Not So Long Ago

by

by hilzoy

Hendrick Hertzberg has a good piece on the fortieth anniversary of the Stonewall Riots. In it, he quotes a 1966 article from Time called "The Homosexual in America". It's worth reading as a stunning reminder of exactly how far we've come in the last forty three years. For instance:

"Both [male homosexuality and lesbianism] are essentially a case of arrested development, a failure of learning, a refusal to accept the full responsibilities of life. This is nowhere more apparent than in the pathetic pseudo marriages in which many homosexuals act out conventional roles — wearing wedding rings, calling themselves "he" and "she."

And:

"Homosexuality (…) is a pathetic little second-rate substitute for reality, a pitiable flight from life. As such it deserves fairness, compassion, understanding and, when possible, treatment. But it deserves no encouragement, no glamorization, no rationalization, no fake status as minority martyrdom, no sophistry about simple differences in taste — and, above all, no pretense that it is anything but a pernicious sickness."

For some reason, the tone in which this is written bothers me almost as much as the content: it's somehow curdled. The condescension, the fake knowingness, the pervasive underlying "heh heh heh" — it sets my teeth on edge.

As long as one gay man or lesbian is denied the right to marry, or legally discriminated against because of his or her sexual orientation, or asked to leave the military after honorable service, we haven't come far enough. But we have come a long, long way.

3 thoughts on “Not So Long Ago”

  1. Not so long ago, and still…
    Rick Warren expressed open homophobia, declaring same-sex marriage to be the equivalent of paedophilia and bestiality, and yet he was a more honored guest at Obama’s inauguration than Gene Robinson. No change there then: homophobic pastors deserve public honor, openly gay priests should be shoved out of sight.
    Over two hundred soldiers have been discharged from the US forces for their sexual orientation or gender identity: with Obama’s tacit approval, though before he was inaugurated he was making very definite noises that he was going to put a stop to that. No change there then.
    In June Obama’s DOJ published a homophobic brief defending DOMA with such delightful reasoning as it being cheaper for the federal government not to allow same-sex married couples to claim the same benefits as mixed-sex married couples and asserting that this wasn’t discrimination, because a gay man was equally free to marry a woman. (See the reasoning that said laws against Obama’s father being allowed to marry his mother weren’t discrimination, because Obama’s father was free to marry a black woman, and Obama’s mother was free to marry a white man, as nature and God intended, or so the same bigots were saying back in 1963.) No change there then.
    Following through on saving money by treating lesbians and gays unjustly, see Obama’s decision that whatever benefits same-sex partners of federal employees would be allowed, the expensive health-care benefit wasn’t one of them. No change there then.
    With regard to LGBT rights, it’s clear now that whatever Barack Obama said to get the gay vote in 2004 and 2008, his position on DOMA is no better than Hillary Clinton’s: she at least was honest about not intending to work for repeal. Obama just flat lied.
    As Box Turtle Bulletin notes:

    He says he wants to “uphold existing law” in a way “that does not exacerbate old divides.” He apparently failed to understand that it was that very DOMA brief that exacerbated old divides. Maybe there’s only one side of the divide he wants to avoid exacerbating, but not the other.

    I think that’s just right: I think Obama’s attitudes are a lot closer to the Time article of 40 years ago, that the GLBT people he lied to are just pathetic, to be humored, but it’s the homophobic Christians like Rick Warren whose feelings really count. No change there then.

    Reply

  2. Following through on saving money by treating lesbians and gays unjustly, see Obama’s decision that whatever benefits same-sex partners of federal employees would be allowed, the expensive health-care benefit wasn’t one of them.
    The only decision reflected here is the decision not to prioritize overturning DOMA during his first six months in office. DOMA prohibits these benefits. What Obama did decide to do was to require “all agencies to extend as many federal benefits as possible to LGBT families as current law allows”. I assume this was not required in 1966. Ergo, change. Not as big a change as either of us wishes, but still refreshing.

    Reply

  3. DOMA prohibits these benefits.
    The text of DOMA:
    “1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
    2. The federal government defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman.”
    Nothing there I can see about the federal government being forbidden to extend health care benefits to same-sex partners.
    What Obama did decide to do was to require “all agencies to extend as many federal benefits as possible to LGBT families as current law allows”.
    Except for the ones that would be too expensive: as Obama’s DOJ advises.
    . I assume this was not required in 1966. Ergo, change. Not as big a change as either of us wishes, but still refreshing.
    Yes. Thanks to a lot of hard work by GLBT activists whom Obama has spent the last five months ignoring when he hasn’t spat on them. Inviting the gays to party at the White House is secondary by a long way to regarding GLBT people as equal US citizens, and behaving accordingly.

    Reply

Leave a Comment