      |
|
|
 |
|
« Back to Is This the Gay 90s? main page    Transcript for: Is This the Gay 90s?gay.html ANNOUNCER: Think Tank is made possible by AMGEN, recipient ofthe Presidential National Medal of Technology. AMGEN, helping cancerpatients through cellular and molecular biology. Improving lives today andbringing hope for tomorrow. Additional funding is provided by the John M. Olin Foundation,the Lilly Endowment, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the UnitedStates Japan Foundation and the Donner Canadian Foundation. (Musical break.) MR. WATTENBERG: Hello, I'm Ben Wattenberg. Gay men and womenhave made many strides towards legal, political and social acceptance inAmerica over the last three decades. What are the ramifications? Is this agood thing? Joining us to answer these questions are, Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, professor of history at Emory University and author of Feminism Is Not TheStory Of My Life, How Today's Feminist Elite Has Lost Touch With The RealConcerns Of Women; Stephen Macedo, professor of constitutional law andpolitics at Syracuse University and author of Liberal Virtues, Citizenship,Virtue And Community In Liberal Constitutionalism; Robert George, professorof legal and political philosophy at Princeton University, a member of theU.S. Commission on Civil Rights, and author of Making Men Moral, CivilLiberties And Public Morality; and Chris Bull, former national correspondentfor The Advocate, and author of Perfect Enemies, The Religious Right, TheGay Movement And The Politics Of The 1990s. The topic before the house, is this the gay '90s, this week onThink Tank. (Musical break.) MR. WATTENBERG: Americans seem to be of two minds abouthomosexuality, 84 percent support equal rights in the work place, but 59 percent saythat homosexuality is morally wrong. President Clinton seems to be oftwo minds, as well. He recently became the first sitting president toaddress a gay rights organization. However, he never did live up to his promiseto lift the ban on gays in the military. But, amidst these sorts ofconflicting signals, gay rights activists have seen some positive signs. TheTV sitcom character Ellen Morgan, played by Ellen Degeneres, recently cameout of the closet in prime time. The episode prompted Vice President Al Goreto praise the show, and the effect it has had on America. VICE PRESIDENT GORE (From video): When the character Ellencame out, millions of Americans were forced to look at sexual orientation ina more open light. MR. WATTENBERG: And in Hawaii the issue of same sex marriageis working its way through the courts. Some legal experts believe developmentsin Hawaii could pave the way for acceptance of same sex marriage in all 50states. Many issues, of course, remain unresolved. The militarycontinues to oppose openly gay service men and women. New treatments have caused adecline in AIDS related deaths, but AIDS continues to be a significantproblem, particularly for gay men. And many view the gay rights movementas threatening traditional values, especially the institutions ofmarriage and family. Gentlemen and gentlewomen -- gentlewoman, thank you very muchfor joining us. Let me begin by reading a statement that Chris Bull, here,wrote in his book. It is impossible to overestimate the enormity of thestrides that gays and lesbians have made toward acceptance over the past decade. Isthat good or bad for America? MR. GEORGE: Well, I certainly don't think that it's good forAmerica. It seems to me that it's part of a larger trend in our nation toward-- that began in the late 1960s, toward more permissive attitudes towardsexuality, whose consequences for individuals and for society as a whole havebeen bad. MR. WATTENBERG: Betsy Fox-Genovese. MS. FOX-GENOVESE: I have to say that an increase in humanitytowards individuals is a good thing. I don't countenance gay bashing. But, the gay rights political agenda and the movement in that sense, I thinkhas been a disaster, not least by cheapening any notion of civil rights, byconfusing one's rights as a citizen with one's private sexual desires. MR. WATTENBERG: Okay. Steven Macedo, I somehow think you'renot going to agree with that. MR. MACEDO: I don't agree at all. Great progress has beenmade, without question, and these strides have been progress, progress in termsof equal rights for all, not permissiveness, it seems to me what thischaracterized by. And the one element that we look forward to, of greaterprogress, is the extension of marriage rights, which would a