Thursday, January 5, 2012

Santorum's Homophobia Problem

I read this article last night, and found it an appropriate follow-up to my post yesterday.  So I hope that you find it as interesting as I did.  Also, thanks for you comments yesterday.  While I agree that we should not focus on only one issue, this is an GLBT blog and so I wanted to focus on this issue.  Also, no matter what happens with the economy or any other issues, I am still a gay man who will worry about GLBT issues.  And yes, Obama has done more for our community than any other president in history, I have to agree with the comment that Obama is not qualified to be president of anything.  Furthermore, I do not feel that the old Republican ways will get us out of this current financial crisis.  There must be a solution out there, but is there anyone running who can find that solution?
Santorum's Homophobia Problem
by Jay Michaelson 
Author of God vs. Gay? The Religious Case for Equality
LGBT people awoke with a sense of dread to the news of Rick Santorum's near-tie with Mitt Romney in the Iowa caucuses. Santorum is not just the butt (pun intended) of a deservingly dirty joke; he has long been ahead of the curve when it comes to bashing gay people for political gain. He is the poster child for political homophobia.
And yet, this near-win is different, because America is different. Santorum represents not the resurgence of gay-baiting, but its last, self-defeating gasp.
Only a few years ago, homophobia was a great uniter. Short on campaign cash? Need to fire up the base? Why, flash a few images of the latest pride parade, compare same-sex marriage to bestiality, and the checks and self-rightous blog posts would flow like milk and honey. And while religiously-soaked gay-bashing wasn't the rhetoric of choice for neo-conservatives and fiscal conservatives, they went along with it, building a strong coalition between corporate capitalists and Christian conservatives.
Indeed, it has been remarked that this was Reaganism's great innovation: using social issues to convince working class people to vote against their economic interests. At first, it was the "Southern strategy," making use of coded racism. Later, it grew into gay-baiting, making use of overt homophobia. For at least twenty years, it was the winning formula for the Republican party. Enrich the rich by enraging the working poor.
Only now, things are different. Last May, a Gallup poll found a majority of Americans supported legalizing same-sex marriage. Last September, a large majority supported the end of the military's "Don't Ask/Don't Tell" policy. And over the last year, we've seen a dramatic increase of LGBT (including T) people in the media, in politics, and in our communities.
As a result of these dramatic changes, Santorum's homophobia is more a liability than an asset. Gay people may be horrified at his near-win in Iowa, but we needn't be. His bigotry still plays to his base -- but it's only the base, only the extremists, who still soak it up.
Of course, public opinion could always turn against gay people. But I don't think that's likely, because it changed, over time, due to a very resilient and powerful force: truth. Straight folks have seen, in their own personal experience, that gay people are no more or less ethical than they are. There are lusty, libertine gays, and quiet, conservative ones. Gay people are atheist and religious, of all ethnic backgrounds, young and old, wild and mild. The stereotypes that all gay people are a certain way (lewd, anti-family, demonic, whatever) are simply not true, and anyone who bothers to -- no, allows themselves to -- get to know their gay neighbors realizes this.
And they've seen, too, that sexual orientation is a trait, not (as it has been variously labeled) a sin, pathology, "lifestyle choice," neurosis, or dysfunction. Sexuality is just part of who we are -- a good part.
That kind of truth isn't subject to the whims of political opinion. Once you see that stereotypes are lies, you don't go back to them later, especially when -- as poll after poll has shown us -- that knowledge comes first-hand. The lesbian couple in church, or the gay man raising a child, is far more potent an opinion-shifter than the latest fundraising santorum from the likes of Rick Santorum.
And by the way, this is even true within Santorum's base itself. In evangelical communities across the country, there are moderate voices questioning the way in which gay people have been singled out by the so-called Christian Right. While most evangelicals remain committed to a broad reading of Scripture regarding homosexuality, increasing numbers are voicing misgivings about whether it's really Christian to stigmatize gay people. Who Would Jesus Hate, after all?
Given the money and the races ahead in the Republican primary, there's no way Rick Santorum will be the party's nominee. Mitt Romney's PACs will destroy him just as they destroyed Newt Gingrich in Iowa, burying him under an avalanche of negative ads. But as depressing as Santorum's rise may seem to LGBT folks, this time really is different. We are not about to be victims again. On the contrary, if the polling data is accurate, the biggest victim of Santorum's homophobia will be Santorum himself.
Jay Michaelson is a writer, scholar and activist whose work addresses the intersections of religion, sexuality, spirituality and law. His newest book is "God vs. Gay?: The Religious Case for Equality (Queer Action/Queer Ideas)," available October 2011 from Beacon Press.
Jay is is the author of three other books and more than 200 articles, essays, and works of fiction. He is the Associate Editor of Religion Dispatches, a Contributing Editor to the Forward newspaper, and Founding Editor of Zeek magazine. His work on behalf of sexual minorities in religious communities has been featured in the New York Times, CNN and NPR, as well as several anthologies.
Jay has held teaching positions at Boston University Law School, City College of New York and Yale University. He holds a J.D. from Yale Law School, an M.A. in Religious Studies from Hebrew University, an M.F.A. in writing from Sarah Lawrence College, and a B.A. magna cum laude from Columbia, and is completing his Ph.D. at Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He has been a scholar-in-residence at dozens of universities, synagogues and other institutions.
In 2009, Jay was included on the “Forward 50″ list of “the men and women who are leading the American Jewish community into the 21st century,” and in June, 2010, he won the New York Society for Professional Journalists “Deadline Club” award for opinion writing.
While I do not completely agree with all that Michaelson says in this article, I do think he makes some valid points.  I think that he dismisses Santorum's homophobia too quickly as an issue that will work against him.  There are still many people who will vote for him just for his homophobic stance (sadly, my mother is one of them).  Some people will take his Christian conservatism, especially with Bachmann out of the race, as a reason to vote for him.  The other candidates who will attempt to garner the same vote are Gingrich and Perry, though I do not feel that Perry can sustain a campaign and Gingrich has too many marital skeletons in his closet to be a viable candidate for the Christian right.  So do you think that Santorum can actually give Romney a run for his money, or is it really just new media hype in order to have something to talk about in an otherwise boring Republican Primary season?



