The White Peril 白禍

Sigh.

I realize this site has turned into GoReadClassicalValues.com, but I happen to think that Bill Quick is absolutely wrong about the point Eric makes here. That Eric didn't digress from his discussion to flesh out yet again why he doesn't support the push for gay marriage does not mean that his statement has "no logical support whatsoever."

Eric clarifies what he meant:

I agree with Bill that "percentages do not constitute logical refutation," and I did not mean to imply that just because 70% of the public disfavors same sex marriage, that this means they are not bigoted. However, if opposition to same sex marriage is defined as bigotry, then it flows that they (and most of the leaders of both parties) are. I just don't think that, considering all the circumstances, opposition to same sex marriage constitutes bigotry, and I'd say that even if only 20% of the country opposed it. I try to reserve the "bigot" label for people who want to do things like call me names, beat me up, put me in prison, or kill me.

I'm not sure that bigot has to be reserved for people who express their beliefs through confrontation; intolerance can be expressed by quietly cutting people socially or declining to employ them or the like. But I'm also not sure that Bill Quick has been following the gay marriage argument as it's developed over the last ten years.

It used to be that you had Andrew Sullivan and, for a few occasional paragraphs, Bruce Bawer arguing in favor of marriage or civil unions of some kind in the not-too-distant future, and you had the case in Hawaii, and that was pretty much it. At that point, most arguments from the opposition were confined to "gays don't actually fall in love and care for each other" and "most gay couplings are transient." Those arguments were, I think, often based on bigotry: people who didn't like gays much to begin with were all too willing to take Friday night in the Castro as representative of all gay life everywhere, pronounce us all sub-adult, and not dig any deeper before considering the issue closed.

But things really have moved on in the intervening decade or so. Skeptics began discussing how a legal change in the definition of marriage could affect the choices of straight couples who planned to have children. The most sound thinkers among gay advocates (Dale Carpenter and Jonathan Rauch, notably) deliberated over the same issues and often made good counter-arguments; but at the same time, the pro-gay side was frequently stuck in a "we DO TOO love our partners!" mode that the debate had moved beyond. And "self-esteem," that all but infallible indicator that malarkey is on the menu, was frequently invoked.

I realize that I haven't proved that, say, Maggie Gallagher and Stanley Kurtz aren't bigoted against homosexuals. But even if we could prove they were, does that mean much in policy terms? We're still left with the fact that they've taken the time to research and construct arguments for their positions, and that those arguments have to be answered on their own terms. I'd much rather see gays and those who sympathize with us keep at that than prolong the (already seemingly interminable) back-and-forth over who's a bigot.

An old friend sent me a link to this column from the St. Paul Pioneer Press. I agree with her that the angle it takes is interesting:

In every movement to right a perceived social wrong, a fringe element with no apparent social upside (who hence emphasize their differences from the traditional) becomes the image of the enemy to supporters of the status quo. In this case, these are the leather- and tutu-clad lads who wind up in defense-of-marriage literature and DVDs. Only after a movement has gained some visibility, some credibility and some respectability do suit-and-tie supporters, people invested in society with something material to lose, risk identifying with it.

Here's where the paradox of rising expectations kicks in. Even as overt public discrimination against same-sex couples grows smaller, the inequities of law loom larger. The Williams Institute study suggests same-sex couples are more at ease declaring their relationships. They do so, however, with expectations of expanding their participation in society on equal terms with heterosexuals. Taking a risk, they are impatient with barriers to fulfillment of expectations of equality.

Of course, that still begs the question of what "equality" looks like, and I don't think that Westover's seeming conclusion that it requires the legalization of gay marriage follows very well from his own argument. Nevertheless, one useful thing he does is to consider the push for SSM in the larger context of the American entitlement mentality and how interest groups jockey for government goodies. (Reading some opponents of gay marriage, you could get the impression that decent Americans were all self-effacingly going about their business when all of a sudden the fags and dykes burst in and introduced self-centeredness into public policy debates.) Anyway, it's worth a read if you're not heartily sick of the subject already.

*******

Speaking of tired subjects, music today is apparently tuneless, witless, and derivative. This is the opinion of Sting, which is pretty rich, considering the upscale adult-contemporary crap he's shoveled at the public on most of his releases over the last ten years. Boring and pretentious--not exactly a winning combination.

I guess I don't buy a whole lot of new music by musicians I don't already like, either, anymore. I was pleasantly surprised that Cassie's album lived up to the hype--though "Me & U" is getting the seriously-overplayed treatment here in Japan at the moment. The new Janet is okay, but the last week or two has been mostly a Full-Figured British Diva moment in my household: Alison, Kirsty, and some Gabrielle.

