21

IMPOSING NORMALITY

Most men and women describe themselves as heterosexual. That may well be an accurate assessment, at least in the present time. Nature has inscrutable ways of distributing traits and attributes. Hence there are more blonds than redheads. And while nature countenances homosexual inclinations, thus far such individuals are a minor part of the population.

We have no realistic way of collating figures in this area. In May 2018, Gallup asked a large sample of adults, “Do you personally identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transsexual?” Altogether, 4.5 percent replied affirmatively, with 3.9 percent of men and 5.1 percent of women. The poll did not break down the four variations. (An Australian survey had 3.4 percent reporting lesbian or gay, which might leave 1.1 percent for the other options.)1

An obvious question arises. How many people lied, as they often do with polls? It seems safe to surmise that more than a few men and women have had same-sex stirrings, fluctuating in frequency and intensity, even by chance and circumstance. Some may be much aware of these attractions, but prefer to keep them secret, not least to pollsters. In Psychology 101, we were taught to call this suppression, as with being aware of a condition, but outwardly denying it. Far more interesting is repression. Here we refuse to concede that something about ourselves even exists, whether from shame or fear or something more primordial. Indeed, much of the population may be unaware of being latently gay, lesbian, bisexual, queer, or uncertain about their gender. Needless to say, these realms are not amenable to percentages or statistics. Still, this chapter will look into what impels an insistence on unalloyed heterosexuality. Or on being wholly male or totally female.

The chief catalyst has been deciding who may marry. (An earlier focus was serving in the military.) The Republican position, as in its 2016 platform, heralds “traditional marriage and family, based on marriage between one man and one woman, is the foundation for a free society and has for millennia been entrusted with rearing children and instilling cultural values.” The premise is that any man or woman may marry, so long as their partner is of another sex. So Republicans do not oppose homosexuals marrying. They don’t disapprove if, say, a gay man weds a straight woman, as not infrequently happens. What they resist is giving the recognition of marriage to pairings of lesbian women or gay men.

Underlying this position is the conviction that homosexuality is inherently unnatural. On the premise that this is so, individuals with that identity are seen as a stratum whose members cannot claim general rights and protections, as in not being allowed to be police officers or kindergarten teachers, or to adopt children or obtain a marriage license. In this view, homosexuality is an unfortunate mutation. If it continues to persist, it should at least be denied official legitimacy. Others say they are only concerned with actual conduct, or as English jurists once put it, “carnal acts against the order of nature.” Indeed, much aversion to same-sex pairings arises from fantasies conjuring what such couples might do in bed. Implicit in the GOP platform is a wish that homosexuality not exist.

As might be expected, when Republicans are polled, more oppose same-sex marriage than favor it. Yet the vote is closer than some people might think. A 2018 Gallup survey found that of those with opinions, 53 percent were against it and 47 percent were agreeable. Not the least reason is that many Republican parents have made peace with accepting that one of their children is gay.2

There’s less ambiguity on the Democratic side. In the same survey, fully 80 percent favored opening nuptials to all adults. The tone of the party’s 2016 platform gave a forthright endorsement. “Democrats applaud last year’s decision by the Supreme Court that recognized LGBT people—like every other American—have the right to marry the person they love.” It continued: “Democrats will fight for comprehensive federal non-discrimination protections for all LGBT Americans and push back against state efforts to discriminate against LGBT individuals.”

In sharp contrast, an underlying Republican premise is that heterosexual identity and comportment are the only normal states for the human species. In this view, other inclinations and activities are contrary to divine or natural dictates.

So it isn’t asked why a considerable portion of the population eschews the heterosexual template. (Granted, a platform isn’t a seminar.) There is no shortage of explanations, ranging from childhood seduction to overbearing parents, not to mention accusations of exhibitionism. If genetics have a role, Republican advice is to keep those propensities under wraps.

The GOP is not explicitly antigay. For those who are religious, all human creatures have souls and are eligible for redemption. In fact, most Republicans find it imprudent to be overtly homophobic, let alone vent an incensed aversion.

Thus the focus on marriage, which bestows official legitimacy on the unions they countenance. If Louisiana is made to authorize the uniting of two women or two men, it becomes an affirmation that homosexuality ranks equally with heterosexuality. If a cousin is united in a lesbian wedding, how is this to be explained to a six-year-old niece? Not many Republicans want to be put in a position of having to say that such rites are equally acceptable, let alone normal or natural.

The half of the Republicans who oppose such unions wish that heterosexuality would be the only human condition. Their view no longer has the preponderance it once did. But their party is sticking with them, and in return get their votes.

image

I am pro-guns, anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-tax, and anti-Muslim. (North Carolina)

Obamacare was a big step toward a socialistic system. (Virginia)

Islam is not a religion. It’s a violent, radical crusade. (Virginia)