Michael Bronski
It
is no news that the "news" appearing in the mass media is often
manufactured. No where was this clearer than a front page story in The New York
Times of August 11, 1999 whose headline announced: "Gay Voters Finding
G.O.P. Newly Receptive to Support." After a moderately careful lead –
"Prominent Republican candidates for President are creating an atmosphere
that is subtly but fundamentally more inviting to gay and lesbian voters than
party leaders have been in recent memory." – Katherine Q. Seelye’s article
details how George W. Bush, Elizabeth Dole, and John McCain have "have all
signaled an openness to gay supporters, including a willingness to appoint them
to positions like ambassadorships in their Administrations." Apparently
this news so big that the Times ran an lengthy editorial the next day praising
the new "pro-gay Republicans."
What
does this new openness mean? Well, each of these candidates claim that she or he
would include gay men or lesbians on their staffs and even appoint them to
government positions. Dole, in a NBC interview last month stated that "all
people are welcome" and added "I’m inclusive." When questioned
about the $1,000 contribution from The Log Cabin Club (a gay Republican group)
her husband spurned in 1996, Mrs. Dole answered, "I would not turn it
away." Even Dan "Murphy Brown needs a husband" Quayle has
professed moderation toward homosexuals. When queried on a radio program last
month what he would do if one of his children were homosexual, he replied that
he would support them "whatever they are." "Life-style
orientation" he added, "really makes no difference to me at all.
Believe me, I don’t inquire what one’s sexual preference may or may not
be." Is the Grand Old Party turning into the Gay Old Party?
Well,
as usual the "news" is bogus. What Seelye’s article hints at, but
never explores in depth, is that Dole, McCain, and Bush Jr. are simply making
small tactical retreats from the vicious, overt homophobia of elected officials
such as Trent Lott or Jesse Helms and right-wing Christian organizers like Gary
Bauer, Jerry Falwell, and Lou Sheldon. Even Republican moderates perceive this
level of homophobia as as politically detrimental. After all, when Lott and his
like keep quoting the Bible and comparing gay people to kleptomaniacs and sex
addicts even the already abysmal level of discourse about sexuality in our
culture begins to look good.
But
just because Lott (is it his name that makes him so obsessed with Sodom?) is so
virulently homophobic doesn’t make the others look better and Seelye makes
little mention of the blatantly anti-gay stands taken by these
"moderates." In the past month, for instance, George W. Bush has been
under constant attack by gay rights advocates for his unequivocal stand against
including homosexuals under hate-crime legislation and his refusal to even
consider changing Texas law so that gay individuals or couples could adopting
children. (Gay parenting has always been a hot issue, but since the
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decided in July that unmarried,
non-biological parents had the same visitation and custody rights as married
parents it has become a lightning rod for both gay rights organizing and
anti-gay politicians.)
As
far back as 1995 Elizabeth Dole has been under scrutiny by queer and AIDS
organizers for her intrusive attempts to radically alter Red Cross AIDS
education policies to placate the Christian right. In 1996 Dole insisted on
changes in the Red Cross’s AIDS 101 education booklet that downplayed negotiated
prevention techniques in favor of promoting abstinence, and insisted that all
AIDS prevention efforts avoid the easily understandable street language that has
become the hallmark of effective AIDS education: "The Red Cross will not
teach individuals how to engage in behavior which is against the law, but will
assist people in finding help to stop engaging in such behavior in order to
prevent or reduce their risk of getting HIV/AIDS. The Red Cross will not utilize
profane language or graphics in its teaching materials, nor encourage the use of
such language or materials by Red Cross instructors in classes." Onward
Christian soldiers and educations.
The
small steps being taken by Bush and Dole are nothing more than tokenism. They
have no intention of supporting issues like gay marriage, sponsoring effective
AIDS and sex education in schools, stopping the persecution of homosexuals in
the military, providing meaningful AIDS funding, or supporting queer youth. If
they had any moral desire to fight homophobia in a systemic manner – without
even taking positions on specific issues – they would immediately and loudly
condemn the outrageous and vicious anti-gay attacks that have become commonplace
from the leaders of the Republican party. But, of course, they are not about to
do that because they benefit enormously from the pit-bull homophobia of their
party compatriots.
So
what’s going on with this "news" story? To a large degree it is the
latest bit of self- promotion by the gay Log Cabin Club to promote the twin
ideas that (1) the Republican Party is, despite all appearances to the contrary,
open to the concerns of homosexuals and (2) that there are a lot of homosexuals
who would support the party if it evidenced even the least bit of respect toward
gay people. Rich Tafel, the president of the Log Cabin, is tireless in his
search to find common ground for homosexuality and a moderate Republican agenda
– needless to say it is an uphill battle – and most of his energy goes into
convincing people that not all gay people are stereotypical liberals who believe
in more taxes, affirmative action, rampant federalism, and ecology. And, of
course, he is right. Deviance from sexual, or gender, norms does not guarantee
that a person will be progressive, fair or even decent. Also, of course, there
is a reason why the Log Cabin Club is so small: most gay people understand that
supporting the Republican Party as it is today is not in their personal
interests – as gay people – at all.
What
is interesting, however, about mainstream media coverage of the Log Cabin Club
is that they are treated with much more respect and diligence than direct action
groups such as ACT UP or Queer Nation ever were. In part this is because Log
Cabiners are more "respectable" – hey, they may be queer, but they’re
still Republicans – but it is also a move on the part of the media to
consciously mainstream, contain, and minimize the threat of the gay and lesbian
movement.
For
the past thirty years the struggle for gay freedom – both as a liberation and a
civil rights movement – has seriously challenged how U.S. society conceptualizes
sexual desire, gender roles, ideas about discrimination, civil rights, the
dichotomy between public and private, and the function and purpose of
traditional family and coupling formations. Often enough it has made huge gains
in winning its goals – stopping the public harassment of gay people, repealing
laws that criminalize private sexual activity, making overt social homophobia
less acceptable, taking violence against homosexuals seriously – but the basic
threat of the movement; that it wants to offer a perfectly reasonable
alternative to heterosexuality and accepted gender roles – remains. This is why
the issue of "gay marriage" is so contentious. This is why
conservative pundits can still argue with a straight face that homosexuality
caused the fall of the Roman Empire. It is why the tired argument about
"unisex bathrooms (used so effectively against the ERA) can be used against
gay rights laws.
Since
it is no longer acceptable for the mainstream media to be blatantly homophobic,
the next best thing is to be pro-gay Republicans. And that, apparently, is news
"fit to print."