Tuesday, October 03, 2006

The Closet

The scandal over Mark Foley's fascination with underage Congressional pages brings up an important point, having to do with keeping your true nature a secret. These days gay politicians aren't really that rare. I can't vouch for every one of these, but Wikipedia lists 139 of them. You're gay, you run for office, people vote for you or they don't, it doesn't need to be a campaign issue.

Ah, but these are "politicians who identify as gay men." (Lesbians, bisexuals, and trangender people have their own Wikipedia pages.)

What about the ones who don't identify themselves publicly? What about the Mark Foleys? It does not seem to me to be a good idea to force guys like him to remain hidden, constantly trying to cover-up, constantly doing things to undermine their own interest, while their sexuality becomes whatever they can "get away with" without being exposed.

I linked to this yesterday, but will quote the whole thing today, because Andrew Sullivan has said something really quite eloquent about the Mark Foley incident:
For almost my entire adult life, I've been openly gay. Why? It was too humiliating and psychologically destructive to lie. I don't think of this as a virtue, really. In some ways, I think it was my pride that forced me to be honest with myself and others; and a deep sense that obviously this was how God made me, and it behooved me to deal with it forthrightly. It was alo fueled by a conviction, as the 1980s darkened for so many gay men, that I had an actual responsibility to be out, and to advance the dignity of so many fighting literally for their lives. It was like being black in the 1950s. My own HIV diagnosis convinced me to fight harder, because I truly believed it might not be for much longer. And in those years and beyond, others chose to sit it out, to run for cover, even to distance themselves from who they were and from their fellows who so desperately needed their help.

Maybe we should feel anger at these people. I don't. I feel sadness. Sadness at the compromises they made and the misery they fueled for themselves. In so far as someone like Jim McGreevey has, for whatever reason, overcome his shame, then I have no interest in judging him. I feel glad he has found some happiness at last, despite his past corruption, human flaws and past opposition to marriage equality. We are all human, and my own life has its own share of emotional and sexual mistakes. Equally, the news about Mark Foley has a kind of grim inevitability to it. I don't know Foley, although, like any other gay man in D.C., I was told he was gay, closeted, afraid and therefore also screwed up. What the closet does to people - the hypocrisies it fosters, the pathologies it breeds - is brutal. There are many still-closeted gay men in D.C., many of them working for a Republican party that has sadly deeply hostile to gay dignity. How they live with themselves I do not fully understand. But I have learned you cannot judge someone's soul from outside. That I leave to them and their God, and some I count as good friends and good people.

What I do know is that the closet corrupts. The lies it requires and the compartmentalization it demands can lead people to places they never truly wanted to go, and for which they have to take ultimate responsibility. From what I've read, Foley is another example of this destructive and self-destructive pattern for which the only cure is courage and honesty. While gays were fighting for thir basic equality, Foley voted for the "Defense of Marriage Act". If his resignation means the end of the closet for him, and if there is no more to this than we now know, then it may even be for the good. Better to find integrity and lose a Congressional seat than never live with integrity at all.

The Closet

And, in case there is any question about it, let's remember that "ex-gay" simply means "re-closeted."

21 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"And, in case there is any question about it, let's remember that "ex-gay" simply means "re-closeted.""

This post was actually thought-provoking and, while erroneous, a reasonable meditation worth addressing until this final inane statement.

What, may we ask, leads you to this conclusion?

October 03, 2006 10:47 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

What do you think it means? --That somebody's sexual orientation actually changes?

JimK

October 03, 2006 10:52 AM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

This is what James Taranto of the OpinionJournal.com has to say to Sullivan's comments (found under the first two headings for yesterday's Best of the Web column),

It seems to us that someone who is sexually interested in children had damn well better stay in the closet, and if he can't, he should be put in one with a thick metal door that locks from the outside. It is astonishing, and more than a little disturbing, that Sullivan would seek to make Foley a poster child for gay liberation.

Further, has it occurred to Sullivan that his response to the Foley scandal undermines his own credibility as an advocate of same-sex marriage? Sullivan has long claimed to be advancing traditional values. All he wants, he says, is for society to recognize that gay couples are no less capable of serious, loving, lifelong commitments than ordinary couples are.

But if a middle-aged congressman were caught sending lewd messages to 16-year-old girls, what adherent to traditional values would claim that the congressman's real problem is that he is insufficiently open about his sexuality?


And lest anyone think Taranto is a pawn for the so called "TheoCratic" right, read this from the 2nd entry for Monday's Best of the Web,

We're not making a case against homosexuality here; we tend toward the love-and-let-love view. And it can be useful to understand the psychology behind extreme political views (or behind odd political obsessions, even if they aren't extreme). Our point simply is that a psychoanalysis is different from an argument on the merits.

