The Pathos Of K-Lo

Wolcott:

This explains the almost touching devotion, tinged with desperation, that one can witness almost every day over at NRO’s Corner, where one lunchtime slacker or another relays with excitement Rush Limbaugh’s latest mouthblast of derision against spineless Republicans and gutless liberals–Rush was "on fire" today, they quiver, sounding like Nanny Hawkins huddled around the wireless marveling how Mr. Churchill just gave that Mr. Hitler quite a talking-to. Rush is the only last troop-rally’er this tired-blood brigade has left and their clinging to the backward tug of his stale certitudes (global warming is an enviromental-wacko socialist sham, etc) only widens the distance between them and the reality of how much damage kneejerk conservatism and blind Bush loyalty has inflicted on the Republican Party.

Wake them up when it’s over, will you?

Listening To Whitman

The great gay American made a wax recording back in 1890. Here’s what he is reciting

"America

Centre of equal daughters, equal sons,
All, all alike endear’d, grown, ungrown, young or old,
Strong, ample, fair, enduring, capable, rich,
Perennial with the Earth, with Freedom, Law and Love…"

After California’s court ruling, I cannot help but think of Whitman and, of course, Lincoln:

What It Means To Me

Weddingflowers

From Time magazine before I actually married my husband, or thought it would ever happen to me:

As a child, I had no idea what homosexuality was. I grew up in a traditional home–Catholic, conservative, middle class. Life was relatively simple: education, work, family. I was raised to aim high in life, even though my parents hadn’t gone to college. But one thing was instilled in me. What mattered was not how far you went in life, how much money you earned, how big a name you made for yourself. What really mattered was family and the love you had for one another. The most important day of your life was not graduation from college or your first day at work or a raise or even your first house. The most important day of your life was when you got married. It was on that day that all your friends and all your family got together to celebrate the most important thing in life: your happiness–your ability to make a new home, to form a new but connected family, to find love that put everything else into perspective.

But as I grew older, I found that this was somehow not available to me.

I didn’t feel the things for girls that my peers did. All the emotions and social rituals and bonding of teenage heterosexual life eluded me. I didn’t know why. No one explained it. My emotional bonds to other boys were one-sided; each time I felt myself falling in love, they sensed it, pushed it away. I didn’t and couldn’t blame them. I got along fine with my buds in a nonemotional context, but something was awry, something not right. I came to know almost instinctively that I would never be a part of my family the way my siblings might one day be. The love I had inside me was unmentionable, anathema. I remember writing in my teenage journal one day, "I’m a professional human being. But what do I do in my private life?"

I never discussed my real life. I couldn’t date girls and so immersed myself in schoolwork, the debate team, school plays, anything to give me an excuse not to confront reality. When I looked toward the years ahead, I couldn’t see a future. There was just a void. Was I going to be alone my whole life? Would I ever have a most important day in my life? It seemed impossible, a negation, an undoing. To be a full part of my family, I had to somehow not be me. So, like many other gay teens, I withdrew, became neurotic, depressed, at times close to suicidal. I shut myself in my room with my books night after night while my peers developed the skills needed to form real relationships and loves. In wounded pride, I even voiced a rejection of family and marriage. It was the only way I could explain my isolation.

It took years for me to realize that I was gay, years more to tell others and more time yet to form any kind of stable emotional bond with another man. Because my sexuality had emerged in solitude–and without any link to the idea of an actual relationship–it was hard later to reconnect sex to love and self-esteem. It still is. But I persevered, each relationship slowly growing longer than the last, learning in my 20s and 30s what my straight friends had found out in their teens. But even then my parents and friends never asked the question they would have asked automatically if I were straight: So, when are you going to get married? When will we be able to celebrate it and affirm it and support it? In fact, no one–no one–has yet asked me that question.

When people talk about gay marriage, they miss the point. This isn’t about gay marriage. It’s about marriage. It’s about family. It’s about love. It isn’t about religion. It’s about civil marriage licenses. Churches can and should have the right to say no to marriage for gays in their congregations, just as Catholics say no to divorce, but divorce is still a civil option. These family values are not options for a happy and stable life. They are necessities. Putting gay relationships in some other category–civil unions, domestic partnerships, whatever–may alleviate real human needs, but by their very euphemism, by their very separateness, they actually build a wall between gay people and their families. They put back the barrier many of us have spent a lifetime trying to erase.

It’s too late for me to undo my past. But I want above everything else to remember a young kid out there who may even be reading this now. I want to let him know that he doesn’t have to choose between himself and his family anymore. I want him to know that his love has dignity, that he does indeed have a future as a full and equal part of the human race. Only marriage will do that. Only marriage can bring him home.

It’s About Choice, Stupid

A reader writes:

One thing that I think is lost in the discussion about the California decision is the implicit rejection by the court (by primarily invoking Loving) that sexual orientation is by and large a choice. For some, it can be (like exploring bi-sexuality). But, by and large, sexual orientation is a culmination of the nature of our beings. Is there a nurture (environmental) element in our decisions related to our sexual orientation? Sure. I’m heterosexual but I also recognize that some of my preferences and lifestyle are/were driven by my experiences as a young adult. Distinguishing between a sexual culture and orientation might be useful in discussing this. That doesn’t change the fact that my orientation is hetero. I’ve never spent a moment contemplating the idea that it was a choice, why should homosexuals be painted with the same brush?

The California decision reduces the concept of gay marriage to two things. First, as in Loving, there is a fundamental right in our society (at least California’s) to marry. Second, sexual orientation, at its basic level, is not a choice. The decision by California to reject the ban on gay marriage, in spite of the strict scrutiny applied, affirms both of these principles.

Now its just a matter of the rest of the US waking up to these truths.

And the only advantage that I have in all this is that I know this to be true – more surely than I know almost anything.

Was Rubin Distorting?

The McCain campaign has been pushing back on the Rubin argument that McCain once supported talking to Hamas and now says such a position is "unacceptable." Here’s the full quote that allegedly exposes Rubin:

Rubin: "Do you think that American diplomats should be operating the way they have in the past, working with the Palestinian government if Hamas is now in charge?"

McCain: "They’re the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it’s a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that."

Rubin: “So should the United States be dealing with that new reality through normal diplomatic contacts to get the job done for the United States?”

Sen. McCain: “I think the United States should take a step back, see what they do when they form their government, see what their policies are, and see the ways that we can engage with them, and if there aren’t any, there may be a hiatus. But I think part of the relationship is going to be dictated by how Hamas acts, not how the United States acts.”

I’d say any fair assessment would show that McCain was intelligently prepared to see whether the US could talk to Hamas, if there could be ways to engage with them. If their behavior made that fruitless, then we shouldn’t bother. That sounds perfectly sensible to me, the kind of politics McCain used to be known for, both realistic and pragmatic, and it is clearly not the rigid posture that dialogue with governments like Hamas is always unacceptable. This new position is obviously part of an attempt to paint Obama as unfit for the presidency. It’s Rovian bullshit.

And, of course, with respect to Hamas, there is no daylight between Obama’s position and McCain’s. The only difference is with Iran. I doubt there’s any way to talk to Ahmadinejad, if he’s still around next year, but Khameini may be different, and other power-centers in Tehran may be different. It would be great to have a president again able to use diplomacy intelligently and pragmatically, with the leverage of military force behind him, prepared to exploit internal divisions within enemy regimes. Both McCain and Obama have this potential, but McCain has now decided to follow Bush and rule it out. That’s a pity. Does he really believe Bush’s intransigence has been a success?