Jay M. said...

Thanks, Joe, for sticking to OUR issues, which are sadly not covered as well in the mainstream press.

Yes, decisions should be made on the overall candidate, but I can't find it in my heart to vote for anyone who wants to perpetuate bigotry, hate and discrimination, no matter how qualified they may otherwise be.

Peace <3

silvereagle said...

As the comic strip character Pogo Possum often said meny years ago when living in the Okefenokee Swamp "We have met the enemy and he is us!" In the various remarks of the many pundits of the current political scene, each picks out one point an uses that aspect of the politican's makeup to support his case that the particular individual is not the best candidate. It does not matter if it is his religion or lack thereof, his relationship with the party as a whole, his statement made some years ago, or whatever. Just because the idividual does not agree with one particular aspect of the thinking of the writer, the politican should not be elected.

When we will realize that as Pogo, "We have met the enemy and he is us!" and look at and seek for what is the best for the country as a whole, and not just for us?

I do not disgree wtih what JoeBlow is saying in repeating the article of another. I merely wish the writer of that article and the other writers would look at the complete indivudal and his record.

Otherwise,aswith Pogo, "We have met the enemy," and may shoot ourselves in the foot again!!!

fan of casey said...

I agree that one needs to evaluate the whole candidate and not just on single issues that may be priorities for us individually. Yet when you have two compelling candidates, it's up to the individual to decide what is more important -- issues that affect us directly, indirectly or have little impact to us at all.

So the choice with Obama is to take a president with a mixed record of accomplishments vs. a republican candidate that has no equivalent record and place all faith that he can better overcome the partisan divide or implement untested programs or worse, re-try policies that have not worked.

Many people thought Bush Jr. would be different but he was not that successful either. And remember the great recession started under Bush. Obama was the one who had to deal with most of the blowback.