further extension ofequal rights, not an extension of permissiveness. MR. WATTENBERG: Chris Bull, you wrote that statement. MR. BULL: It's hard to disagree with, I guess. MR. WATTENBERG: Yes, but you can just comment on whether it'sgood or bad. MR. BULL: I think it's hard to argue that it's not a verypositive development in American society, American politics. You'retalking about a community that just 30 years ago lived in secrecy, had to liveunderground, was fearful to be honest about their lives, now are participatingin every aspect of American life, invigorating democratic debate, bringingtheir values, bringing their creativity to the public arena, that's anincredible thing to say about a movement in such a short period of time. MR. WATTENBERG: What's wrong with that? MR. GEORGE: Well, of course, if the issue is framed as amatter of equal rights, then the pro gay rights side is going to win that debate,because Americans are all for equal rights. As soon as it's framed as anissue about sexuality the gay rights movement is going to lose that debate,because Americans, although there has been a move in the direction of morepermissive attitudes towards sexuality in our country since the late 1960s,that movement is heavily concentrated in the elite sector of oursociety, and the people, as a whole, while to some extent have been effected by it,certainly don't share it, or share it broadly. MR. WATTENBERG: Here's where -- MS. FOX-GENOVESE: By the way -- let me, if we're allowed tointerrupt. MR. WATTENBERG: You're encouraged to interrupt. MS. FOX-GENOVESE: Yes, all right. To what Robbie is saying,in fact, the equal rights thing could be viewed as a real slight of hand. Every person in this country has, consenting adult, has an equal right tomarriage, to marry. The condition is that you define marriage as a union between twopeople of the opposite sex. MR. MACEDO: What about marrying the person you love, whyshouldn't that be the defining characteristic of marriage. MS. FOX-GENOVESE: Well, why should personal desire at thatlevel be taken to governing civil rights? You can present it in a way that makesit sound, this is how we are compassionate, loving and let people bethemselves, but people's being themselves can also take very ugly forms. MR. MACEDO: Prior to the 1960s we would have said thateveryone has a right to marry, as long as it's a person of the same race. MR. GEORGE: No, see, that's certainly not true. MS. FOX-GENOVESE: That's also slight of hand. MR. GEORGE: We wouldn't -- we, being the generic we inAmerica, wouldn't have believed that. Those very institutions which were socritical in the civil rights movement, the church, the synagogue, Christian andJewish traditions, certainly, normatively, were not part of the racistidea that people should only be able to marry people of the same race. Thatidea was wrong because it judged people not on the basis of behavior, buton the basis of simply of skin color. This debate I think won't get anywhere constructively until we realize that whatever side ultimately isgoing to win, or deserves to win on the merits, we're really talking aboutsexual behavior, and not prejudice or bigotry. MR. BULL: This is ridiculous. A 19-year-old can impulsivelydecide overnight to marry someone of the opposite sex and, you know, themarriage can be abolished just a short time thereafter. Whereas, a gaycouple, same sex couple could be together for 40, 50, 60 years, devoted theirlife to making their lives better for one another, and for the lives ofeveryone around them better, and you're telling me that they don't havethat right? MR. WATTENBERG: Betsy, you have written a lot about civilrights. And I wanted to quote something about Colin Powell, because this issueof civil rights has come up. He wrote, 'skin color is a benign, non-behavioralcharacteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioralcharacteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument.' MS. FOX-GENOVESE: I concur with that entirely. Andfurthermore, it does seem to me that the determination to claim marriage for same sexunions amounts to little more than to destroy the very notion of marriageas a binding sacrament. It is possible to argue that marriage notmerely exists for the reproduction of children, but historically andcross-culturally as the institution which unites women and men in a common project. It is -- it's function is to bridge the divide between the sexes forsociety at large. And always has been. Same sex marriage turns it into a legitimation of