Ethics Assighnment

A new case for a new beginning.

T H E POLITICS OF HOMOSEXUALITY By Andrew Sullivan

O ver the last four years I have been sent letters from strangers caught in doomed, desperaie marriages because of tepressed honiosexiiality and witnessed several thousand virtually naked,

nuiscle-boimd men dance for hours in the middle of New York Cit\; in the middle of the day. 1 have lain down on top of a dying friend to restrain his htiiidred-potmct body as it violently shook with the death-lhroes of .viDS and lisit'ned to soldiers eqtiate the existence of homo- sexuals in the military with lhe dissolution of tlie mean- ing of the Lhiited States. I have openly discussed my sex- uality on a television talk show and sat on the porch of an aparttnent btiilditig in downtown D.C with an artn around a male friend and wau bed as a dozen cars in a half hour slowed to burl abuse. I bave seen mass adver- tising explicitly cater to an openly gay audience and watched my own father break down atid weep at the dec- laration of his son's sexuality.

These different experiences ol homosexuality are not new, of course. But tbat tbey can now be experienced within one Ufe (and tbat you are now reading abotu tbem) /'.s new. The cultural categories and social depart- ments inio which we once successfully consigned sextial- ity—deparuiients that belped us avoid the anger and bonesty witb which we are now confronted—have begun to collapse. Wbere once tbere were patterns of discreet and discrete behavior to follow, tbere is now only an unnerving confusion of roles and identities. Wbere once tbere was only tbe unmen lion able, tbere aie now only the tinavoidabte: gays, "qtict'is," homosex- uals, closet cases, bisexuais. tbe "out" and the "in," paraded for every heterosexual to see. As tbe straight world bas been confronted witb this, it bas found ilself reaching for a response: embarrassment, tolerimce, fear, violence, oversensitivity, recognition. When Sam Ntnui conducts hearings, he knows tbere is no common di.s- course in which he can now speak, that even the W(>rd.s be uses wiU betray worlds of conflicting experience and anxieties. Yet speak be must. In place of tbe silence tbat once encased Lbe lives of hoinosexitals, there is now a lotid argument. And tbere is no easy going back.

This fracturing of discotirse is more tlian a cultural problem; it is a political problem. Witbout at least some common ground, no etiective compromise to lbe botno sexual question will be possible. Matlers may be

resolved, as tbey have been in tbe case of abortion, by a stand-off in tlie forces of ctiltural war. Buf unless we begin to discuss this subject with a degree of restraint and reason, the visceral unpleasanmess that exploded earlier tbis year will dog tbe question of homosexuality for a long time to come, intensifying the anxieties tbat politics is supposed to relieve.

Tbere are as many politics of homosexuality as tbere are words for it, and not all of ihem contain reason. And it is harder perbaps in this passionate area than in any otJier to separate a wisb from an aiginnent. a desire from a denial. Nevertbeless, witbout sucb an effort, no true politics of sexuality can emerge. Atui besides, tbeie are some discernible patterns, some sketches of political tbeory tbat bave begun to emerge witb clarity. I will dis- cuss here only four, but four tbat encompass a reason- able span of possible argtiments. Eacb has a separate atialysis of sexuality and a distinct solution to tlie prob- lem of gay-straigbt lelations. Perbaps no person belongs in any single category; and tbey are by no means exclu- sive of one another. Wliat follows is a bi ief descriptioti of* each; wby each is riven by ititernal and external conflict; and why none, linallv, works.

I.

T be first I'll call, for the sake of argtimeni. the conservative politics of sexuality. Its view of bomosexuitlity is as dark as it is popular as it is unfashionable. It iiifortns much of tbe opposi-

tioti to allowing opetily gay tuen and women lo serve iti tbe military and can be heaid in living rooms, cburcbes, bars and computer bulletin boards across .America. Il is found in most of the families in which homosexuals grow up and critically fratnes many homo- sexuals' view of tbeir own identity. Its fundamental assertion is that homosexuality as sucb does not proj> erly exist. Homosexual bebavior is aberrant activity, either on tbe part of beterosexuals intent on subverting traditional society or by people who are prey to psycho- logical, emotional or sexual dy.sfuncti<)n.

For adherents lo tbe conservative poUtics of sexuality. therefore, tbe bomosexual question concerns everyone. It cannot be dismissed merely as an affliction of tbe indi- vidtial but is ratlier one ihal afllicts society al large.

24 THF. NKW REPUBLIC MAYIO. i993

Since society depends on the rearitig of a licallby ftititre generation, ihe existence of bomosexiials is a grave problem. People who wotild otherwise be living produc- tive and sociallv beneficial lives are diverted by bom(.>- sexuality into tinbappiness and sterility, and tliey may seek, in their bleak attempts at solace, to persuade t)tli- ers to join ibem. Two gerinidives cling to tbis view of homosexuals: practicing and proselytizing. .\nd both are habitually uttered witli a mixture of pity and disgust.

T be politics that springs out of tbis view of bomo- sextiality bas iwo essential parts: with die depraveci, it musi pvmisb; with the sick, it musi cure. Tbere are, of course, degtees to wbich

these two activities can be protnoted. The recent prac- tice in modern libetal democracies of imprisoning homosexuals or subjecting tbem to psychological or physiological "cures" is a good deal less repressive than lhe camps for homosexttals in Castro's Cuba, the spas- modic attempt at annihilation in Nazi Germany or tbe brutality' of modern Islamic states. And the sporadic entrapment of gay men in public restroonis or parks is a good deal less repressive tban tbe systematic bunting down and discbarging of homosexuals that we require of our armed forces. But the differences are mailers of degree ratber tban of kind: and the essential cbaracter- istic of tlie conservative politics of homosexuality is tbat it pursues tbe logic of repression. Not for conservatives tbe bypocrisy of tbose wbo tolerate boniosexuality in private and abbor it in public. TFiey seek ratber lo grap- ple witb tbe issue directly and to stislain tbe carapace of public condenuiation and legal sanction tbal cati keep the dark presetice of homosexuality at bay.

