20 July 1993
Through a Gay Viewfinder
Whether the question is moral, military or genetic,
opinion-formers persist in seeing homosexual issues from a straight angle
"Its not enough to be tolerated because, when the shit hits the fan,
you find out how much tolerance is worth. Nothing. Underneath all the
tolerance, is intense, passionate hatred" the gay hero of Tony
Kushner's play Angels In America
Some 120,000 lesbians and gay men held an open air party in London
last month. After our annual Gay Pride March through the streets of the West
End, we ended up in Brockwell Park. There was entertainment from bands,
comics and soap stars. There were stalls promoting lobby groups, churches,
Aids charities and nightclubs. Though maybe a few thousand supportive
heteros came along for the fun, gays and lesbians were in the majority. Just
for one day, the world was merrily turned upside down. For one day, we
forgot the constraints which UK laws place on us. We were free, for example,
to show the sort of open affection which the straight world takes for
granted. Two men embracing in the streets can be found guilty of inciting a
breach of the peace. But there were no arrests or disturbances in Brockwell
Park.
Part of the point of Lesbian and Gay Pride is to remind ourselves and
others that visible or not, we daily exist in every corner of society. I
marched alongside a Methodist preacher hoping to persuade his church to
ordain lesbian and gay ministers. Next to us were two gay students, whose
teenage love affair breaks the law. There was a soldier, discharged from the
Army when she told them she was lesbian. Nearby I met a gay social worker, a
lesbian mother and a 75-year-old gay millionaire marching for the first
time.

Gay Pride usually merits three lines on an inside page of the Sunday
papers next day. This year, with a serial killer on the prowl, the
"mainstream" (ie straight) press, radio and television decided we were a
sensation worthy of banner headlines, above unrepresentative snapshots of
drag queens in fancy dress.
Then, last week, gays again made the front pages. The National
Institute of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, announced their discovery of a
possible "gay gene" which might dispose some men to be gay from conception
onwards. This was not the first such theory but the announcement was leapt
upon with lurid enthusiasm across the media.
The scientists at Bethesda were quite clear the causes of
homosexuality may be both genetic and environmental. Genes have no monopoly
on determining human behaviour. Predestination and free will go hand in
hand. But science correspondents. leading articles and the letter pages
would have none of that The one overriding issue was whether a mother should
or should not have the right to abort her gay foetus.
In other words, what a problem we gays cause our parents. We don't
provide them with grandchildren but then the laws of adoption, fostering
and donor insemination hugely discourage gay or lesbian parenting. We are
assumed to lead unhappy, unstable and lonely lives (some of us do. unable to
be honest at work where for the most part homosexuality is acceptable
grounds for dismissal). All this talk of abortion might well unnerve the
most well adjusted gay man. On Newsnight, Baroness Warnock cautioned
that there might be need for laws against parents who proposed that ultimate
sanction against the shame of having a gay child. I wonder how many more
lesbian and gay young people, unable to face their parents' disapproval, are
now considering the final solution to society's homophobia. It is already
estimated that they are two or three times more likely to commit suicide
than their heterosexual peers.
There has been optimism too. Now that homosexuality may be as natural
as a gene can be, mightn't this temper the censorious aggression of those
who only define it in terms of "abnormalty", "perversion", "chosen life
style" or, as her pastor recently told a lesbian friend, "Satan's
temptation". Well, it doesn't take much scientific research to determine the
colour of someone's skin or their gender but that hasn't discouraged
discrimination against blacks or women.
So it was unsettling, but to gays unsurprising, that bigotry rapidly
confounded the optimists. Lord Jacobovits, the former Chief Rabbi, rushed
into print. Not withstanding any gene, "homosexuality is a grave departure
from the natural norm which we are charged to overcome like any other
affliction." Cardinal Basil Hume has just repeated the Vatican's
condemnation of homosexual acts as "objectively wrong" and of homosexuals as
"objectively disordered".

Age old prejudice dies hard: and not only in Britain. President
Clinton, having accepted campaign contributions and votes from gays and
lesbians, promised to lift the ban on their serving openly in the US armed
forces. He soon tasted the intensity of institutionalised homophobia from
the Pentagon. In his recent announcement of very minimal changes in the
status of military gays, the President came as close as any political leader
has ever come to saying "sorry". He said that, when first asked about the
ban, "I had never had the opportunity to discuss it with anyone." He has now
learnt that the issue "is already tearing the cohesion of the military."
Never mind that there is scarcely an army in Nato that doesn't accept open
homosexuals, "it is right for the military to be wary of sudden changes."
Again the familiar pattern of looking at a gay issue from a straight
point of view. Whether the military should welcome homosexuals is discussed
primarily in terms of placating prejudice rather than removing injustice.
Gay soldiers cause problems to their commanders just as gay children do to
their parents.

My initial reaction to the "gay gene" was to laugh. Since I was about
10,1 felt I was born gay; just as my parents, whom I didn't dare confide in,
used to say I was a "born actor". Whatever it was, genetic, social,
familial, environmental, consciously or unconsciously. everything happily
conspired to form my sexuality. When I came out five years ago, some of my
closest friends thought I was brave, even foolhardy. To be honest, that's
not how it felt to me, after 49 years of half lying. Rather, it was a
relief: an unnecessary millstone was lifted.
Now I have friends, half my age, who at the outset of their maturity
and their careers, are establishing a new generation of openness. Two of
these are currently challenging, in the European Court of Human Rights, the
UK's unequal age of consent laws (16 for straights, 21 for gays. any age for
lesbians). Hugo Greenhalgh is 20, his lover Will Parry is 25. They are
therefore criminals and yesterday were questioned by police, deciding
whether to arrest them. With the news that Mr Major is to give time for a
free vote in Parliament on the age of consent, Greenhalgh and Parry have had
more pressing concerns than the "gay gene".
Just a thought. How soon before expectant parents tell their friends:
"It's twins. A boy and a girl. They're both going to be gay. We're calling
them Michelangelo and Martina. We've painted the nursery lavender." -- Ian McKellen
 |

Illustration: Peter Clarke
|