pleasure. There is no reason that gays and lesbians cannot have long- standing, and I bythe way, happen -- I do have gay and lesbian friends who do --long-standing, committed relationships. You can roll your eyes. I know what itsounds like. But, it really strikes me as the worst bad faith in theworld, or very good gamesmanship to insist on the right to define whatconstitutes toleration and acceptance. And the gay movement is veryaggressively upping the ante on what is required of people in order to show respectfor them. Giving them marriage is not. MR. WATTENBERG: Give these guys a chance. MR. BULL: Robert and Elizabeth are engaging in an old trick,which is they're trying to make homosexuality appear to be just about sexand pleasure. It's not about -- it's partly about sex and pleasure,as it is for all Americans. It's also about, however, family, it's aboutmarriage, it's about raising children, what about all the same sex couples, allover the country who are raising children, either through previousheterosexual marriages, through adoption, through all sorts of means? Theyneed the same rights to protect those children that opposite sex couples do. MR. MACEDO: If we want to extend these traditional values ofstable commitment, of responsible loving commitment, the best thing wecan do is to extend this institution to that part of the population which,arguably, as conservatives have often noted, need it more than anyone else. MR. WATTENBERG: Do you think that homosexuality is sinful? MR. GEORGE: Yes, but I wouldn't get -- I would not --homosexuality meaning homosexual acts, yes. Now, the homosexual condition or tendencyisn't in itself sinful. But, we shouldn't base our public policy on theproposition that it's sinful. We should base the public policy on ourassessment of the morality of immorality, based on good reasons, that are publiclyacceptable for holding homosexuality to be one or the other. MR. WATTENBERG: Do you believe it's sinful? MS. FOX-GENOVESE: Again, on religious grounds. But, Icertainly don't believe that's a basis for public policy. And, furthermore, as aChristian, one hates the sin and not the sinner. So that this is not anissue for me. What I do think is that these gentlemen are confusing thepragmatic arguments with the arguments from principle. All the argumentsthat you have advanced are the ways in which marriage is a utilitarian good. Ifmarriage is anything -- well, it makes people stable and committed and allthe rest of it. It will serve useful purposes, it will help the homosexual -- MR. MACEDO: It makes their lives intrinsically better, just as with heterosexuals. It's good to encourage people to developlong-term, stable relationships, because we're all apt to err on the side ofinfidelity and lack of commitment. So society decides to back this up. MR. MACEDO: Statistics suggest some of us -- MR. MACEDO: Now, there's a lot of concern over here with thehealth of heterosexual marriage, I'd suggest that we live in a society inwhich there is a right to use contraception, a right to engage in abortion, aright to have contraception outside of marriage and so on. It seems to meto be rather unfair that conservatives draw the line at homosexualmarriage. A lot of damage has been done to the heterosexual family, byheterosexuals. And I don't see how extending marriage to homosexuals would to anythingother than to strengthen it. MS. FOX-GENOVESE: I think there -- MR. WATTENBERG: Hold it. I want to bring up something else,because you had brought up the idea of a better life. Now, recently BillBennett has been saying that the life expectancy of an average male in Americais 74 years, and that for smokers it is 66 years, and that for malehomosexuals it is 43 years. Now, if the president declares war on smoking, interms of health, should he not, when he spoke to the human rightsorganization, mention something about the aspects of homosexuality and health? And shouldn't that be part of the gay movement? MR. BULL: Bennett's statistics are flawed. And he shouldknow, as a smoker himself -- MR. WATTENBERG: Ex-smoker. MR. BULL: Ex-smoker, the statistics that he cited were basedon a study by someone named Paul Cameron (sp), who is a discredited anti-gaypsychologist, and who has spent his entire lifetime obsessing abouthomosexuality. Bennett should be ashamed to cite statistics like that. There is noreason to think that -- MR. WATTENBERG: Do you have other statistics? MR. BULL: Yes, CDC has discredited those statistics. The CDCsays -- MR. WATTENBERG: What are they? MR. BULL: -- it's impossible to estimate, that there's noaccurate statistics to gauge the average life expectancy of gay people, asopposed to heterosexual people, because those kind of statistics are notkept. We don't know the -- we don't know exactly who in the population is gay,because stigma prevents many gay people from asserting themselves. MR. WATTENBERG: Are you -- MR. BULL: There's no reason to believe that most gay peopledon't live normal life expectancies. MR. GEORGE: Just one point -- MR. BULL: It's a total -- MR. WATTENBERG: Even after the advent of AIDS? MR. BULL: The vast majority -- I mean, AIDS does -- it's beena terrible problem in the gay community, but it effects a very tinypercentage of the community. And it doesn't effect lesbians virtually at all. Arewe going to make the argument that lesbians deserve civil rights, becauselesbians have a longer life expectancy than heterosexuals? MR. GEORGE: The statistics for gay men, where is the one thatswitched it to gay people? MR. MACEDO: What about -- but the argument doesn't applyagainst lesbians. And it isn't the fundamental point that -- MR. WATTENBERG: How tiny, what is your -- when you say it'sonly a tiny percentage of gay men? MR. BULL: Again, it's very hard to estimate, but if we'retalking about -- MR. WATTENBERG: But, you know it's tiny? MR. BULL: We're talking about a small percentage of theoverall gay population. It's impossible to say what the numbers are. MS. FOX-GENOVESE: Then why do we have these vast campaigns and organizations around it? MR. MACEDO: But, look, if gay males, or all homosexual peopletend to be somewhat more unhappy than the rest of the population, maybe it'sbecause of William Bennett and his associates who refuse to acknowledge equalrights for homosexuals, and who refuse to extend to homosexuals that socialinstitution which more than any other is supposed to encourage stablecommitment and human happiness. MR. GEORGE: I think that's extremely implausible, Steve, tothink that the problems with homosexual persons have to do with not havingmarriage available. One thing we do know about male homosexuals, fromstudies by McWerder (sp) and Madison, for example, and Kirk and Madston (sp),studies by people who are, themselves, very much in favor of the gay agenda,is that promiscuity if quite rampant among homosexual males, and it'sunlikely to be dampened by -- MR. MACEDO: Shouldn't we try to change that through socialinstitutions? MR. GEORGE: Yes, but not by marriage. I mean, the editor ofthe Harvard Gay and Lesbian Review recently interviewed Andrew Sullivan (sp),who of course defends a position very much like yours. And at the end ofthe interview he appended an editorial statement of his own, where hesaid quite flatly that he considered the campaign for same sex marriage to bea tactical campaign, that involved sanitizing, to use his words, sanitizingthe sexual dimension, the promiscuous sexual dimension of much of thehomosexual lifestyle. MR. MACEDO: There are aberrations out there who Chris writesabout with great -- and you know it as well as I do, we're not in favor ofthat. We're not advocating the extension of marriage -- MR. GEORGE: No, I know you're not advocating -- MR. BULL: The real problem -- MR. GEORGE: The studies by McWerder and Madison and by Kirkand Madston -- MR. BULL: There's a real problem here -- MR. GEORGE: -- really do make clear that that promiscuity ispart the whole picture. MR. BULL: -- in the way your -- MR. WATTENBERG: Hold on. Hold on. MR. GEORGE: It's part of the inherent -- MR. MACEDO: Can't you change through social institution? MR. GEORGE: Not through -- MR. BULL: Robert. MR. WATTENBERG: Let Chris go please. MR. BULL: There's a fundamental problem with the way you'retalking about gay people. You're generalizing about gay people in a way thatyou would never generalize about any other minority group, or majority groupin this country. You can't possibly say that all gay people areresponsible for sexual promiscuity. You can't possibly say that all gay peopleare responsible for AIDS. MR. GEORGE: Chris, you know very well that I did not say thatall -- MR. BULL: No one would ever talk this way about any otherminority. It's really disrespectful. And I -- MR. GEORGE: You question the statistics of Bill Bennett. Doyou question the statistics of McWerder and Madison? Do you question thestatistics of Kirk and Madston, yes or no? MR. BULL: We can find -- you can find statistics about anygroup, including middle-aged, white, heterosexual men. MR. GEORGE: Note that