This is not a distant politics. In twenty-four states sodomy is still illegal, and tbe constilntionality of tbese statutes was recently tipheld by tbe Supreme Court. Much of the Republican Partŷ supports this politics with varying degrees of sympathy for tbe victims ol the afflic- tion. Tbe Houston convention was replete with jokes by speaker Patrick Bticbanan tbat implicitly affirmed this view. Batiners held aloft by delegates asserted "Faniih' Rights For Ever, Gay Rigbts Never," implying a direct trade-off between tolerating bomosexuals and maintain- ing tbe traditional family.

In its crudest and most politically disniissible forms, tbis politics invokes biblical revelation to tiiake ils civic claims. But in iis subtler form, it draws sti ength Irom lbe natural law iradition, which, for all its failings, is a resilient pillar of Wesiern iboiigbt. Following a Thomist argtiment, ctmservaiives argtie thai tlie nattn al ftttiction of sexuality is clearly pt-ocreative; and tbat all expres- sions of it outside procreation destroy htiman beings' potential for full and bealtby development. Homosexu- ality—far from being nattn al—is clearl)' a perversion of, or ttu ning away from, the legitimate and healthy growth of the buman person.

Perhaps ibe least belpful element in the cturent debate is the a.ssertion that ihis politics is sitnply bigotry. It isn't. Many bigots may, of course, support il, and by bigots 1 mean tbose wbose "visceral recoil'" from bomo-

sextials (to quote Bitchatian) expresses itself in tbuggery and name-calling. But ibere are some wbo don't sup- port anti-gay violence and wbo sincerely believe discour- agemetit of boniosexuality by law and "curing" homo- scxtials is in the best interest of everybody.

N evertiieless, tbis politics suffers from ati increas- ingly acute internal contradiction atid an irre- sistitile external development. Il is damaged. lit si, by the growing evicletice tbat bomosexual-

ity does in fact exist as an ideniifiable and invohintary characteristic of some people, and tliai tbese people do tioi as a matLer of course suffer from moral or psycho- logical dysftinctioti; tbat it is, in otber words, as close to "nattiral" as any htttnan condition can be. New data abtittt the possible genetic origins of liomosextiality are only one part of tbis development. By far the most important element is tbe testimony of countless bomo- sextials. The ntunber who say their orientation is a clioice make up only a tiny minority; and tbe candor of tbose who say il isn't is overwbelming. To be sure, it is in tbe interests of gay people to affirm tlieir lack of cboice over lbe mailer; bul lbe consenstts among homosexuals, tbe resilience of lesbian and gay minorities in tbe face of deep .social disapproval and even a plague, stiggests lbat bomosextiality, whatever one would like to think, sitnply is not often cbosen. A fundamental claim of natural law is tbat its trutlis are self-evident: across continents and centuries, boinosexuality is a self-evident fact of life.

How large this population is does not matter. One percent or 10 percent: as long as a small but persistent part of the poptilalion is involutitarily gay. tben tbe entire cotiset vative politics of botnosextiality rests on an unstable fooling. Il becomes simply a politics of denial or repression. Faced with a sizable and inexiingtiishable part of society, il can otily pretend lbat it docs tiot exist, or tieedn't be addressed, or can sotnehow be distnis.sed. Tliis politics is lesscoberenl than even tlie politics that opposed civil rights for blacks tbirty years ago, because al leiist tbat had some answer lo tbe (|tiestion of tbe role of blacks in society, bowever subordinate. Today's con- servatives bave no role for bomosexuals; tbey want tbem sonu'bow to disappear, an option tbat was once illusory and is now impossible.

Some conservatives and conservative institutions bave recognized this. They've even begun to use tbe term "homosexual,•' implicitly accepting lbe existence of a constitutive characteristic. Some bave avoided it by the innovative term "bomosexualist," but most cannot do so wilbout a wry grin on their laces. The mote serious opponents of equality for bomosexuals finesse tbe prob- lem by restricting their objections to "radical homosexti- als,'" but the distinction doesn't help. Tbey are still forced to confront the problem oi" (///radical homosexu- als, people wliose sexuality is, presumably, constitutive. To make matters worse, tbe Roman Catholic Churcb— tbe firmesi religious proponent of the conservative poli- tics of hoinosexualiiy—bas expliciiiy conceded die point. It declared in 1975 that bomosexuality is indeed invohmtary for many. In tbe recent Universal Cate-

MAY 10, 1993 T H E N E W REPUBLIC 25

chism, llie Church goes even Ittrthei. Homosexuality i.s described as a "condition" ofa "not negligible" ntinibei of people who "do not choose" their sexuality and deserve to he treated with "respect, compas.sion and sen- sitivity." More critically, hecatise of liomosexuality's involuntary natuiT, it cannot ofltseU be morally cttlpa- hle (although homosexual wets still are). The doctritie is thus no longer "hate the sin but love the sinner"; it's "hate the sin htit accept the condition," a position tinique In Catholic theology, and one that has already begun to creak utider the strain of its own tortuousness.

Bnt the loss of intellecttial solidity' isn't the only prol> leni for the conservative politics c)f homosexuality. In a liheral polity, it has lost a good deal of its political coher- ence as well. Wlien many people in a liberal society insist upon tlieir validity as citizens and httman beings, repres- sion becomes a harder and harder task. It offends against ftindamental notions of decencn,' and civility to treat them as simple criminals or patients. To htint them down, imprison them for private acts, sttbjcct govern- ment workers to surveillance and dismissal for reasons related to their deepest sense of personal identity becomes a policy not .simply cruel but politically impos- sible in a civil order. For American society to return lo the social norms around the qnestion of homosexuality of a generation ago would require a renewed act of repression that not even many zealots could contem- plate. What generations of inherited shame could not do, what AIDS could not accomplish, what the most deci- sive .swing toward conservatism iu the 1980s could not muster, must somehow be accomplished in the tiext few years. It simply cannot be clone.

