Dumb, Dumber & Astute
I don't agree with Richard Waghorne's argument that Ken Mehlman, US Republican National Committee chairman and a former Bush/Cheney 04 campaign manager, is not fair game for media and Democrat party members' speculation about his sexuality. Mehlman has come under fire from Democrat activists for dodging reporters' questions about said matter. As a supporter of the marriage protection act and an alleged closet gay,the RNC boss is being called both hypocritical and dishonest by his opponents. Lining him up with two other people in the news for their sexual proclivities- Lib Demmers,Mark Oaten and Simon Hughes - Waghorne argues that Mehlman is an undeserving target of personal attacks as he is not necessarily being dishonest or hypocritical in supporting the marriage protection act and being gay. Oaten and Hughes, on the other hand, RW goes on, are fair game for the media as the first, apart from breaking the law, has been hypocritical, while the second has been dishonest.
While I agree with Richard in so far as it's possible to be gay and to rationally support the marriage protection act, I think the validity of his argument about media interest in Ken Mehlman's sexual orientation would have to rest on how he, and Mr Mehlman, Mr Mehlman's opponents, and the media define homosexuality. If being gay is simply about who you have sex with, then Messrs Waghorne and Mehlman are quite correct to say it is nobody's business except that of the consenting adults involved. However,if being gay is about more than simply who you bed, then surely media speculation as to Mr Mehlman's sexuality - not his sex life - is justifiable and not necessarily invasive.
I'm with Pope Benedict on this one. He believes being homosexual is about far more than who you have sex with, as his recent Instruction to catholic seminaries not to admit or ordain gay men - even those who kept their vow of celibacy - makes plain.
Mehlman doesn't have things as clear as the new pope, unfortunately. Here's an excerpt from his June 05 appearance on NBC's Meet the Press">:
MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?
MR. MEHLMAN: I don't know the answer to that question. I don't think it matters to the fundamental question here because at bottom, this president believes in non-discrimination. He believes in equal treatment. He believes in respect for all. He also believes, separate and apart from that question, that the fundamental question of marriage ought to be defined in the way it's been defined for more than 200 years of our nation's history, which is by the people's representative at the state legislatures.
MR. RUSSERT: But the Log Cabin Republicans will say if you're born gay, it's a biological determination, not a matter of choice.
MR. MEHLMAN: And that's--that may be, but the fact is that's irrelevant to question of the public definition of marriage. They're two totally different issues.
And indeed, they may well be. But when as the incumbent president's election campaign manager, you use the marriage protection act as a political
tool
to get out the vote, and further, when you are working for an administration which can be realistically charged with homophobia and conduct prejudicial to gays, then I say you're fair game when it comes to speculation about your sexuality.
To me all this is a fine example of how political gays always want to have it both ways. While having it both ways is to be energetically encouraged in the bedroom, I fear it's rather less robustly defensable beyond those narrow confines. Gay activists are so often quick to deplore media witch hunts unless they are the ones instigating them. At the same time, those gays who benefit so much from their homosexuality not being disclosed like to trot out the whole "it's a private matter" thing and completely ignore the wider picture of on-going discrimination against gays in daily life. What gives the lie to that argument is the complete unwillingness of those who use it in their defense to be unequivocal about their sexuality. Were Mehlman to state categorically that he is indeed gay, surely he would lend weight to the pro-marriage protection act lobby? Likewise, if all the celibate gay priests in the catholic church were to come out, wouldn't they be a significant counter-argument to those who say that the church is institutionally homophobic?
As for Oaten and Hughes, well, I have to say I am not without sympathy for the former, although, obviously, the weight of my sympathy is with his wife and children.
Clearly he deserved his comeuppance as two years ago he chose to pass moral judgement on a high-court judge who was discovered to be having sex with prostitutues. As for RW's opinion that there is an inherent conflict between breaking the law and running for high office, well, I don't think it's as black and white as that. Clearly, such an argument would have put paid to Senator Norris' public career (something which by all accounts might gratify Waghorne). I'm not sure that engaging the services of a prostitute in a private place is in fact a crime in Britain anyway. This BBC article appears to say that it in fact isn't. Oaten has my sympathy because those who aired the story of his philandering saw fit to include details of what went on that are clearly of no public interest whatsoever. The irony of the prostitute being allowed to pass moral judgement on his customer by the NOFTW wasn't lost on me.
The last of the trio is Simon Hughes, who ran against gay activist Peter Thatchell in the 1983 British general election as the "straight candidate"(!!!) and won. While it's perfectly feasible that Hughes at the time was less than sure, or even ignorant, of his homosexuality, I think a full disclosure and a public, or at least private, apology to Thatchell would have been in order about the same time he began to indulge his penchant for gay chat lines.
Hughes' situation more closely resembles Ken Mehlman's than Oaten's does. They have played on prejudice to get votes, if not in Mehlman's case directly for himself, then for his party and his employer. While public speculation about what one does in bed with one or more people, in my opinion, should never be entertained beyond the realms of idle gossipers, media speculation about a public figure's sexuality may indeed be justified when it can be argued that there is a conflict of interest, so to speak. For as long as there's debate about whether the Bush admin is promoting, in Mehlman's words, "non-discrimination...equal treatment [and] respect for all" when it comes to gays, I'm afraid Ken Mehlman's sexuality is going to be part of that debate.
