit the environment we've helped to create. Thinking about straight children of the future every once in a while wouldn't hurt, either. In any case, the showdown mentality has shown itself to be self-defeating. Let's learn our lesson, okay?

Added on 5 November: I agree with Eric that the numbers from the election don't necessarily say what we're being told they say. I'm also reassured to see that someone smarter than I am has trouble doing math in his head. I was always the one in calc class who set up the function and graphed its shape correctly but got all the actual number values wrong. It drove Mrs. Moll crazy.

And I think Boi from Troy is right about the kaleidoscopic ways "moral values" can be interpreted as a reason for voting. Pretty obviously, gay marriage was one in at least 11 states, but that only indicates homophobia if you believe in such a thing as "marriage rights." I've groused enough about that for the time being, though.

Okay, guys, do you have a freaking macro for this on your computers?

It's difficult to see how any self-respecting gay person could vote Republican in this presidential election, but credit is due those who are unwilling to be driven from the party that reflects their general political philosophy. On top of dealing with overt hostility from within their party, these faithful gay Republicans then have to deal with the ridicule coming from fellow gays and commentators (Jon Stewart on gay Republicans) alike.

The reason it's so funny--however much it gets on my nerves--is that the latest entry on the Blade blog is this bewildered item (posted, to be fair, by a different contributor):

Perhaps the most surprising news for gay observers of the presidential election is that exit polls show President Bush received the exact same percentage of gay votes � 23 percent � as he did four years ago. This despite the president's vocal support for a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Let's see. If a quarter of polled gays voted for Bush, and all the gay observers were puzzled, could that mean that...uh...like...maybe our activists aren't entirely representative of The Comprehensive Gay Ideology? Or that we don't all prioritize the same?

Why am I rupturing an artery over this now? It looks as if Bush won; no point in not resting a bit. There'll be plenty of time to get contentious again later. It's just sad to see people still running along the same old, tired groove already when not all the state tallies are even in yet.

Added on 4 November: Dean has noticed this, too.