So even Patrick Buchanan is reduced to Joke-telling; .senators to professiotis of ignorance; military leaders to rationalizations of sheer discomfort. For those whose pol- itics are a mere extension of leligioiis faith, stich impossi- bilism is part of ihe attraction (and spiritually, if not polit- ically, defensible). But for conservatives who seek to act as citizens in a seculai, civil order, the dilemma is termi- nal. An utireniittingh' hostile stance toward homosexuals runs the risk of sectarianism. At some point, not reached yet but fast approaching, their politics cotild become so esttanged from the society in which it operates that it could cea.se to operate as a politics altogether.

n.

T he second politics of homosexttality shares with the first a conviction that homosextiality as an inherent atid natural condition does not exist. Homosexuality, in this politics, is a cultural con-

strtiction, a binary social conceit {along with heterosex- uality) forced tipou the sexually amorphous (all of tts). This politics attempts to resist this oppre.ssive constrtict, subverting it and subverting the society that allows ii to fester. Where the first politics takes as its starting poitit the Thomist faith in nature, the second springs from the Nietzschean desire to surpass all natural necessities, to attack the construct of "nature" itself. Thus the pursuit ofa homosexual existence is but one strategy of many to

ciilat ge the possibility for human liberation. (̂ all this the radical politics of homosexuality. For tlie

radicals, like the conservatives, homosexuality is defi- nitely a choice: the choice to he a "queer," the choice to subvert oppressive institutions, the choice to be an activist. And it is a politics that, insofar as it fuids its way from academic discourse into gay activism (and it does so fitfully), exercises a pectiliar fascination for the adherents of the first politics. At times, indeed, both seem lo exist in a bond of mutttal contempt and admira- tion. That both prefer to use the word "queer," the one in private, the other in irony, is only one of many resem- blances. They both react with disdain to those studies that seem to reflect a genetic source for homosexuality; and they both favor, to some extent or other, the process of outing, because for botli it is tlie lltishing otit of deviant behavior: for conservatives, of the morally impure, for radicals, of the politically incorrect. For con- servatives, radical "queers" provide a frisson of cultural apocalypse and a steady stream of funding dollars. F'or radicals, the religious right can be tapped as an unre- flective and easy justificalion for virtually any political imptil.se whatsoever.

I nsofar as this radical politics is synonymous with a stibcultural experience, it has stretched the limits cjf liomosexual identity and expanded the cultttral space in which some homosexuals can live. In the

late i980s tlie tactics of grotips like Act-Up and Queer Nation did not merely shock atid anger, bttt took die logic of shame-abandonment to a thrilling conclusion. To exist within their sudden energy was to be caught in a liberating rite ol' passage, which, when it did not transgress into political puritanism, exploded many of the cozy assumptions of closeted homosexual and lib- eral heterosexual alike.

This politics is as open-ended as Uie con.servative pol- itics is closed-minded. It seeks an end to all restrictions on homosexuality, bnt also the subversion of heterosex- tial norms, as tatight in schools or the media. By virtue of its intellectual origins, it affirms a close connection with every other minority group, whose cultural sttbver- sion of white, heterosexual, male norms is jtist as vital. It sees its crusades—now for an MDS czar, now against the Catholic Church's abortion stance, now for the Rainbow Cttrriculum, now against the military ban—as a unified whole of protest, glorifying in its iiidiscriininateness as in its universality,

Btit like the conservative politics of homosexuality, which also provides a protective ghetto of liberation for its disciples, the radical politics of homo.sexualit)' now finds itself in an actite state of crisis. Its problem is twofold: its conception of homosexuality is so amor- phous and indistitiguishable from other minority con- cerns that it is doomed to be tiltimately tinfocused; and its relationship with the views of most homosexuals—let alone hetetosextials—is so tentious that at moments of truth (like the military han) it strains to have a viable politics at all.

continued on page 32

26 Tiiii NEW REPUBLIC HAYIO. 1 9 9 3

The trouble with gay radicalism, iti short, is the prol> lein with subversive politics as a whole. It tends to .sub- vert itselL Act-Up, for example, an .\1DS group that began iu the late I98()s as an activist group dedicated to finding a cure and better ttcatment for people with A!t>s, soon ibund itself awash in acacophony of internal division. Its belief that sexuality was only one of many opptcssivf construe tions meant that it was constantly tempted to broaden its reach, lo solve a whole range of gender and ethnic grievances. Sunilaiiy, each orga- nizing committfc in each state of this weekend's inarch on Washington was required to have a 50 per- cent "minority" com- position. Even iflah. Althou)^li this tinivei- sali.st temptation vvâ not always given in t̂ it exercised an ener- vating aud di.ssipaiing effect on gay radical- ism's political punch.

More important, the notion of sexualiiv as ctiltural stibversion distanced it from the vast majority ol gay people who not only accept the nattiral ori- gin of their sexttal ori- entation, but wish to be integrated into society as it is. For most gay people—the closet cases and bar- flies, the constrtu tioti workers and invest- ment bankers, the computer progiain- tners and parents—a "queer" identity is pre- cisely what they want to avoid. In this way, the radical politics of homosextiality, like the conservative poli- tics of homosexuality, is caught in a political trap. The more it purifies its own belief ahotit sextialit), the less able it is to engage the broader world as a whole. The more it acts upon its con- victions, the less able it is lo engage in politics at all.

