The Nation on right-wing gay pundits and activists such as Andrew Sullivan, Norah Vincent, Rich Tafel, etc. (Spoiler Alert: The Nation doesn't like them):

Fighting the Gay Right

I'll read the article in a minute -- I just had to laugh that an article criticizing the "gay right" in The Nation has at the top of the page an advertisement for a book by Gore Vidal -- as conservative a gay (a strong believer in U.S. as a Federal Republic) as one finds! Or is he liberal ... or libertarian ... or ... ??? Andrew Sullivan calls for gay marriage and he's conservative? ... Pim Fortyne defended his nation's stance on gay rights (not to mention liberal drug laws) and receives the same label? ... I guess I'm confused.

[ June 19, 2002: Message edited by: DCBucky ]

[quote]Originally posted by DCBucky:
Gore Vidal -- as conservative a gay (a strong believer in U.S. as a Federal Republic) as one finds!

---

Uh, yes you are confused. I don't think perusing any of that book's content would lead anyone to label Vidal as "conservative" in the modern sense.

Thanks William, I was just about to post that link...

I read the article already (I'm a subscriber to The Nation). I had criticisms of certain parts of it, but overall I thought the author's analysis was on target. I was never precisely sure what he means in his use of the word "liberal": he seems to go back-and-forth between a leftist and a rightist use of the word. I think Goldstein accurate in describing our condition in contemporary American society as somewhere between freedom and oppression, depending on where one lives. He was also correct, I believe, in assessing the consequences for the gay movement of a schism on gender lines, which seems to be what Andrew Sullivan wants, or of abandoning the fight for anti-discrimination laws.
I understood especially what he says in the first three paragraphs of section 3 in the on-line article, because it's an issue that we all must confront. That is the section regarding middle-class, ambitious gay males who would, basically, "pass for normal", essentially putting career and material comfort ahead of concern for gay rights and social change, & heap criticism on the rest of us queers who are unable or unwilling to accept the terms.
By "terms" I think most of us probably know what I'm talking about: "virtual equality", a modicum of acceptance & upward mobility as an out gay person--though nothing approaching legal protections or equal legal status--in exchange for conformity to heterosexist norms, "keeping it to ourselves", rejecting notions of gay exceptionalism or uniqueness or even of "gay culture".
I am interested in hearing others' analysis or rebuttal of this.

[quote]Originally posted by Billy:
I I was never precisely sure what he means in his use of the word "liberal".

---

That is the source of my confusion too -- and the article's a meaningless exercise in categorizing. Look at Pim Fortyn's stance on immigration and compare it to [qranted it's not in the article] "gay liberal" Vidal's quote "I think the Roman Catholic arrivals here have not been -- how shall I put this tactfully -- a great addition to our Republic." Or is this statement liberal or conservative (once again Vidal): "A government does not exist to control the citizens. When it does, it is a tyranny, and must be fought." I guess if it's about guns -- it's conservative -- in this case it's about abortion ...

"The many variations that don't fit this mold--bull dykes, sissies, trannies and fairies, to name just a few queer types--are an embarrassment to the gay right. And so are queers, proudly known as "sluts," who don't conform to the monogamous model."

(excerpt fron the article)

speaking as a conservative (or am I now a "homocon"?), I find this to be the same old dried up piece of stereotype and conservative-bashing that I hear time and time again from the majority of the gay world.

Why is it that he can note the diversity in the gay-left (no longer a redundant term) while the gay right is always painted as a monolithc gay moral majority?

Time and time again, I see the same tactics we ascrive to Falwell and Helms being employed by gay leaders of the left to eat what is essentially, their own young.

"Homocons are as vicious as any chauvinist when it comes to bashing gender traitors, including the usual suspects:faggots" (excerpt)

please spare me. fascism of the left still smells the same. If we don't agree to every talking point, then we are branded as traitors to our sexual identity? Come on. let's grow up.

I have friends who are self described "sluts". Did I call them that? no. That's what they choose to say when they say, "ok. I'm a ho." I have a friend who is a drug dealer.

"You can't really be a queer humanist and a homocon." (excerpt)

Not sure who the author is.... but as someone who discussed queer politics over dinner with Tony Kushner and Tim Miller (not a "fund raiser" dinner with a crowd attendant either. a private dinner) and marched in a gay rights rally with Tim calling ourselves "Divas for Fairness" I will ask this (to me) unknown author to re-examine the assertion that conservatism is mutually exclusive of queer humanism.

[quote]Originally posted by Billy:
I understood especially what he says in the first three paragraphs of section 3 in the on-line article, because it's an issue that we all must confront. That is the section regarding middle-class, ambitious gay males who would, basically, "pass for normal", essentially putting career and material comfort ahead of concern for gay rights and social change, & heap criticism on the rest of us queers who are unable or unwilling to accept the terms.
By "terms" I think most of us probably know what I'm talking about: "virtual equality", a modicum of acceptance & upward mobility as an out gay person--though nothing approaching legal protections or equal legal status--in exchange for conformity to heterosexist norms, "keeping it to ourselves", rejecting notions of gay exceptionalism or uniqueness or even of "gay culture".
I am interested in hearing others' analysis or rebuttal of this.

---

OK, Billy, I'll bite, and even before I've had a chance to read the article, which I will do later. Putting "the choice" in such black and white terms is a gross error; it's not an either/or situation and there are a lot of us who break out of that mold. In my own case, I don't wear my homosexuality on my sleeve and you'll never see me marching in a pay pride parade. The only columns I march in are found in the volumes of the case reporters, where the several gay rights cases I've handled are printed. On the other hand, I don't hide my sexuality, my friends and colleagues all know where I'm coming from and when it's relevant or should be known to strangers, as in my current political race and in applications for other public office, I make it known.