And Jim writes,

What about the ones who don't identify themselves publicly? What about the Mark Foleys? It does not seem to me to be a good idea to force guys like him to remain hidden, constantly trying to cover-up, constantly doing things to undermine their own interest, while their sexuality becomes whatever they can "get away with" without being exposed.

This does seem to ignore the fact that Foley could've well remained a closeted gay man (if that is his choice), seeking a relationship with another man his age. Foley's conduct is without excuse for two reasons. First, the inequality of the relationships - he was a Member of Congress, carrying on with high school students. Second, these pages in most instances appeared to have been underage minors.

Even a deeply closeted gay man can understand these distinctions and what is and is NOT appropriate. To attempt excuses for his misbehavior seems to suggest that gays and lesbians cannot or should not be held to the same ethical standards as everyone else. I don't agree with this assumption.

October 03, 2006 11:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"What do you think it means? --That somebody's sexual orientation actually changes?"

The knowledgable term would be sexual preference and there is no reason to believe it can't be resisted if against societal norms.

October 03, 2006 11:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The scandal over Mark Foley's fascination with underage Congressional pages brings up an important point, having to do with keeping your true nature a secret."

True nature or corrupted nature? This statement reveals your world-view, that your temptations define you.

Would revealing this "true nature" be a confession or an affirmation? You seem to be suggesting affirmation, again revealing a world-view to not resist any feelings.

October 03, 2006 11:12 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

The knowledgable term would be sexual preference...

I am sure the term is not any more "knowledgeable."

I understand your side-stepping the question; if you thought that becoming "ex-gay" was anything different from stuffing oneself back into the closet, you could have said so.

JimK

October 03, 2006 11:18 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

Orin, in my opinion, an adult who is attracted to sixteen-year-olds isn't necessarily a "pedophile." For instance, the Page Three girls in England only have to be 16; 16-year-olds can be lovely. It's not sick to notice a beautiful 16-year-old.

An adult who hits on 16-year-olds is an unconscionable pervert. A 16-year-old is not emotionally ready to deal with a guy in his fifties, and for a powerful Congressman to try to seduce teenagers is worse than inappropriate. It's just wrong.

And that's the problem. It isn't that the guy's sick for noticing -- there are 16-year-olds walking around that'll turn my head, I admit. But here's the difference between me and Foley (besides that I'm talking about girls): I let them keep walking. I might say something like, "Man, they didn't look like that when I was that age," or whatever, but I don't go over and try to pick them up.

As for your last comments, I haven't really seen what being gay had to do with it. This is equally wrong either way.

JimK

October 03, 2006 11:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, the gay aspect does add to the egregiousness of the crime. After all, even gay advocates must admit that living as a gay is perilous and stressful. If this guy were actually successful in seducing one of these kids, who knows how it might affect their life and self-image.

The heartening thing is that these kids seem to know enough to not be intimidated or feel pressured. Amazing that this guy actually thought he would get away with this.

October 03, 2006 11:53 AM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

Jim writes,

Orin, in my opinion, an adult who is attracted to sixteen-year-olds isn't necessarily a "pedophile." For instance, the Page Three girls in England only have to be 16; 16-year-olds can be lovely. It's not sick to notice a beautiful 16-year-old.

I agree.

An adult who hits on 16-year-olds is an unconscionable pervert. A 16-year-old is not emotionally ready to deal with a guy in his fifties, and for a powerful Congressman to try to seduce teenagers is worse than inappropriate. It's just wrong.

Here's the question though...why? On what basis is this judgement arrived at? I am asking because I am curious...not trying to play "gotcha"...

And that's the problem. It isn't that the guy's sick for noticing -- there are 16-year-olds walking around that'll turn my head, I admit. But here's the difference between me and Foley (besides that I'm talking about girls): I let them keep walking. I might say something like, "Man, they didn't look like that when I was that age," or whatever, but I don't go over and try to pick them up.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has a term for this, it is called concupiscence, and we are not held accountable for it. As Peter Kreeft wrote, "No one can avoid concupiscence. But we can avoid obeying it and being dominated by it. It is like an albatross around our neck, but it need not be our master." (Catholic Christianity, p.254).

I could not agree more...the female and male body, in their perfect ideal are nearly impossible NOT to look at...

As for your last comments, I haven't really seen what being gay had to do with it. This is equally wrong either way.

The way Sullivan is commenting on this scandal (and that is what it is, a scandal...and yes, worse than the scandal with "that woman, Miss Lewinsky") it gives the appearance that this is largely the result of Foley being a closeted gay. This is an excuse that my gay and lesbian friends would reject.

Wow, all in all, not bad Jim...it would appear that we are largely in agreement on this issue. With this scandal I will understand better if Republicans lose next month. And if they do so they will have nobody to blame but themselves. Those that hold such high public offices are held to a higher standard, as they ought to be...it does not matter which side of the aisle they come from.