For Uie "queer" lundanientalists, like the religious fundamentalists, this is no problem. Politics for hoth grotips is e.ssentially an exet cist' in theater and rhc-toric. in wliich dialogue with one's opponent is an admission of defeat. It is no accident that Act-Up was fottndcd by a playwright, since its politics was essentially theatrical: a feiTtastic display ol rhetorical piqtie and visual btilliance. It becatne a national media hit, but eveuttialty its lines became familiar and the audience's attention wavered. New shows have taken its place and will continue to do

so: but they will always be constrained by their essential nature, which is performance, not pcisuasion.

The litnits cjf this strategy can l>e seen iti the politics of tlie military ban. Logically, there is no reason for radi- cals to support the ending of the ban: it means accep- tance of presttmably one of the most repressive institu- tions ill .Ajiieiican .society. And, to be .stire, no radical arguments have been made to end the ban. But iu the last few tnondis. "qtieers" have been appealing on tele- vision proclaiming that gay people are just like anybody else and defetuling tho right of gay Midwestern Reptibli- catis to serve tlieir cotnitry, hi the pinch, "queer" poli-

tics was forced to abandon its theoreti- cal essence if it was to advance its purported aims: the adrance- meiit of gay cqtiality. The military bait illus- trated the dilemma perfectly. As soon as radicalism was re-

spc i e ty, nixii b e

IS l ^ a

discoiirag

I K A I I I I N i W r i ) M I ' K I . S r O N H ' K I l l l N I U K M ' H I K . L *

actually to engage America, its politics disintegt ated.

Similarly, "cpteer" radicalism's doctrine of ctiltuial suhversion and separatism has the effect oi" alienat- ing those very gay Anieiicaiis most in need of support and help: the young and teenagers. Separatism is even less of an cjptioit lor gays thati for aiiv otlier tiiinor- ity, since each genera- tion is literally timbili- cally connected to the majority. The young arc pcrtnaneiitlv in the hands ol the other. By erecting a politics on a doctrine

oi separation and difference from the tnajorit), "( politics ironically broke off dialogue with the heterosex- ual (atnilies whose cooperation is needed in evet v gen- eration, if gay c hildreii are to he accorded a modiciun of dignity and ht)pe.

There's an argument, ofcoiirse. tliat radicalism's pol- itics is es.sentially instninicutal: that by sttetching the limits of what is acceptable it opens up space for more moderate types to negotiate; that, without Act-Up and Queer Nation, no progre.ss would have Ix'en made at all. But this both in.stilts the theoretical integrity of the radi- cal position (they surely do uoi sec tiicmsclves as mere adjtiiicts to liberals) and underestimates the scope of the gay revoltition that has been quietly taking place in

32 THI-Ni-.W REPLiBI.K- MAY 10,1993

America. Far more sithversive than media-grabbing demonstrations on the evening news has been ihe slow eilect of individtial, private .Americans becoming more oj>en about tlieir sexualitv. The emergence of role mod- els, the devciopment ol prolHsional organi/alioiis and sttident groups, the growing inlltience of opcniv gay people in the media and the extiaordinarv impact of .\II>s on families and Iriends have dwarfed radicalism s impact on the national conscioiisriess. Likewise, the greatest ptiblic debate about homosexuality yet—the rnilitary debate—took place not because radicals Ix'sieged the Pentagon, but becatisc of the ordinary and oncc-anonyinou.s Americans within the militiuy who simply reftrsed to acqitie.sce in their own htimiliation any longer. Their cotirage was illustrated not in taking to the streets in rage but in facing their lainilies and colleagties with integrity;

.\nd this pre.senLs the deepest problem for radicalism. As the closet slowly collapses, as gay people enter the riiaiustreain, as sttbtirbau liomo.scxuals and Rc|)iil)lican homosexuals emerge blinking into the daylight, as the gay ghettos of the inner cities are dihrted by the gay enclaves ofthc stiburbs, tlu' wln)Ic notion ofa separate and homogeneous "queer" identity will become harder to defend. Far liom redefining gav identity., "qtteer" rad- icalism mav a( tttally have to define itself in opposition to it. This is implicit in the ptmitive practice ol "otiting" and in the increasingly anti-gay politics of sotiie "qtieer" radicals. But if "queer" politics is to survive, it will either have to ix' proved right atK)trt Amet ica's inhertrtit hostil- ity to gay people or become more insistent in its sepa- ratism. It will have to intensify ils haired of siraights or its ccmtcnipt for ga\s. Kitlier path is likely to be- as cul- turally creative as it is politically sterile.

m.

B etween these two culttiral poles, an appealing alternative presents Itsell, Yotr can hear it in the tone if riot the substance ol tivilized columnists and embairassed legislators, who are tinited

most strongly by the desire that this awkward stihject simply go away. It is the moderate politics of homosexti- ality. Unlike tlie conservatives and radicals, the moder- ates do I)elieve tliat a small number of people are inher- entlv homosexual, btrt they also believe that another grotip is sttsc eptible to perstiasion in that direction and should ix' dissuaded. These people do not want perse- cution of homosextials, btit they do not want overt approval either. They arc- most aiitsy when it comes to qtrestionsof the edtication of children bul feel acute dis- comfort in supportiiif^ the like,s ol Patrick Btichanan and Pat Rt)lx'rtson.

Thus their iw)litics has all the nuance and all the disiri- geirtiousness of classically cotiservative politics, Ihey are tiot intolerant, but they oppose the presence of openly gay teachets in school: thev have gav friends but hope their child isn't homosexual; they arc in favor of ending the military ban but would .seek to do so either by reini- posing the closet (etiding discrimination in return for

gay people never menticming their .sexttality) or by find- ing sonic other kind of soltition, sticli as siniplv ending the witch hunts. If they sitpport sodomy laws (pour dhouragrr les fiHtre.s). they prefer to see them tuien- forced. lu cither case, they <lo not tegard the tnatter as very inipottaut. They are ambivalent about domestic [)artnership legislation btit are offended bv gay mar- riage. AlM)ve all, thev prefer that the subject ol liomo- sexttalitv be disciis.sc-cl with delicacv and rc-stiaint. and are only likely to complaiu to their gay Itieiids if they insist ttpoii "bringing tlie stibject up" tCK) often.