Chris is not answering the question,because he knows perfectly well that homosexual activists themselves MR. WATTENBERG: Time out. MR. GEORGE: -- have validated these statistics. MR. WATTENBERG: Time out for a minute. MR. GEORGE: If you would say yes or no, we would know thetruth. MR. BULL: You can't generalize about human beings. MR. GEORGE: Yes or no, are McWerder and Madison correct? Hewon't say no. MR. WATTENBERG: Time out. Referee. Some people say that, youknow, likening the gay movement to the civil rights movement is flawedin this respect. Gays are, on average, wealthier, they are in highlyvisible and admired professions. And people say, you know, this is not agroup that is in dire straights. MR. MACEDO: But, the harm is different. They have to hide anessential -- we have to hide an essential part of our lives, in a way thatother people don't. And you made the point before about the life expectancyand so on. If we credit that William Bennett statistic, then -- which Idon't. I think it's incorrect. But, nevertheless, I think there is a disabilitythat goes along with not being able to lead a public life. And undoubtedly,the promiscuity and so on that Robbie talked about before, that may bea greater problem to some degree, than in other parts of the population, butthat would be an over- generalization to say that, but that's part of thisneed to hide. It's part of this not a -- MR. GEORGE: I don't think it is. But, I want to say this forSteve's position. If it were, in fact, true that the traditional moralunderstanding of sodomitical -- homosexual sodomitical is wrong, were itselfmerely prejudice, or were arbitrary, then it wouldn't be any goodargument to say, but homosexually inclined people are richer, or they have highersocial status, or something like that. That wouldn't be a good argumentfor denying people civil rights. The real debate is whether traditionalChristian and Jewish understandings, whether traditional morality is reallyright or wrong in saying that homosexual sexual behavior is wrong. The questionis, are we going to stigmatize opposition to homosexual conduct on moralgrounds, as being a form of bigotry, like racial bigotry, or religiousbigotry. I think that that would be a very unwise, and unfair thing for us to do,as a society. MR. WATTENBERG: Is that what you're trying to do, is tostigmatize him? MR. BULL: No, I think -- I mean, I've written a whole bookabout -- that's partly about the idea that the gay movement has been unfair topeople of faith. It hasn't -- it's at times resorted to religious bigotry. It has to learn to make arguments directed at American -- you know, theoverwhelming majority of Americans who are believers. It has to be moresensitive in that area. But, at the same time, people of faith, like yourself, haveto figure out ways in which gay people can be granted full civil equality,while you're retaining your own -- you know, your own religious beliefs which,of course, we all respect. MR. MACEDO: I was going to say, the fundamental point is theone you named. Do we have reasons for regarding homosexual acts as intrinsicallyimmoral. Then that's the only way we can decide whether this is a matterof prejudices, which we know have existed in the past, which movemany people, but does the question -- does that public moral judgement rest onsomething more than prejudice. And that's why -- MR. GEORGE: This is why I think it's very important to have anhonest debate about sexuality. Now, as it happens, Steve and I havetried to conduct this debate. And for people who are interested -- MR. WATTENBERG: You two were colleagues at Princeton, and youwere one of his advisors on his PhD thesis, is that right? MR. GEORGE: I was one of Steve's examiners, he's one of mystar examinees. I'm very -- MR. MACEDO: He passed me on that topic, maybe not on this one. MR. GEORGE: No, I would pass Steve on this one, although he'swrong, he makes a wonderful case for the wrong view. But, anybody who wouldreally like to go into this case, and see what is to be said on bothsides, at least by Steve and myself, should have a look at the December 1995 issueof the Georgetown Law Journal, where, taking the opportunity that spacein a journal gives you, we were able to lay out the arguments on both sides. Ithink that -- MR. WATTENBERG: I want to just close this episode with acouple of political questions. Generally speaking, between what PresidentClinton has said and done, and what Vice President Gore has recently said anddone, about sort of praising this incident on the