Consider all that has happened recently:
The Supreme Court ruled that states couldn’t make gay sex illegal. New York City is setting up a full-fledged high school for gay students (to prevent abuse of homosexual teens, city officials said, not to give a select group of students a way to honor the Supreme Court ruling). The openly conservative New York Post put a gay couple on the front page–and applauded their union–after they got married in Toronto. A major church made history by electing its first gay (or at least openly gay) bishop. One of the final three couples on “The Amazing Race” is a gay team, Chip and Reichen, who met, lest we forget, while Reichen was in the Air Force! (And, of the three teams left, America has made them the “most popular” on the CBS Web site. Forget popularity, they deserve to win. They’re so … together.) And, finally, one of the most popular shows on television right now is “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy,” a show that posits that “straight” men are so inept socially, stylistically and culturally that they need a team of gay men to make them over.
So, given all that’s happened, one has to wonder, is this a gay, er, I mean, great country, or what?
But how widely accepted is the gay lifestyle? This week, loudmouthed Giants wide-receiver Jeremy Shockey became embroiled in controversy when he called one of the team’s former coaches a “homo.” Not only was Shockey’s use of the epithet immediately attacked, but he apologized by proclaiming that he doesn’t consider the word “homo” an epithet at all. There you have it, folks, final evidence of how far gays have come in our society: when straight guys call other straight guys gay, it’s not an insult–it’s a compliment!
Besides, a poll last year showed that 32 percent of Americans said that gay sex is not wrong “at all.” Since only 5 to 10 percent of the population is gay, well, you do the math.
Of course, there are still those among us fighting the homofication of America. One of them is George W. Bush, who made an extraordinary comment the other day when a reporter asked him about homosexuality: “Mr. President … As someone who has spoken out in strongly moral terms, what’s your view on homosexuality?” The answer tried to please so many constituencies that it sounded like the president was channeling our old friend Bill “Definition of ‘Is’” Clinton:
“Yeah, I am mindful that we’re all sinners,” he began. “And I caution those who may try to take the speck out of the neighbor’s eye when they got a log in their own. I think it is important for our society to respect each individual, to welcome those with good hearts, to be a welcoming country. On the other hand, that does not mean that somebody like me needs to compromise on an issue such as marriage. [I’m sorry, but was he asked about marriage?] That’s really where the issue is headed here in Washington. And that is the definition of marriage. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and I believe we ought to codify that one way or the other and we have lawyers looking at the best way to do that.”
Indeed, classic Bush. In one sentence, he both urged compassion and respect for gay Americans and yet also vowed to make their lives as difficult as the law will allow–and tougher still if his lawyers figure out a way.
Of course, my favorite news story of the week was Pope John Paul II’s announcement that he also objects to gay marriage. Now there was a surprise. You know, I hate to refer to such mundane reference materials as the calendar, but it’s 2003, not 1553. The Catholic Church does many good things in our society–I can’t name one right now, but I’m sure there’s something–but providing qualified sex or marriage counseling is not one of them. Who gave priests–who are supposed to be celibate and spouse-less–such a strong role over such institutions anyway? Indeed, if we believe the official line, the Pope hasn’t had sex since he was a ski-bum actor named Karol Wojtyla–and that was 60 years ago in Nazi-occupied Poland. Things have changed a little since gays were being gassed by Hitler, Pontiff.
The Vatican’s 12-page, succinctly titled document, “Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition of Unions Between Homosexual Persons,” predictably argued against equal rights for gays. But it also added that gay adoption does “violence” to children. If someone can show me crime statistics showing that gay parents abuse their kids at a higher rate than straight parents, I’ll gladly praise the Pope’s valiant stance. Until then, John Paul should stick to his holy rituals, not spewing factless theocratic propaganda.
Such Taliban-like decrees have no place in American political life. True, most Americans believe that marriage is fundamentally a religious institution. But that view, like the Vatican’s, is incompatible with the role marriage plays in our civic life. Cities, states and the federal government use marriage as a way of deciding who gets spousal death, retirement and health benefits. If the separation of Church and State is to mean anything at all, only people who marry in a civil ceremony should be eligible for such public benefits. Churches, synagogues, mosques and temples should have no supervisory role.
In New York City, as in some other localities, people are allowed to register as domestic partners–ensuring that “spouses” get city benefits. Nearly 20,000 people–70 percent of whom are estimated to be homosexuals–are registered. The Union has, apparently, survived.
The principal objection that anti-gay Americans and clergymen have to homosexuality seems to be the fact that homosexuals have gay sex, but I think there are larger issues at work. Perhaps what bothers America most about gays is the increasing evidence–which is the basis for “Queer Eye” in the first place–that the world would be better if gays were running it. No more bad hair days. No more tasteless presidential suits. No more foreign policy machismo. Plenty of all night parties at clubs on Eighth Avenue in Manhattan and in West Hollywood filled with thong-wearing men and fishnet-wearing women (or vice-versa). Lots of witty bons-mots and put-downs (a la “Will & Grace” or virtually everything that comes out of Nathan Lane’s mouth).
And another dynamic is at work. America is, in fact, not titillated by the gay lifestyle at all, but repulsed by the realization of how similar it is to the so-called mainstream. Gays are already good parents, good politicians and good soldiers. Let gays marry and 15 years later, they’ll be sitting around on couches watching moronic Thursday night “must-see TV” in their old sweatpants and torn underwear just like the rest of us.
But maybe that’s the answer. If Americans are so repulsed by gay sex, perhaps the solution is to just allow gays to marry and have kids. After all, everyone knows that parents of young children have no time for sex.