T his position too has a certain coherence. It insists that politics is a matter of custom as well as |)r iticiple and lhat, in the woi'ds of Ntinn, cati- tioii on the tnatter of sexuality is not so tritrch a

matter of prejudice iis of prudence. It places a premium on discouraging the sexually ambivalent fioin lesoUing their ambiguity freeK in tlieditcciiou of homo.scxuality, because, society Ix'ing a.s it is, stich a life is more oneroits than a lieterosextial one. It sometimes exchanges this argument for the more honest one: that it wishes to pro- mote procreation and the healthy rearing of ihe next generation and so wishes to create a culttual climate that promotes heterosextrality.

Btit this p>litics too has Ijeconie somewhat unstable, if not as unstable iLS the first two. And this instability stems from an internal problem and a related external one. Being privately tolerant and pnbliclv disapproving exacts something ol a psychological cost on those who maintain it. In theot y, it is not the same as hypocrisy; in practice, it comes perilously dose. As the question of homo.scxuality refuses to di.sappcar lium public debate, explicit positions have- to be taken. VVIiat once could be .shrouded in discretion now has to IH' argued in public. For thos<* who privately do not believe that homosexttal- ity is hihcieiitly evil or always chosen, it has become increasingly difficult to pretend otherwise in public. Silence is an option—and ntiniberless politicians are now availing ihcniscKcs of it—but increasinglv a deci- sion will have to be made. Are yon in favot ol Ot against allowing openly gay women and men to continue serv- ing tlieir cotintry? Do vou favor or oppose gav marriage? Do you support the idea of gviy civil rights laws? Once these qtiestions are ;tsked, the gentle ambigtiity of the moderates must he Hushed out: they have to be forced cither itiio the c<inset vativc catnp or into I'oi imilating a new politics that does not depend on a code of dis- course that is fiLst becoming defunct.

They catinot even ti-ly upc)ii their gay fiietids any- more. Wliat tiltimately .sustained this politics was the coniplicitv of the gay elites in it: their willingtiess to stay silent when a gay joke was made in their presence, their deference- lo the eiiphemisms—rooiiiinatc, friend, com- panion—that denoted their lovers, husbands and wives, tlieir support of the heterosexual iissumptions of polite societv. Now that complicity, if not v"anished. has come under strain. There are fewer and fewer J. Edgar Hoovers and Roy (^ohits, and the thottsaiids of disct-eet gay executives and Jotirnalists, busiiu'ssnien and potiti-

MAY10,1993 T H E N E W Rr-JnJBtlC 33

rians who long deferred to their sexita) betters in mat- ters ol etiqtiette. AIDS riMidercfl their balaruing act !inall\ absurd. Many [H-oplc—ĵ av and .straight—were forced to have the public cotiragr of their |)riv"at(' con- victions, fhey had to conlroiU the fact that their deli- cacy WHS a way of disguising shatnc; lhat their siletuc was a means of hiding from themselves their intolerance. I liLs \% not an easy proccwi; indeed, it can b<* a terrifying one for both gay and straight ]M*c)ple alike. Btit there conies a |M)int after which omissions lieconie cnmniis- sumy, and that point, it nt)t here yet. is coming, Wlieii it arrivc-s, the mcxieratc |>oliti( s of homns* xualiiv will bt essfiitiallvovrr.

IV.

T he politics that is the most durabic in ourctirrciii

attempt to deal with the homosexual ques- lioii is the contempo- rary liberal jx)ntics ol huinosextiality. Like the moderates, the \\\y erals airept that homosexuality exists, that it is invohmtarv for a proportion of society, that for a lew more it is an option ;md that it need not he (lisct)Ui-aged. View- ing the issue primaiilv through the prism of ihr civil rights move- ment, the liljerals se*-k to extend to homosex- uals the same protec- tions they have frranted to othci minorities. The priinc instrtrrrient for this is thr reprlation of pri- vate acti\ities by hct-

utts, primarily in employment and hotising, tii non-disciiniitiation aĵ ainst hornn.sextials.

Somctiines this strategy Is echoed in the rlicioric of i'ldwarfi Kennedy, who, in the bearings on the military gay ban, linked the gay right.s agenda with the work of such disparate cliarat tcis .rs |c)hn Kennedy, (iesar Ch»ve/ and Martin l.uther King Jr. In other plar.es, ii is reflected in tlie fact that sexual orientation is simply added to ihe end nl a list ol minority conditions, hi for- intilaic civil right.s legislation, .^nd this stnitegy makes a certain stMise, Homosexuals arc clearly subject to private clisnimination in the same way as many other luincni- ties; and linking ilic causes helps defuse some ol the tnitima tliat the subject of homcxsexuality raise.s.

II t I SI RAI ll> l O M f K » > I '

ism properK' restricts itsetf to law—nol culture—in addressing social problems; and bv tiestiibiug all homo- sexuals as a innniilithic minority. It is able to avoid the complexities of the gay world as a whole, just as blanket civil rights k'gislatM)n draws a veil nver the varieties of black Amcrii a hy c asting the qtiestion eiilireiy ill terms of non-black attitudes.

But this strategy is based on two assumptions: that sexualitv is e(|tiiva]ent to race in terms of discrimina- tion, and that the Itrll equality oi hiiinoscxuals can be accomplished by designating gay people a.s victims. Both .irc cxticniclv dubious. And the consequence of

tliese erTors is to mis- taigt?i the good that liberals are trving to do.

