photo by
MICHAEL PARRISH
WW INTERVIEW
Our Dinner with Andrew
Author Andrew Sullivan comes to the defense of Bob Packwood, the OCA and gay marriage.
It's not as if Sullivan has minced words in the past. His attack on the moral posturing of American conservatives in the Oct. 11 New York Times magazine caused quite a buzz in political circles. And his new book, Love Undetectable: Notes on Friendship, Sex and Survival (Knopf, 256 pages, $23), has drawn fire from fellow gay activists.
Sullivan was in town last week, just seven days after the fall election, to read from Love Undetectable at Powell's. He stopped by our office to share some pizza and his thoughts on politics and the gay-rights movement. Below are excerpts from the interview.
WW: A week ago we saw gay-marriage initiatives get trounced at the polls in two states, and yet in Congress Republicans did so badly that Newt Gingrich had to step down. Overall, do you find comfort in the results?Sullivan: Oh yeah, tremendously. I mean in the one sense, no, because of Hawaii and Alaska. The exit polls did not really show there would be that big of a majority [voting against the gay-marriage initiatives]. On the other hand, if someone told me 10 years ago that there would be referendums in two states on this issue and it would get one-third of the public support, I would have been looking at the glass as half full on this issue.
And what about the Republican setback?
My inclination is not to think of it as an endorsement of Clinton. I think it was more a rejection of a particular kind of Republicanism.
In your criticism of intellectual conservatives, where does Gingrich fit in? It seems as if he did some of the work of the scolding moralists but didn't believe it.
I think Gingrich's problem was a lack of a firm idea of what he wanted to do once the Contract [with America] went up into smoke. He was sort of traumatized by that event. And after that, his main concern was to somehow hold the party together. But I don't think he fits into that particular model, I don't think he's scolding at all. Gingrich, despite his reputation in terms of policy, was very much an ally of the moderates. People forget that. I remember having lunch with Gingrich before he was speaker. I raised with him the question of gays in the military. This was a lunch at The New Republic, before Clinton's election, and he said, "I don't think it should matter as long as you can do your job." And I think that was his authentic view, but he subsequently caved.
What do you think of Oregon's most famous Republican, Bob Packwood?
Clearly, given what's happened this year, one must surely be bemused by the sort of fickle fortunes of politicians. I really think one of the casualties of this year is the pathetic state of American feminism--its leadership, its complete inconsistency. I don't know how they [feminists] can stand there and say this man [Packwood]--who pathetically groped people without any criminal or any real legal issues involved--should be not just removed but humiliated, and Clinton--who has a history of all of that plus, I think, perjury in defending himself from sexual harassment--should be a hero. I think that's absolutely stunning.
Where do you fall on the issue of hate-crime laws?
Oh, I'm against any type of them. I'm a free-speecher. I don't believe the law should be punishing motives. I think hate-crime laws are essentially a way liberal politicians can play interest-group politics. What it's not addressing is, "Is this police department effectively enforcing the law against crimes against gay men?" I think we have a hate-crimes law in D.C., but the last five murders against gay men have gone unsolved because the police could give a damn. But we'd rather pass a hate-crimes law. It's a panacea. I think someone who hits me over the head with a baseball bat and calls me a faggot should be prosecuted for hitting me with a baseball bat and not for calling me a faggot.
In Oregon last year there was an effort to pass a nondiscrimination law. Is that where the effort should be?
No, and if I'm not a pariah already, this is what makes me one. I'm an economic libertarian, which means I'm skeptical of all government involvement with hiring and firing processes, unless there is overwhelming evidence of systematic discrimination and some reparation is necessary. I certainly don't think there is evidence that gay men and women are having a hard time holding down jobs. In places where that kind of law has already been passed--for example, Wisconsin's 13-year-old employment nondiscrimination law--a tiny percent [of the violations], one or two at the most, are gay-related. The inference I draw is, either there really is not that big of a problem or people are staying in the closet and it never emerges.
Or the law is so effective that employers don't discriminate?
That doesn't quite explain why there are such large numbers of cases of racial or sexual discrimination. To my mind, the issue is how brave gay people want to be in their workplace, how comfortable they are being openly gay in their workplace. And that's really a matter of social change.
You don't think government has a role in nudging social change?
No, I don't. I certainly think in a government office or a public institution there should be clear nondiscrimination laws because it is supposed to be representing our country and our voting population. But when you get to private companies, it can get messy, as we all know from the whole affirmative-action debate. When you're dealing with issues as sensitive as who's gay and who isn't, how do you know? How do you count them up? How do you prove someone's discriminating? It depends on disclosure at some level, and even self-definition. I think it's way too invasive an issue, so I think what's more important is building the blocks for gay people who feel strong enough and brave enough to come out into the gay dialogue.
And how do you do that?
The issue is fundamentally one of psychological and emotional self-esteem and power. And that requires a slightly different strategy, which is why I've always laid emphasis on things like marriage rights to encourage a mentality of us as powerful and empowered human beings who have relationships that are equal to anybody else's. That would generally help people to be out in the office. Still, I'm sure that even if that does happen, there are going to be a few assholes that are going to fire you for it. Much more likely is that you would find yourself sort of socially out of place at the firm's picnic. I don't know quite what we can do about that except fight it.
You've probably heard of the Oregon Citizens Alliance. Although it didn't get on the ballot, the OCA had a measure that would have not just curbed gay marriage but any sex not suitable for procreation, including artificial insemination. It was aimed at lesbians but would have affected heterosexuals as well.
Traditional birthing? Amazing. Well at least it's consistent. My feeling is the more consistent they are on that, the more immune they are to charges of bigotry. Anybody who does not take that position, the burden of proof has to be on them for why they are singling out homos. If your concern is non-reproductive sex, the 2 percent of the people who may be engaged in it in a homosexual way is no big deal compared to the mass of people who are engaged in it in a heterosexual way. One of the things I've been trying to bang into the heads of some people in the gay world is we have to make that connection, because people have to understand that it is not really about us. We are target practice. The consistent attack is really about reproductive freedom in its broadest sense. When the heterosexuals figure out that this is being done to them, they are going to say "No."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Willamette Week | originally published November 18, 1998
