“We are natives of this country; we only ask that we be treated as well as foreigners. Not a few of our fathers suffered and bled to purchase its independence; we ask only to be treated as well as those who fought against it.” Rev. Peter Williams, Jr., African-American abolitionist and Episcopal priest (1780-1840)
I thought that it was appropriate in these final days before the 2012 presidential election that I happened upon an ancient episode of “Law & Order” (the original “Mother Ship” franchise that birthed much excellent television over the past two decades-and-change) in which a young African-American prosecutor grapples with the idea of whether he is “a black lawyer, or a lawyer who’s black.”
In the end—despite an original conviction that he belonged to the latter group—he comes to realize that his race plays an integral part of who he is—both personally as a black man, and professionally as a lawyer—and is, in fact, the primary reason for his practicing law. That’s TV.
The reality for LGBT Americans as we decide for whom to cast our vote in this year’s race for the Highest Office in the Solar System is that some of us have not made the decision whether they are, in fact as well as name, gay men and women who are Americans, or American men and women who are gay. Let me be clear: I don’t think that it’s a choice every gay man and woman must make, but I think that the distinction deserves defining, because it has many ramifications for future generations of LGBT Americans and their children.
I lived most of my personal and professional life in a “glass closet,” working in the main in “hetero-dominant” business cultures which were in most cases led by progressive-thinking management. As I went from my 20s into my 30s, “broad-thinking” employers no doubt asked themselves why I never brought a girlfriend (or any woman, for that matter) to company functions, and even on occasion brought as my ‘plus-one’ various male friends. These bosses, men and women of goodwill—including one very religious Mormon—got to know and like me, and eventually “caught onto things,” by which time they could care less with whom I was sleeping.
When it comes to something as serious as politics, I make a serious effort to shut out the cognitive dissonance that comes crashing down upon our heads every four years during the Silly Season. It aggravates me no end that there are scoundrels peddling non-starters like the myths of Obama’s foreign birth and Muslim faith (which even an avowed traditionalist like Fox’s Bill O’Reilly has done a statesmanlike job of dispelling, despite the best and meanest efforts of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, and others of that ignominious and unflinchingly un-American-acting ilk).
There were others on the far right fringe that remain suspicious of Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith, much as John Kennedy (and Al Smith in an earlier generation) had to contend with hyperbole directed against Roman Catholicism. When Franklin Roosevelt was asked if were a Communist, he said, “I am a Christian, an American, and a Democrat, in that order.”
Don’t misunderstand. In a free society, it’s perfectly okay to not like Obama, or any elected official. But do it for honest reasons. Despite the propaganda of semi-literate types whose out-of-date vocabulary still includes the word “Socialist,” the fact remains that, if you use the public roads, or have ever benefited from service at a public hospital, then you are a practicing “Socialist.” (Feel better—or worse?) We have seen the ‘enemy,’ and he is us.
With that in my mind, I ask myself how does the election of Obama or Romney benefit me—personally—as an American, and yes, a gay man, but also how will the election of one over the other benefit future generations of Americans—gay and otherwise—and their kids. If both Romney and Obama are “Socialists,” and since I know that a U.S. President isn’t a Fortune 500 CEO (which Romney well understands), then I am left with deciding based upon what I and my countrymen stand most to gain, and through whom.
Based on those criteria, I think the choice is a clear one. LGBT Americans, regardless of political persuasion or stripe, have a place at the Obama table. From his refusal to uphold DOMA in court disputes to his final end of DADT, as well as his promise to sign the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which will end workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity (and guess which major party is holding that one up?).
Romney opposes marriage equality, and supports the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment, which would enshrine bigotry—once again—in our most cherished document (the one that’s meant to uphold our freedoms).
Tellingly, even the Log Cabin Republicans’ tepid endorsement last week of the GOP nominee included the disclaimer—or was it an escape hatch?—that “If LGBT issues are a voter’s highest or only priority, then Governor Romney may not be that voter’s choice.”
Romney’s one notable outreach to LGBT America was his hiring this Spring of Richard Grenell, the openly gay foreign policy spokesman who lasted on the job all of two weeks, before his gayness became an issue for the religious conservatives that Romney was trying to court. Grenell’s ultimate fate at the hands of Romney and his conservative handlers put me in mind of the eminent criminal psychologist Robert D. Hare, who wrote about the three phases of a psychopath’s technique:
“Assessment,” during which the psychopath sizes up a victim’s potential usefulness as a source of money, sex, power, etc. “Manipulation,” during which the psychopath “works” his target, in an attempt to gain the victim’s trust. (And because psychopaths lie with impunity, there’s no value for them in telling the truth unless it gets them what they want.) “Abandonment,” when the psychopath decides that his victim is no longer useful.
After making a perfunctory show of courting LGBT Americans’ support, the Republican National Committee this summer adopted a Party Platform that calls marriage equality “an assault on the foundations of our society,” and adds that “we believe that marriage, the union of one man and one woman, must be upheld as the national standard, a goal to stand for, encourage, and promote through laws governing marriage.” And it gives only the most grudging of nods—“We embrace the principle that all Americans should be treated with respect and dignity”—to something as fundamental as the institution of marriage, namely tolerance. It doesn’t promise to be much of a “honeymoon” if Romney lays head to the Lincoln Bedroom pillows.
Assessment, manipulation, and abandonment: They’re a hell of a way to start a marriage, or a Presidency.