(ionsider the first. Ivvo truths <at least) [>roloundly alter the \ av the priKes.*! of dis- < rimination take,s place against homo- sexuals and against racial miiioritic-.H and distinguish the ha- lor V of lac ial discrimi- nation in this country from the histori.' of honuiphobia. Race is alwavs visible: sexital- ity can be hidden. Knee is in no way behavioral; sexuality, ihoiigh distinct from sexual activitv, is pro- liiundly linked to a scitleti pattern of l>ehrtvior.

For lesbians apid ..i\ mm, the option

<i\ scll^ ontealment has always existed and still exist.s, an option that means that in a piofoiiiifl way, dis- c riinination against

them is linked ri» iheir own involvement, even acquies- cence. Unlike blacks three decafles ;rgf), gay men and lesbians suffer no di.sceniib]e coninrunal ec:onomic deprivniion and already operate at ihc highest levels pf society: in boardrooms, govet nmctits. ihc media, the rnilitary. the law and indtistry, 1 hcv may have advanced so far Ix'caiLW they have not disclosed iheir sexuality, bul their .sextialitv as stich ha.s not heeii an immediate cause for their di*;;iclv-aiitage. In many cases, their sexuality is known, hilt it is (lisclo.sed at strcli a caieltillv calibrated level that it never actualhvvorks against them. At lower levels ol society, the .same pattern ((intitiue.s. A.s in the niiliraiy, gay people are not uniformly discriminated against; openly ̂ ay people are.

K I R I U I M « H I •• I' It I 11

34 Till Nl̂ W REPlIBUr HAY 10.1»M

Moreover, unlike blacks or other racial minorities, gay people are not subject to inherited patterns of discrimi- nation. When generation after generation is discrimi- nated against, a cumulative effect of deprivation may take place, where the gradual immiseration of a particu- lar ethnic group may intensify with the years. A cliild born into a family subject to decades of accumulated poverty is clearly affected by a past history of discrimina- tion in term.s of hi.s or her race. But homosexuality' occurs randomly anew with every generation. No socio- logical pattern can be deduced from it. Each generation gets a completely fresh start in terms of the socioeco- nomic conditions inherited from the family unit.

T his is not to say that the psychological toll ot homosexuality is less problematic tiian that of race, hut that it is different: in .some ways better; in others, worse. Because the stigma is geared

toward behavior, the level of shame and collapse of self- esteem may hv more intractable. To rcacli ptiberty and fmd oneself falling in love with members ot one's own sex is to experience a mixture of self-discovery and self- disgust that never leaves a human consciousne.ss. If the stigma is attached not simply to an ohviously rimdom characteristic, such as skin pigmentation, but to the deepest desires of the htiman heart, ihen it can eat away at a person's sense of liis own dignit\ with [)eculiar feroc- ity. XVTien a young person confronts her sexuality, she is also completely alone. A young heterosexual black or Latino girl invariably has an existing network of people like her to interpret, support and explain the emotions she feels when confronting racial prejudice tor the first time. BtU a gay child generally has no one. The very people she would most naturally turn to—the taniily— may be the very people she is most ashamed in tront of.

The stigma attached to sexuality is also ditlerent than that attached to race because it attacks lhe \vw heart of what makes a human being human; her ability to love and be loved. Even the most wcious persecution of racial minorities allowed, in many cases, for the integrity' of the marital Ijond or the emotional core of a human being. When it did not, when Nazism split husbands from wives, children from parents, when apartheid or slavery broke up familial bonds, it was clear that a par- ticularly noxious form of repression was taking place. But the stigma attached to homosexuality Itegins with such a repression. It forbids, at a child's earliest stage of development, the possibility of the lnghesi tbrm ot human happiness. It starts wilh emotional terror and ends with mild social disapproval. It's no accident that, later in life, when many gay people learn to reconnect the bonds of love and sex. they seek to do so iu pri\ate. even protected from the knowledge of their family.

This unique combination of superficial privilege, acquiescence in repression and psychological pain is a hitman mix n(j politics can easily tackle. But it is the mix liberalism musi address it it is to reach its goal of using politics to ease human suffering. The internal inconsis- tency of this politics is that by relying on the regulation of private activit), it nus.ses this its essential target—and

may even make matters worse. In theory, a human rights statute sounds like an ideal solution, a way for straight.s to express theii" concern and homosexuals to legitimate their identit\'. But in practice, it misses the point. It might grant workers a greater sense of security were they to come out in the office; and it might, by the publicity it generates, allow tor greater tolerance anci approval of homosextiality generally. But the real terror of coming oiU is deeper than economic security, and is not resolved bv it; it is related to emotional and interper- sonal dignity. However effective or comprehensive anti- discrimination laws are, they cannot reach far enough to tackle this issue; il is one that can only be addressed per- son by petson, liie by life, heart hy heart.

For these reasons, such legislation rarely touches the people most in need of it: those who live in communities where disapproval of homosexuality is so intense that the real obstacles to advancement remain impervious to legal remedy. And even in major urban areas, it can be largely irrelevant. (On average some 1 to 2 percent of anti-discrimination cases iiave to do with sexual orienta- tion; in Wisconsin, which has had such a law in force for more than a decade and is the largest case study, the fig- ure is I.I perceni.) .\s with other civil rights legislation, those least in need of it may take fullest advantage: the most litigious and artictilate homosexuals, who would likelv brave the liarsh win<ls of homophobia in any case.

A nti-discrimination laws scratch lhe privileged surface, while avoiding the problematic tleptlis. Like too many drugs for .\IDS. thev treat the symptoms of the homosexual problem without

being anything like a cure; they may btiy some time, and it is a Cl uel doctor who. in the face of luiman need, would rettise them. But tlicy iiave abotu as much chance of tackling the deep roots of the gay-straight relation- ship as .\ZT has ot curing .MD.s. They want to substitute for the traumatic and difficuU act of coming out the more formal and procedural act of legislation. But law cannot do the work of lite. Even culture cannot do tht* work of life. Only life can do tho work of life.