I hesitate to link yet another post of Eric's, lest it appear that he has ties to The Scourge of International Homoism, Expats in Japan chapter; but as usual, he has one of the more sane takes on a topic that everyone's nattering about at the moment:

I think that most American voters (even the 70% who oppose gay marriage) take a dim view of persecuting homosexuals by invading their privacy. Homosexual witch hunts should have died with McCarthy, and the reasoning behind reviving them in the current political context is so convoluted that it would make sense only to a bigot.

I'm not saying that the Republican Party is free of bigotry, because it isn't. But if the activists keep this stuff up and ordinary voters find out about it (I'm not sure whether they have) pretty soon someone's going to ask which party has more bigots.

Ann Althouse makes sense, too:

I think aggressive characters like our "lefty blogger" think that uncovering gay Republicans will disgust social conservatives and change their voting behavior. [...] But, honestly, I think these creepy, gleeful efforts at outing will only make social conservatives more conservative, and they will continue to look to the Republican party to serve their needs.

The truly bizarre contention one occasionally hears is that somehow this will all contribute to making it easier for gays to come out of the closet. The more gays outed, the more out gays there are, and the less isolated and fringe-y we seem...or something. The problem, besides the ethical infraction of invading people's privacy, is that the tone is all wrong. The petty vindictiveness on display is of a kind that most people associate more with a junior high school girls' locker room than with adults making serious arguments about social policy. It gives social conservatives more reason to think of gays as suffering from arrested development and poisons the atmosphere for gays thinking about whether now would be a good time to come out. Brill.

Joe and I disagree over outing, but his approach is measured and thoughtful, and he's capable of discussing the issue without going into hysterics of the those-bitches-deserve-to-FRYYYYYYYY! variety.

This is how he's put it most recently:

Similarly, it's time we all stop buying in to the "straight person assumption" and with it the whole notion of "outing" as a violation of privacy. Let's recognize that the damage done by a life lived in the closet is harmful to all of us.

Joe approvingly links to Louis Bayard, who wrote this in Salon.com:

But I do believe that every man or woman who courts public office must be held to some public standard of honesty--of coherence.

...

The decision to come out is personal. So is the decision to run for office. Why should the second choice be privileged over the first? Why should homosexuality be privileged over heterosexuality? Why should a same-sex partner (Foley has apparently had one for many years) be any less a subject of discussion than a wife or husband?

Perhaps I'm just too cynical; or perhaps that second paragraph is really as bafflingly illogical as I think it is. Politicians tend to trot out their families while campaigning because they help their image and make them more electable; mouthy, socially inept wives and bratty children have been the bane of campaign managers for generations. Being openly gay is still a great way to make yourself unelectable in many districts. If both partners agree to keep their relationship secret (or at least not to make an issue of it) or an unattached gay candidate just doesn't discuss his or her dating habits, I can't see where the lack of "coherence" is.

Besides, if we move from theory to practice, we need to decide who has the power to determine who deserves to be outed; and as is so often the case, those most eager to play Enforcer are those whom we can least trust to exercise prudence. It's all very well to say that being a practicing homosexual while supporting anti-gay policies is hypocritical, but it simply isn't true that all of us can agree on what's "anti-gay." I've been out for a decade, but I'm against hate crimes laws and gay marriage as it's currently being campaigned for, and I just do not concede that that's hypocritical.

Do gays in powerful positions who live closeted lives hurt the rest of us--I mean, in some intrinsic sense by not contributing to the visibility of gays as ordinary citizens? You can make a case that they do. But there are lots of private decisions that hurt other people. Parents who don't teach their children manners cause harm to the children themselves and, conceivably, to everyone who encounters them for the rest of their lives; even so, we don't take kids away from their parents unless there's serious and immediate harm being done. It's a plain fact of life that we can't always intervene in people's lives to stop them from doing things we disapprove of. We can only shun them or try to persuade them to change their behavior.

Added later: Eric has another post about the outing angle, to which Connie has added a comment. Surprise! I think they're both worth reading. Eric:

For those who didn't grow up in a gay ghetto, sodomy laws existed until fairly recently in a number of states, and while they weren't enforced, they reflect a tradition which was once mainstream. To deny this is to deny reality as well as history. Times were changing gradually, but the "old guard" still exists, and it fought hard to keep the sodomy laws in the minority of states which still had them. For the most part, this old guard has to content itself by spearheading opposition to same sex marriage.