In retrospect, there have been several occasions when this might not have been the best thing to do and I've paid the price for it. I came out to a prominent local - and extremely closeted, although everyone knew what his story was - judge several years ago when seeking a letter of recommendation from him. Although we had been quite friendly to that point, he ran away like I had the plague and never spoke to me again. So much for passing to make the grade in my particular case. So much also for the "support" given me by members of the local gay "community," who consistently drone on about a "duty" to come out, but were nowhere to be seen when it came to offering counseling on how to do so or condolences for the consequences. Conclusion? Make up your own mind and do what suits you best without being a hypocrite or harming anyone.

I also take exception to the characterization of "passers" as "middle-class, ambitious [white?] gay males." These types run the spectrum and my own personal experience is that they tend to be upper class types, as well as some social climbing bounders. Ambition crosses all lines.

Finally, what's wrong about constructive criticism of aspects of our "community" that deserve it? True, there's more than a hint of hypocrisy in criticizing from behind the closet door, but what about those of us who are out, see problems and take others to task for their role in causing or perpetuating them? I don't see anything wrong with that and I think it's a healthy exercise of our I Amdt. rights - particularly when it's directed against self-anoited "community leaders" who don't know a whit of what they're talking about!

I consider myself left of center. I think socialist political thought has a lot to offer in a society dangerously flirting with the worst capitalism has to offer. I firmly believe the proper way to deal with drugs, gambling and prostitution is to legalize, regulate and tax. I am pro choice not because I don't think abortion is wrong, but specifically because I think abortion is wrong for religious reasons, and I don't feel comfortable imposing my religious beliefs on others in our pluralistic society. And being an Observant Jew, refuse to have others religiuos beliefs imposed on me. All this to say that if I understand the current political map in the United States, I should agree with every word written in the New Republic. As you might have guessed, I don't.
This particular piece is one of the worst written and concieved political articles I've read. Initially I was offended by the misuse and out of context quoting of Andrew Sullivan, a queer thinker for which I have tremendous regard. Taking the title of one of his books, _Virtually Normal_, as a supposed call for behavior is ridiculous. The book is a very carefully thought out and spectacularly written treatise on political thought and activism. It gives a blueprint for what Sullivan considers the best way to achieve lasting strides in gay civil rights, and along the way shows the dead ends and false starts that both the gay community and its enemies have experienced. In fact an entire chapter is dedicated to why the whole, well it's ok if you're gay as long as you don't talk about it too much, attitude is hurtful rather than helpful, yet this author seems to be ascribing such an attitude to Sullivan.
I have to admit, anyone who attacks Paglia, on the other hand, can't be all bad. Her cult of personality scares me.
But on the whole this article reads like a long list of missed implications, badly interpreted quotes and poor logic. The fluidity of the concept "liberal" can only be understood with the most careful parsing of the context from paragraph to paragraph.
There are lots of problems with both the Log Cabin Republicans and the Republican Unity Coalition. Same with Human Rights Campaign and most of the liberal gay political lobby groups. That's the nature of politics. One thing I don't get from conservative leaders (but do from some of the more ardent followers) is this idea that the only legitimate gay ideology closely mirrors their own. However, this article seems to say that if a homosexual is not a left leaning liberal who firmly grasps many of the dogmas of the right that have nothing to do with the rights of sexual minorities.

[ June 19, 2002: Message edited by: jqueer ]

The Village Voice had a more detailed article on "gaycons" some time ago. This one seemed to sweep a lot of diverse people under the same umbrella and made some doubtful statements about their collective beliefs.

Goldstein reveals at the very start of the article what his real beef is: writers like Andrew Sullivan and Norah Vincent write for the New York Times and the L.A. Times. (He forgot to mention Bruce Bawer, who writes for the Wall St. Journal.)

One can almost hear him thinking, "Those lousy homocons get to write for the biggest papers in the country, while I'm stuck writing for the goddamn Nation and the friggin' Village Voice! Nobody reads the Nation or the Voice anymore! It's not fair! Life is not fair!! The universe is not fair!!!"

Having worked as a reporter myself for a couple of years, and having worked with them for much longer, I feel confident in making a sweeping generalization: they are the most wretched people on earth. If you're a reporter, you view the entire world as one big conspiracy to keep your by-line off the front page. It's not pretty. And Michaelangelo Signorile, condemned to write for the New York Press, is in the same boat as Goldstein. They both must have had spontaneous orgasms whey they learned that Sullivan lost his contract at the Times magazine.

Jerzoid, buwahahaha!

There's a throwaway rag here in Los Angeles called Fab! that prints Signorele's articles. The last one I read was so over the top and foaming-at-the-mouth against Andrew Sullivan that I basically discounted the rest of the article. Signorele has some real issues when it comes to Sullivan. Get thee to therapy, Michelangelo.

I agree with some of what Sullivan says and think he's dead wrong on others. It's as if this band of gay pundits has sprung up and they've formed their own little clique. They take potshots at one another but seem rather disconnected to anything happening outside of Manhattan and DC (typical East Coast bias HAHAHA). And of course, they're the ones that the corporate media turn to when they need "the gay perspective" so they become defacto spokespeople for us all.

Well, the luxury of being a New Yorker is that most of the time, we can and *do* ignore everywhere else.

What of the point that *most* gay voices heard as analysts and pundits in the mainstream media are conservative? Rather an odd statistical misrepresentation, wouldn't you say? (No more than in other sectors of the corporate, conservative media-at-large, of course. "Fair and balanced"!)