As the experience in Colorado and elsewhere shows, this strateg)' of using law to change prix-ate behavior also gives a fatal opening lo the conservative politics of liomosexualit\. (̂ ivil rights laws essentially dictate the behavior of heterosexuals, in curtailing their abilitx- to discriminate. They can, wilh justification, be portrayed as being an infringement of individual liberties. If the purpose o( the liberal politics is to ensiue the equalit) of liomosexuals and their integration into society, it has thus achieved something quite peculiar. It has provided fuel for those who want to argue that homosexuals are acttially seeking the intringement of heterosexuals' rights and the imposition of their ^^lues onto others. Much of this is propaganda, of course, and is fueled by fear and higotry. But it works because it contains a germ of truth. Before most homosexuals have even come out of the closet, they are demanding concessions from the majority, iticluding a cleai" c iirtailment of economic and sticial liberties, in order lo ensure protections few of

MAY 10, 1993 T i l l ' NEW RtiPtiHUC; 35

them will even avail themselves of. It is no wonder there is opposiiion, oi" that it seems to be growing. Nine states now have propositions to respond to what they see as the "special rights" onslaught.

In the proces.s, the lihcral politics of homosexuality lias also refranied tlie jjosition of gays in relation to straights. It has defined them in a permanent suppli- cant stattis, seeing gay freedom as dependent on straight enlightenment, achievable only hy changing the beha\'ior of heterosexuals. The valuable political insight of radicalism is that this is a fatal step. It could enshrine forever the notion that gay people are a \iil- nerable group in need of protection. By legislating homosexuals as victims, it sets up a psychological dynamic of supplication that too often only perpetuates cycles of inadeqtiacy and self-<iouht. Like blacks before them, gay people may grasp at what seems to be an escape from the prison of self-hatied, only to find it is anotlier prison of patronized victimolog). By seeking salvation in the hands of others, they may actually entrench in law and in llieir minds the notion that their equality is dependent on the goodwill of their betters. I( isn't. This may have made a good deal of sense in the case of .\inerican blacks, wiih a clear and overwhelming history of accumulated discrimination and a social ghetto that seemed impos,sible lo breach, Bnt for gay people—already prosperous, independent and on tlie brink of real integration—that lesson should surely now be learned. To place our self-esteem in the benevolent hands of contemporary liberalism is more tlian a mis- take. It is a historic error.

V.

I f tliere were no alternative lo today's liberal politics of Iiomosexuality, it should perhaps be embraced by default. But there is an alternative politics that is imaginable, which once too was called liberal. It

begin.s with tlie view that for a small minority of people, homoscxualit)' is an involuntary condition tliat can nei- ther be denied nor permanently repressed. It adheres to an understanding thai there is a limit to what politics can achieve in such an area, and trains its focus not on the behavior of private heterosexual citizens but on the actions of the public and allegedly neutral state. Wliile it eschews the use of law lo legislate culture, i( strongly believes ihat law can affect culture indirectly, Its goal would be full civil equalit)' for those who, through no fault of their own, happen to be homosexual; and would nol deny homosexuals, as the other foui" politics do, tlieir existence, integrity, dignit\ or distinctness. It would attempt neither to patronize nor to exclude.

This liberal polilics affirms a simple and limited crite- rion: ihat all puhlic (as opposed to private) discrimina- tion against homosexuals be ended and that every right and responsibility that heterosexuals enjoy by virtue of the state be extended to those who grow up different. And that is all. No cures or re-educations; no wrenching civil liligation; no political imposition of tolerance; merely a political attempt to enshrine formal civil equal-

ity, in the hope that eventtially, the priv-ate sphere will reflect this pviblic cinlitv'. For these reasons, it is the only politics that actually tackles lhe core political problem of homosexuality and perhaps the only one tliat fully respecLs liberalism's public-private distinction. For these reasons, it has also the least chance of being adopted by gays and straights alike.

B ut is it impossible? By sheer circumstance, this politics has just been given its biggest boost since Lhe heginning of the debate over the honio.sexual question. The military ban is by far

the most egregiotis example of proactive government discrimination in this country. By conceding, as the mil- itary has done, the excellent service that many gay and lesbian soldiers have given to their country, the military has helped shatter a thousand stereotypes abotu their nature and competence. By focusing on the mere admission of homosexuality, the ban has purified the debate into a matter of the public enforcement of homophobia. Unlike anti-discrimination law, tlie cam- paign against t!ie ban does not ask any private citizens to hire or fire anyone of whom they do not approve; it merely asks public servants to behave the same way with avowed homosexuals as with closeted ones.

Because of its timing, because of the way in which it has intersected with the coming of age of gay politics, the military debate has a chance of transforming the issue for good. Its real political power—and the real source of the resistance to it—comes from its symbol- ism. The acceptance of gay people at the heart of the state, at the core of Uie notion of palriotisni, is anath- ema to those who wish to consign homosexuals to the margins of society. It offends conservati\es by the sim- plicity of ils demands, and radicals by the iiaditionalism of the gay people involved; it dismays moderates, who are forced ptibUcly to disctiss tliis issue for the first time; and it disorients liberals, wbo find il hard to fit the cause simply into the rubric of minority politics. For instead of seeking access, as other minorities have done, gays in the military are simply demanding lecognition. They.stai't nol from the premise of suppliance, but of .success, of proven abilit)' and prowe.ss in batile, of exem- plary conduct and ability. This is a new kiiui of minority politics. It is less a matter of complaini ihan of pride; less about subversion than abotit ihe desire to con- tribute equally.