While that's what leads gay activists to denounce opposition to same sex marriage as "bigotry," the fact that 70% of the public (including the leadership of the Democratic Party) also think the country is not ready for same sex marriage seems to receive less attention.

However, admitting opposition to same sex marriage, mainstream though it is, is these days an easier way to be called a bigot than voicing opposition to affirmative action.

The result of all this is that homosexuality remains the sensitive topic it has always been. A new taboo has quickly arisen to replace an old taboo.

Too many gays and supporters of gays take an approach to "debate" that involves deliberately raising homosexuality as an issue and then flipping out on people who actually say what they deeply believe and feel about it. One would think the hazards of such an approach would be obvious: people who feel baited tend to tune out and assume their interlocutors are incapable of winning an argument without stacking the deck. I sometimes wonder whether there are people who remain closeted simply because the effort to demonstrate that they don't have the approve-of-me-or-else attitude that the public faces of gayness so often project is just too exhausting.

Added still later: This via Michael:

Middlebury College is this year for the first time giving students who identify themselves as gay in the admissions process an "attribute" — the same flagging of an application that members of ethnic minority groups, athletes, alumni children and others receive, according to Shawn Rae Passalacqua, assistant director of admissions at Middlebury. His announcement surprised many of those who attended the session, and who said that they had never heard of a college having such a policy. (Officials of the Point Foundation, a group that provides scholarships to gay students, especially those denied financial support from their families, said that they had never heard of such a policy.)

Passalacqua said that gay students bring "a unique quality" to the college, which he said tries hard not "to be too homogeneous." Of 6,200 applications last year, 5 students noted their gay identities in their application essays and another 50-plus applicants cited their membership in gay-straight alliances. Passalacaqua said that Middlebury admissions officers were also likely to look favorably and give an admissions tip to "straight allies" of gay students — not just out of support for that view, but because a college benefits from having people who are "bridge builders."

Yeah, because, you know, if there's one place in America it's difficult to find gay youths, it's the hoity-toity universities and liberal arts colleges. As Michael says, "In my opinion, [a measure such as this] will do nothing more than lend credence to the cries of the far Right that we're demanding special treatment." He was too diplomatic to point out the disgusting condescension involved in talking about gay students as the spice that gets stirred in with the Normal People to keep the place from being too homogeneous. Or in giving points to straight students who play the "some of my best friends are gay!" card. (The scholarship, on the other hand, strikes me as a nice idea.)

Question: How is it that the best PR strategists, brand managers, event planners, and visual merchandisers the world over are gay...while top jobs at gay PACs attract people who are so irredeemably incompetent at image management?

I wasn't quite sure what to make of this whole thing about "The List" (via Eric), but it's looking more and more like (surprise!) a strategy by lefty gay groups to show the rest of America how readily queers are willing to turn on each other for cheap, short-term political expediency. Way to show gay youths who are just coming out that they're taking their place in a community in which people value forthrightness, respect individual choice, and stand up for each other, guys. The clear ethical infraction of exposing people's private lives without their permission is bad enough, but the sheer self-defeating idiocy on display here is almost too much to stand.

Thanks to Michael for saying I'm a nice guy. I try to be--or at least, I try to put things in a way that suggests I won't respond to opposition by jeering or throwing a fit.

Speaking of how well things are put, Michael also links (approvingly, I assume) to this post by Andrew Sullivan about the Mark Foley flap. Maybe I'm being too picky, but I find his choice of words troubling:

Equally, the news about Mark Foley has a kind of grim inevitability to it. I don't know Foley, although, like any other gay man in D.C., I was told he was gay, closeted, afraid and therefore also screwed up. What the closet does to people - the hypocrisies it fosters, the pathologies it breeds - is brutal.

...

What I do know is that the closet corrupts. The lies it requires and the compartmentalization it demands can lead people to places they never truly wanted to go, and for which they have to take ultimate responsibility.

That last clause is a little jarring for me, coming as it does at the tail end of an explanation of all the ways closeted gays end up as they do because they're buffeted by circumstance. Talking about what "the closet" does in the active voice--as if it were some kind of independent baleful force--can be rhetorically effective, but the flip side is that it makes closeted gays sound helpless and passive.

It's still not clear what Foley's situation is, but let's assume he's gay. Well, he was in his twenties in the '70s, not the '50s. Even considering all the ways coming out has become easier in the subsequent three decades, he had options. The only thing that makes his current pickle "inevitable" or a place he may have "never truly wanted to go" (exquisite euphemism, that) is that he kept making the same unwise choices. I'd bet that plenty of embezzlers could say honestly that they didn't really want to steal from anyone. They just wanted a bunch of money they hadn't earned and...well, you know.