October 03, 2006 5:10 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Here's the question though...why?

I think your reference to concupiscence explains it. We can't avoid it, but we can avoid being dominated by it.

The real problem here is that a 16-year-old, though they may be lovely, is not ready to deal with grown-up sexual issues. Esp when the guy is a Congressman and the kid is a page, it's an abuse of power.

It would seem dumb to me if they lost on this, and not on Iraq, the deterioration of liberty, the betrayal of the Constitution, and other more important things. But ... I am ready to see two-party governance.

JimK

October 03, 2006 6:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I highly doubt Sullivan was defending Foley's actions. Sullivan explained what the closet could contribute to if one remained within it, but that doesn't justify what Foley did in any way.

October 03, 2006 9:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

there are a lot of gay men who would do and are doing 16 year old boys. JimK if your looking than you probaly do it if you had a snowballs chance in hell.

October 03, 2006 9:55 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, I'm not going to delete that comment, just so people can see what an asshole you are.

World, I apologize for my language. Would any other word have worked?

JimK

October 03, 2006 10:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No need to apologize, Jim. It was an appropriate metaphor.

You probably should delete remarks like that though since there are many anons who post here on both sides of these issues and one is left to wonder which one this is.

October 04, 2006 8:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That closet sure is getting full.

Ted

October 05, 2006 12:48 AM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

Robert writes,

Orin

I read Andrew's statement not as a defense or explanation of Foley's behavior, but as an essay on the tragedy of the closet. Straight people by and large have no idea the effect that being closeted has on gay people. It's not just like "any other secret." I never lead a secret life, as Foley and many other people do and have, but I can have much sympathy for those who have, and continue to do so. It's a great burden that our society imposes on many who don't deserve it.


I think you are correct...as a straight man I don't have a clue. I suspect that if I were homosexual I would come out as soon as I could, since I am an otherwise very open person.

Thank you Robert, for your observation.

Anonymous "writes" (if one can call this, the cyber equivalent of scribbling on the bathroom wall),

there are a lot of gay men who would do and are doing 16 year old boys. JimK if your looking than you probaly do it if you had a snowballs chance in hell.

Oh, then I guess I would be too, since I will look more than once at beautiful young girl/woman? Good grief...pull your mind out of the sewer...

My thoughts, as Jim's, are our own...we notice a beautiful example of the female form, and we move on. That is what a heterosexual man does that wants to be considered a gentleman and accepted in polite company.

Jim writes,

Anon, I'm not going to delete that comment, just so people can see what an asshole you are.

World, I apologize for my language. Would any other word have worked?


Answer: no.

And another Anon writes,

No need to apologize, Jim. It was an appropriate metaphor.

I agree...someone who will make such a remark behind a cloak of anonymnimity (sp?) is not just an a-hole, they are also a coward.

You probably should delete remarks like that though since there are many anons who post here on both sides of these issues and one is left to wonder which one this is.

I would delete them since they do not appear to contribute anything to the conversation, and are intended solely to insult.

October 05, 2006 7:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's good Jim decided to leave the comment up. The comment is insulting, but insults are one of the most commonly used tactics of heterosexualists. I'm sure some heterosexualists would prefer their co-advocates didn't do such hurtful things, but they do so let's be honest about it. If we are going to have a full and open debate, which is what I think Jim is trying for here, then all points of view should be aired.

I think it's usually quite clear which side any particular Anon supports. But just in case, and to clear up any confusion I am

PTA (Pro TTF Anon)

October 05, 2006 8:35 AM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

PTA writes,

The comment is insulting, but insults are one of the most commonly used tactics of heterosexualists. I'm sure some heterosexualists would prefer their co-advocates didn't do such hurtful things, but they do so let's be honest about it. If we are going to have a full and open debate, which is what I think Jim is trying for here, then all points of view should be aired.

As a confirmed heterocentric I will admit that I am as able to insult as any member of the Angry Left. Please, save me the conceit of moral preening and posturing. It appears that all I have to do to be genuinely insulted is to listen to Rosie O'Donnell carry forth on this or that POV of hers (and this opinion is from someone that genuinely likes and even admires the good that she has done).

Human nature is a constant, not a variable, i.e. the will and action of insulting are not the property of any single political ideology, orientation, or opinion.

October 06, 2006 5:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Orin wrote Please, save me the conceit of moral preening and posturing.

Ditto

PTA

October 06, 2006 8:32 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

Orin, the extent to which "human nature" is a constant or a variable is a very interesting question, and not one that can be persuasively answered by merely asserting one position or the other.

JimK

October 06, 2006 1:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Orin, the extent to which "human nature" is a constant or a variable is a very interesting question, and not one that can be persuasively answered by merely asserting one position or the other."

It's easily enough answered by simple observation. People on both sides of the divide have an equal capacity for incivility.

October 06, 2006 3:29 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home