CB: You see that in every battle, from the state initiatives to
the national issues. The military debate is probably the most obvious
example -- gay political groups and affiliated activists failed to do
their research and consequently came in with totally unrealistic
expectations of what the military wanted or would be willing to do.
They never sat down and asked themselves if this was the right
battle to take on at that moment, never considered that they were
pinning their hopes on a president whose relationship with the
military was shaky at best.
JG: That's happened in other battles as well. In the conflicts
over state initiatives and referenda, activists just assumed no
reasonable person would vote for an anti-gay measure, and then
they found out that a lot of people would, in fact, vote for them--and
that the Religious Right had organized significant numbers of those
people.
I think many gay men and lesbians think we're much further along
as a nation on gay rights than we really are. If you look at the polls,
it's only in the last few years that a majority of Americans have
come to think that gays and lesbians should not be fired from their
workplaces. That's a very rudimentary concept, but one that people
have only come around to in the 1990s.
RH: At the same time, many gay men and lesbians adopt the
position that homosexuality has a biological origin simply to avoid
debating religious conservatives on the issues of choice and morality.
JG: I think that the biology debate is a dangerous trap to fall
into. Although it's an interesting issue, the basic problem isn't why
people are gay and lesbian. People ARE gay and lesbian -- and the
problem is one of equality and protection from discrimination.
CB: There's a part of the religious conservative movement that
would just as soon see gay and lesbian people disappear from the
face of the earth. I think that the biological argument plays into that,
as well as the idea that gay people can be cured. The Religious Right
needs to come to grips with the fact that the gay community has
always existed and will always exist, to see that community as a
legitimate player in the political debate. They don't have to agree
with everything that gay people stand for . . .
JG: . . . or even like gays particularly . . .
CB: . . . but they have to at least respect their existence.
RH: The Religious Right seems to believe that societal stability can
only come about if dissent from their position is absent from the
political dialogue, if they have a virtual theocracy.
JG: I think they have a more subtle understanding of the
government they want. It's pluralistic, in that it's not linked to any
particular sect or denomination. They don't want the church to run
the state, but they feel that the state is founded on principles that
are largely religious, and therefore they see nothing wrong with
bringing religious beliefs to bear on public debate.
CB: There's also a huge divergence within what we're calling
the "Religious Right," an appellation which is in itself somewhat
unfair. It includes anyone from R. J. Rushdoony, who calls for the
death penalty for practicing homosexuals, to Tony Campolo, who has
unblemished conservative evangelical credentials yet believes that
gays should be allowed to serve in the military. Gay groups fall into a
trap when they treat the opposition as a monolith.
RH: Gay activists sometimes make the mistake of treating their
own cause as monolithic as well, in an attempt to present a squeaky-
clean, less problematic image to the public.
JG: In Oregon and Colorado especially, there was a real "good
gay/bad gay" strategy. Some people dressed neatly, looked very
mainstream, and presented very . . . palatable images for the public.
So they're "good gays" -- nothing about how they look or what they
do can be used against the community in any way. And then there
are others, most notably the leather community, who are "bad gays"
because they are further out there in their dress and its sexual
connotations. Yet the leather community has done yeoman's service
in response to the AIDS crisis; they go home at night, they take off
their chaps, and they pay their taxes and do their jobs and make
valuable contributions to the community. But there's a real tendency
for the gay community to eat its own and get bogged down with
infighting instead of keeping an eye on the larger goals.
CB: They also play directly into the Religious Right's strategy,
which is to try to demonize the entire gay community by singling out
a few. Some gay conservatives have a tendency to simply adopt the
religious conservative ideology to a gay perspective; instead of
saying the entire gay community is immoral, they decide that the
leathermen are immoral, or the drag queens are giving us all a bad
name.
JG: It's a silly debate, because if the leathermen and drag
queens were somehow eliminated, it's not as though the
conservatives would say, "Oh, you're right! You're all very nice
people!" The Religious Right is always going to find something wrong
with homosexuals, and it's ridiculous to try to find scapegoats within
the community.
RH: As the book shows, even when members of the Right are
confronted by gay men and lesbians within their family, they don't
have a full conversion on the issue.
CB: It's not a simple phenomenon, however. Some on the Right
have clearly moderated their views on the basis of a gay family
member. Barry Goldwater seemed to be heading in that direction
already, but the knowledge that he had a gay grandson may have
made him a more forceful advocate for gay rights than he would
have been. Phyllis Schlafly still holds the same basic positions, but
her son's coming out has caused her to tone down the rhetoric in her
remarks. Newt Gingrich is a tricky case, too, in that he's still adhering
to the same positions he always has, but at the same time seems
more informed about these issues since he's been forced to
acknowledge that he has a lesbian
sister. I think that all these families can serve as a microcosm for
the nation. Once you get to know gay people, once you understand
them as having a legitimate place in your community, you might still
adhere to your anti-gay beliefs, but you have to tone down your
rhetoric and your actions and accept gay people as they are.
RH: What's been the reaction to the book in the gay and lesbian
community?
JG: So far, from the rank and file at least, we've gotten a very
nice response. People seem tired with the way things have been
going, and they are looking for a way to move forward, to frame this
debate in a positive way.
CB: It definitely seems like there's more of a diversity of
voices within the movement today than, say, a decade ago, and it
may be that the movement has matured to a point that it's not so
vulnerable to criticism and can incorporate self-correcting behaviors.
I hope so -- because, as the book shows, one of the gay and lesbian
movement's worst problems has been learning from its mistakes.