sitcom Ellen, is that goingto prove to be helpful or harmful to Democrats by being closely identifiedwith the gay rights movement? MR. GEORGE: The problem for Clinton is that his base, hiselectoral base, has a very liberal view about sexuality and about cultural issues,generally. And to maintain that base he's got to signal to them thatessentially he is a liberal on sexual issues, that he shares their permissive viewsabout sexuality. At the same time the new Democrat Clinton realizesthat those views are not widely held beyond his elite base. So at the sametime that he's praising Ellen, he has to make sure that he's against, forexample, same sex marriage. Now the trouble is, he doesn't have a consistentposition. Steve has a consistent position, homosexual relations are nodifferent from heterosexual marital relations. MR. WATTENBERG: Let's just go on that. MR. GEORGE: Clinton won't say that, and so he's stuck with alogical dilemma. MR. BULL: Okay. I think that ultimately the president is onthe right side of history on this issue. That if you look at the progress thatthe gay movement has made over the last 30 years, that we were justtalking about, he can project into the future, and see that Americans will supportgay rights, increasingly, as we go into future elections. And on a moreconcrete level, it is true that he has to raise money in the gay community, or theparty has to raise money, and the gay community contributed substantially toboth his elections. And that he's made some missteps on gay issues, partlybecause he was given bad advice on the military by gay activists, at times. And I think he wants to try to make amends for that. And he does a reallygood job when -- he does his best work when he talks about one nation andtolerance and conciliation, bringing Americans together. MR. WATTENBERG: Betsy, politics? MS. FOX-GENOVESE: Politics, I certainly agree that thepresident is a past master of talk, the talk that particular groups want to hear, thetalk that he thinks will spin people into his web. I agree completely aboutthe importance of the financial contributions of the gay community,and we know that he's very sensitive to the price of campaigning these days,especially television ads. So all of this makes perfect sense. I do,however, think that he doesn't begin to measure fully the sense of mainstreamopinion, and that is why he has been virtually unwilling to take any clearstand of any kind, except to evoke tolerance. And, in my judgement, we willsooner or later reach a point in which some political leader is going tohave to ask, who gets to define what tolerance requires. MR. WATTENBERG: Okay. Last shot, briefly, politics, StephenMacedo. MR. BULL: Can't help but be grateful to the president and vicepresident. But, I look forward to the party of Lincoln addressing theseissues. As a Weld Republican, I think it's high time that the party ofindividual responsibility and freedom recognized that all Americans areentitled to that. MR. GEORGE: Steve, are you a Republican? MR. MACEDO: You bet, of an odd sort. MR. WATTENBERG: That you, Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, StephenMacedo, Robert George, and Chris Bull, and thank you. For Think Tank, I'm Ben Wattenberg. ANNOUNCER: We at Think Tank depend on your views to make ourshow better. Please send your questions and comments to: New River Media,1150 Seventeenth Street, Northwest, Washington, D.C. 20036; or e-mailus at thinktank@pbs.org. To learn more about Think Tank visit PBSOnline at www.pbs.org. And please let us know where you watch Think Tank. (Musical break.) ANNOUNCER: This has been a production of BJW, Incorporated, inassociation with New River Media, which are solely responsible for itscontent. Think Tank is made possible by AMGEN, recipient of thePresidential National Medal of Technology. AMGEN, helping cancer patients throughcellular and molecular biology. Improving lives today and bringing hope fortomorrow. Additional funding is provided by the John M. Olin Foundation,the Lilly Endowment and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the UnitedStates Japan Foundation and the Donner Canadian Foundation. (End of program.) Back to top  Think Tank is made possible by generous support from the Smith Richardson Foundation, the Bernard and Irene Schwartz Foundation, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation, the Donner Canadian Foundation, the Dodge Jones Foundation, and Pfizer, Inc. ©Copyright Think Tank. All rights reserved. 
  Web development by Bean Creative. |