The military ban also forces otir .society to deal with the real issues at stake in dealing with homosexuals. The country has been forced to discuss sleeping arrange- ments, fears of sexual intimidation, tlie fraught emo- tional relations between gays and straights, the violent reaction to homosexuality among many young males, the hypocrisy involved in nuich condemnation of gays and the pos.sible psychological and emotional syn- dromes that make homosexuals allegedly unfil for ser- nce. IJke a family engaged in the first, angry steps toward dealing with a gay member, the coimti y has been forced to debate a subject honestly—even calmly—in a way it never has before. This is a clear antl enormous

36 T H E Nl-'W REPUBLIC MAY 10. 1993

gain. UTiatever the result of this process, it cannot be undone.

But lhe critical measure necessai y for lull gay ecjualit)' is something deeper and more emotional perhaps ihan even the military. It is equal access lo marriage. A.s with the niilitary. this is a question of formal public discrimi- nation. If the military ban deals with tlie heart of what it is to be a citizen, the marriage ban deals with the core of what it is to be a member of ci\il society. Marriage is not simply a private contract; it is a .social and public tec<)g- nition of a prix'ate commitjnent. As such it is the highest puhlic recognition of our personal integrity'. Denying it to gay people is the most public affront possible lo their civil equalit)'.

T his issue may be the hardest for many heterosex- uals to accepi. Kven those tolenint of homosexu- als may find ihis instittuion so wedded t() the notion of heterosexual <-ommitment that lo

extend It w(}uld be to undo its very essence. And there may be religious i easons for resisting this that i e(|uirf Iar greater discussion ihan I can give them here. But civilly and emotionally, the case is compelling. The heterosexu- ality of marriage isci\nllyinirinsiconly if it is understood to IKT inherently procrealive; and thai definition has long been abandoned In civil society. In conteinporaiy Amer- ica, marriage has hecmiie a way in whit h lhe state recog- nizes an emotional and economic commitment of two people to each other for life. \ o law requires children to consummate it. .\nd within that definition, there is no civil way ii can logically l>e denied hoinosextials. except as a ptire gesture of public disapproval. (I leave aside here the thornv isstie of adoption rights, which I stipport in full. They arc not the same as the right lo marriage and can be legislated, or not, separately.)

In the same way, emotionally, marriage is character- ized by a kind of commitment that is rare even among heterosexitals. Extending it to homosexuals need not dilute the special nature of ihat commitment, unless it is imdersiood that gay people, bv iheir verv nattire, are incapable of it. History and experience suggest the opposite. It is not necessary to prove that gay peo- ple are more or less able to form long-ierm relation- ships than .straight-s for it to be clear that, at least, some aie. Giving these people a riglu to iiffirm their conunit- ment doesn't reduce the incentive (or heterosextials to do the same, and even pro\ides a social incentive ibr le.sbians and gay nieti to adi>pt socially beneficial rela- tionships.

But for gay people, it would mean far more than sim- ple civil eqtialliv. The vast inajf)ritv of us—gay and straight—are brought up to imdersiand that the apex of emotional life is found in the marital bond. It may not be something we achieve, or even ultimately desire, but its very existence premises the core of our emotional development. It is lhe architectonic institution thai frames our emotional life. The marriages of others arc a moment for celebration and sell-airirmation; the\ are the way in which our families and friends reinforce us its human beings. Our parent^ consider our emotional

lives lo be more important than our professional ones, becatise they care aliout tis at our core, not at otir periphery. And it is not hard to see why lhe marriage of an offspring is often regarded as the high point of any parent s life.

(iav people always know this essential afiirmation will be denied them. Thus their relationships are given no anchor, no endpoint, no way of integrating them ftilly into the network of family and friends that makes some- one a lull member of civil society. EVCTI when those rela- tionships become essentially the same—or even stronger—than straight relationships, thev are never accorded the dignity oi actual equality. Husbands remain "friends"; wives remain "partners." The very language sends a powerful signal of fattlt, a silent assumption of intetnal disorder or in.sufficiency. The euphemisms—and the brave attempt to pretend that gay people don t need marriage—do not successfully conceal the true emotional cost and psychological flam- age that this signal exacts. No trtie progress in the potential happiness of gay teenagers or in the stability of gay adults or in the full integration of gay and straight life is possible, or even imaginable, without it.

T hese two measures—simple, direct, requiring no cliange in heterosextial behavior and no sacri- fice from heterosexuals—repre.sent a politics ihat tackles the heart of homophobia while leav-

ing homophobes their freedom. It allows homosexuals to define their own future and their own identity and does not place it in lhe hands of the olher. Il makes a clear, public statement of eqtiality, while leaving all the inequal- ities of emotion and pa.ssion to tlie private sphere, where they belong. It does not legislate private tolerance, it declares pubhc equality. It banishes the paradigm of vic- Umolog)- and replaces it wilh one of integrity. It reqtiires one further step, of cotirse, which is to say the continuing effort ibr honesty on the part of homosexuals them- selves. This is not easily sutntned up in the crude phrase "coming out": hiu it fitids expression in the nuTiad ways in which gay men and lesbians talk, engage, explain, con- front and seek out lhe olher. Polilics cannot substitute for this; heterosextials cannot provide it. And, while it is not in some sense fair tliat homosexuals have to initiate the dialogue, it is a fact of life. Silence, if il does not equal death, equals the li\-ing equivalent.

It is not the least of the iionies of ihis politics thai its objectives are in some sense not political at ail. The fam- ily is prior to the liberal state; tlie tniliiary is coincident with it. Heterosexuals would not conceive of such rights as ihings lo be won, but as things that predate modern political discussion. But il says something about the unique status of homosexuals in otir society that we now have to be jxilitical in order to be prepolitical. Our bat- tle is not for political victory but for peisonal integrity. just as many of us had to leave our families in order to join them again, so now as citizens, we have to embrace poiilics, if only ultimately to l>e free of ii. Our lives may liave begun in siiiiplicitv. but the\ have tiot ended ihere. Otir dream, perhaps, is that they might. •

MAY 10.1993 TIIH NEW REPUBLIC 37