Jeff Gannon's found a cause that suits him: a new National Don't Come Out Day. Apparently, "coming out" is simply a ploy of elite coast-dwelling homos intent on driving an identity politics wedge between the blue states and Middle America. Or, at least, that seems to be his gist. As always in a Gannon column, it's difficult to discern an actual point beyond a couple of second-hand political platitudes meant to annoy the Great Homosexual Liberal Orthodoxy.
Of course, showing absolutely no understanding of contemporary gay and
lesbian politics in either rural or urban settings is no surprise from
Gannon. How could he form an accurate picture of gay and lesbian
reality when he resorts to such egregious generalizations as this:
[I]dentity politics isn’t a game played outside
the blue enclaves of the coasts. Across the remainder of the country,
ordinary Americans, including gay ones, live their lives as
firefighters, schoolteachers, doctors, and office workers.
They quietly go about living in their communities and forming
relationships. Their friends and neighbors don’t care if they’re gay;
in many cases it’s known or assumed. But it doesn’t color the daily
conduct of their lives.
Some friends and neighbors don't care if they're gay. Others care a great deal. I'm from rural America, and I maintain fairly close ties to my family there -- my own experience has been a fairly positive one. I've known others who have been disowned by their families, shunned by their friends, fired by their employers. While it's silly to say that every last middle American gay person suffers under the heavy hand of oppression, it's also silly to say that the gay life out there is all sunshine and sweetness, when it's not even sunshine and sweetness for everyone in urban enclaves. Gannon dismisses concerns about gay rights in the broader U.S. as a profit-driven myth propagated by "professional gay victims," and claims that "[i]n reality, there is far less intolerance than they claim." The idea that it's suddenly easy to be gay in the hinterlands, if you just keep quiet about it, could only be put forth by someone whose understanding of middle America is shaped primarily by reading The Corner.
Then there's this gem:
Some leaders of the “gay movement” complain that people who don’t
take part in Gay Pride parades or engage in political activism don’t
deserve the benefits of the advances brought about by those who do.
This is tantamount to suggesting that only those who support the
military are entitled to the protection it provides.
It would be helpful if Gannon could actually name one of the "leaders" who has made this claim. While I'm sure some activists have made this argument, I know plenty of non-urban gay activists have repeatedly wailed about the presence of drag queens and leather men at gay pride parades. But are either one of those "leaders of the 'gay movement'"? In the age of Google, it takes a particular kind of laziness to avoid backing up a claim like that.
Now we get to the nut of his "argument":
They tend to discount the impact of millions of gay men and women
who are gradually changing the hearts and minds of fellow Americans by
simply being more like everyone else than constantly reminding them of
how different they are.
These are the silent heroes who choose assimilation over
confrontation. They are creating a “new normal” where sexual
orientation isn’t a primary defining characteristic. Their
contributions to their communities are judged on their own merits
instead of being viewed through the prism of identity politics.
While Gannon may have found "tantamount" in his online thesaurus, he has a problem with the concept of assimilation. When we talk about assimilation as a goal of the gay and lesbian civil rights movement, we're talking about the idea of gay and lesbian people becoming a part of the larger culture as gay and lesbian people. Assimilation doesn't mean being or becoming invisible, which Gannon seems to think. But by redefining a secretive, closet life as activism Gannon achieves his real goal -- declaring himself a silent hero.
A girl can dream, I suppose.
As a side note, Editor & Publisher last month ran a story about Gannon's debut in the Washington Blade and editor Chris Crain's defense of it. In the article, E&P wrote that I "responded to Crain's column with a vow that [I] would never publish Gannon." I would say "vow" is an overly-dramatic characterization, as my in-box was certainly never in danger of receiving one of Gannon's missives and, I assume, never will be. My greater concern is about Crain's characterization of the role of gay media. But my point about Gannon in that piece stands -- namely, that publishing him is a cheap publicity stunt, not a serious effort to expand the range of opinion within the GLBT community. I think his continuing output proves the point.
Recent Comments