Fair play to Peter Thatchell for his Orwellian sensitivity to language:
“The media's use of the epithet 'rent boy' has a whiff of homophobia. It is a dated, insulting term from the anti-gay past. A 23 year old man is not a boy.”
“Such language infantilises gay men and risks conflating homosexuality with paedophilia.”
While I agree with Richard in so far as it's possible to be gay and to rationally support the marriage protection act, I think the validity of his argument about media interest in Ken Mehlman's sexual orientation would have to rest on how he, and Mr Mehlman, Mr Mehlman's opponents, and the media define homosexuality. If being gay is simply about who you have sex with, then Messrs Waghorne and Mehlman are quite correct to say it is nobody's business except that of the consenting adults involved. However,if being gay is about more than simply who you bed, then surely media speculation as to Mr Mehlman's sexuality - not his sex life - is justifiable and not necessarily invasive.
I'm with Pope Benedict on this one. He believes being homosexual is about far more than who you have sex with, as his recent Instruction to catholic seminaries not to admit or ordain gay men - even those who kept their vow of celibacy - makes plain.
Mehlman doesn't have things as clear as the new pope, unfortunately. Here's an excerpt from his June 05 appearance on NBC's Meet the Press">:
MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?
MR. MEHLMAN: I don't know the answer to that question. I don't think it matters to the fundamental question here because at bottom, this president believes in non-discrimination. He believes in equal treatment. He believes in respect for all. He also believes, separate and apart from that question, that the fundamental question of marriage ought to be defined in the way it's been defined for more than 200 years of our nation's history, which is by the people's representative at the state legislatures.
MR. RUSSERT: But the Log Cabin Republicans will say if you're born gay, it's a biological determination, not a matter of choice.
MR. MEHLMAN: And that's--that may be, but the fact is that's irrelevant to question of the public definition of marriage. They're two totally different issues.
And indeed, they may well be. But when as the incumbent president's election campaign manager, you use the marriage protection act as a political
tool
to get out the vote, and further, when you are working for an administration which can be realistically charged with homophobia and conduct prejudicial to gays, then I say you're fair game when it comes to speculation about your sexuality.
To me all this is a fine example of how political gays always want to have it both ways. While having it both ways is to be energetically encouraged in the bedroom, I fear it's rather less robustly defensable beyond those narrow confines. Gay activists are so often quick to deplore media witch hunts unless they are the ones instigating them. At the same time, those gays who benefit so much from their homosexuality not being disclosed like to trot out the whole "it's a private matter" thing and completely ignore the wider picture of on-going discrimination against gays in daily life. What gives the lie to that argument is the complete unwillingness of those who use it in their defense to be unequivocal about their sexuality. Were Mehlman to state categorically that he is indeed gay, surely he would lend weight to the pro-marriage protection act lobby? Likewise, if all the celibate gay priests in the catholic church were to come out, wouldn't they be a significant counter-argument to those who say that the church is institutionally homophobic?
As for Oaten and Hughes, well, I have to say I am not without sympathy for the former, although, obviously, the weight of my sympathy is with his wife and children.
Clearly he deserved his comeuppance as two years ago he chose to pass moral judgement on a high-court judge who was discovered to be having sex with prostitutues. As for RW's opinion that there is an inherent conflict between breaking the law and running for high office, well, I don't think it's as black and white as that. Clearly, such an argument would have put paid to Senator Norris' public career (something which by all accounts might gratify Waghorne). I'm not sure that engaging the services of a prostitute in a private place is in fact a crime in Britain anyway. This BBC article appears to say that it in fact isn't. Oaten has my sympathy because those who aired the story of his philandering saw fit to include details of what went on that are clearly of no public interest whatsoever. The irony of the prostitute being allowed to pass moral judgement on his customer by the NOFTW wasn't lost on me.
The last of the trio is Simon Hughes, who ran against gay activist Peter Thatchell in the 1983 British general election as the "straight candidate"(!!!) and won. While it's perfectly feasible that Hughes at the time was less than sure, or even ignorant, of his homosexuality, I think a full disclosure and a public, or at least private, apology to Thatchell would have been in order about the same time he began to indulge his penchant for gay chat lines.
Hughes' situation more closely resembles Ken Mehlman's than Oaten's does. They have played on prejudice to get votes, if not in Mehlman's case directly for himself, then for his party and his employer. While public speculation about what one does in bed with one or more people, in my opinion, should never be entertained beyond the realms of idle gossipers, media speculation about a public figure's sexuality may indeed be justified when it can be argued that there is a conflict of interest, so to speak. For as long as there's debate about whether the Bush admin is promoting, in Mehlman's words, "non-discrimination...equal treatment [and] respect for all" when it comes to gays, I'm afraid Ken Mehlman's sexuality is going to be part of that debate.
Fair play to Peter Thatchell for his Orwellian sensitivity to language:
“The media's use of the epithet 'rent boy' has a whiff of homophobia. It is a dated, insulting term from the anti-gay past. A 23 year old man is not a boy.”
“Such language infantilises gay men and risks conflating homosexuality with paedophilia.”
posted by purefunction at 12:50 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home