“An issue like gay marriage just keeps homophobia alive.”
Gore Vidal does it again! Nightcharm’s favorite aristocrat of belle lettres explains it all one more time for anyone who came in late.
Speaking to Marc Cooper of the premiere liberal magazine The Nation this month, Vidal says he’s no advocate for gay marriage. “No,” asserts Vidal. “I know to what purposes that issue is put. You get an issue, like gay marriage, which doesn’t concern 99.9 percent of the population, and you go on and on and on about it. Proving that the Democrats are all crazy, if not all queer.“
The answer was prompted by a more general question about homophobia itself. Interviewer Cooper somehow imagined that things were getting better for us homos in these last couple of fun-filled Bush years. Queer Eye for the Straight Guy and all that.
Vidal — at 80 still the freshest of fresh-faced contrarians — set him … dead … straight:
“Talk to anybody in the military and it’s just as bad as when I spent three years in the Army during World War II and those suspected of same-sex activities were section-eighted out or locked up. It was bad then, and it’s bad now.”
As far as the issue of gay marriage being one, as Cooper maintains, which can now be openly discussed ” in polite society” — well, we can only imagine the expression on Vidal’s face. Ice-cold contempt is our first shy guess.
“I don’t know that it much matters as a theme,” he replied in what we suspect was a sort of exasperated mumble, bottom-lining it finally a bit later in the interview with the killer clarity he is famous for: “An issue like gay marriage just keeps homophobia alive.”
Yes? No? Discuss, Nightcharmers, discuss!
I think Vidal is entitled to some credibility. His work is significant and his insights often worth considering because they’re unvarnished and have a way of cutting past the bullshit and focusing in on the core of the matter.
But Vidal’s life has been played out in a considerably different arena than that of the average gay man or lesbian in the States - as much for the fact that he’s a privileged expatriate who lives in Italy as for the fact that he’s 80 and I believe, childless. He probably doesn’t need or want the benefits that come from being married. So for a lot of different reasons, well beyond the couple I’ve mentioned, I think he’s observing same-sex marriage from a very different vantage point than many of us are.
The fact that same-sex marriage doesn’t concern 99.9% of the population doesn’t make it OK to dismiss the civil rights of the remaining fraction that it does concern. To make such a comment brings an element of elitism to Vidal’s opinion that I believe disqualifies him from being a legitimate voice in this conversation.
A brilliant mind isn’t always indicative of a caring soul.
It’s possible that at 80 Vidal has simply lost the stomach for the fight and fallen back into the comfort of his cynicism. No worries - there are plenty of us out here of all ages, willing and able to pick up his slack and work hard for what we believe in.
Indeed, so-called gay marriage was a non-starter from the get-go. Far from a blanket protection for the “family” it has always served the singular purpose of legitimizing a plethora of religious contracts. Since these contracts are very personal to straight people, (as they should be), we gave the right a perfect social nerve to manipulate. The result is that our misguided obsession to mirror traditional straight relationships succeeded in pushing Bush back into the White House.
If we had started our end of this argument offering the idea that government should not be in the business of marriage at all, but in the business of protecting people’s partnerships, we might well have found some allies on the right. As my boyfriend and I have argued over and over, leave marriage in the church and let government offer and protect appropriate partnerships — straight or gay.
Whatever sort of a link is there between marriage and “caring souls”? What is the obsession with equating marriage and love?
Marriage is nothing more than a economic arrangement. If one needs to validate one’s relationship with the stamp of approval of ‘normal’ society, then so be it. But I want no part of it.
The moment ‘we’ stop holding ourselves to ‘their’ standards is the moment when gay and lesbian people can finally take ownership of their own identities. I have to agree with Vidal and Kz on this one.
I hold myself to the standard of being equal to everyone else in this country. And in being equal I want equal access to the rights, benefits and privileges afforded those who are allowed to marry. While others may be content with second class status, I’m not.
I’m a father and I believe my daughter has a right to the same protections and benefits that my sibling’s children have. Vidal’s comments are dismissive and certainly don’t take into consideration that some of us gay men and women have more at stake than he does in this matter.
A caring soul would be concerned with the welfare of anybody’s son or daughter vis-a-vis their parent’s ability to provide certain benefits and protections to them that are available only through marriage.
Love is not my issue. Equal access to the benefits of marriage is. If two atheists who don’t love each other can marry, and they can, then certainly two gay men or two lesbians should be able to marry each other.
I agree that Gore Vidal deserves respect for his intellectual insights and willingness to speak without regard for consequence. In this case, though, I’d have to disagree with his basic premise, albeit primarily on semantics.
Since “marriage” is, at least in this country, the only form of union legally recognized by the federal government, not having access to it is costly to gay families. A purely economic argument? Yes, but if the government is in the business of rewarding hetero couples for joining together, why should we be excluded?
In an ideal world, relationships would be recognized on two levels: the government-sanctioned one and (if the couple so desires) a religious/spiritual one. The level we are fighting for is the government-sanctioned one; call it what you will, but I’m tired of not being eligible for the same rights as my straight siblings.
Seattle’s THE STRANGER sums it up best, in this feature:
http://tinyurl.com/83jzy
The articles most salient points:
• One of the main protections that come with marriage is the word marriage, and the security, clarity, and dignity it brings to families. To be denied the vocabulary of marriage and its meaningful, resonant, and readily understood statement of love and commitment—and instead, have to fumble for 10 documents, explain a new term that doesn’t even have a verb, and, possibly, retain a lawyer just to protect your family in a time of crisis—is not fair and not equal.
• Civil union is good, but limited, and does not provide the full range of protection for families. There is only one system in our country that protects families no matter where they live or travel; it’s called marriage. Civil union does not provide the 1,138 federal incidents of marriage, from social security to immigration to tax equity, or assure families that their legal relationship will be respected outside their home state.
• Civil union is a product of the work to win marriage itself; we don’t get even civil union by asking for civil union. Support for civil union represents a placeholder in people’s thinking as they grapple with the need to end discrimination against gay people, same-sex couples, and our kids. Running away from a discussion of how the denial of marriage harms families undercuts the reachable middle’s ability to rise to fairness.
• The opponents of equality are against civil union as well as marriage, as shown by the anti-gay amendments being pushed state by state and in Congress by right-wing groups. These attack measures would deny the freedom to marry, but also civil union, domestic partnership, and any other bit of protection, large or small. Separate and unequal “compromises” satisfy no one, and legislators who capitulate on questions of fundamental fairness and basic rights buy no one off, gain no peace, spare the state no debate, avoid no primary challenges, but rather just fall short on all sides. If we are going to have to fight anyway, why not fight for what we fully deserve? In fact, authenticity and leadership actually help politicians guide the public to the right result. Consider: In Vermont, where legislators created civil union rather than ending marriage discrimination, a right-wing firestorm followed anyway, with hateful attack ads across the state, primary challenges, and electoral turbulence. By contrast, in Massachusetts, every single legislator who supported marriage equality won reelection, and some of the loudest opponents were defeated, because the public had a chance to see leadership, hear the case, and, most importantly, see with their own eyes that when same-sex couples married, they didn’t use up the marriage licenses and the sky didn’t fall.
Thanks for the great artworks