and every public debate goes overboard in stressing the differences, more
loudly and repetitively.
Take a “fallen” minister or politician whose homosexual pursuits have been
exposed, and the media asks them what that “behavior” means for them, for
it can never do to have it be perfectly clear that it is a source of emotional
and physical happiness. Of course, the underlying curiosity is purely — are
you going to accept that you are gay, or go into denial? No one will pose
such questions as, "why did you try to conceal something that makes you
happy and filled a void in your life?" No, I am to watch an unseemly public
baring of the entire family, with the person in question blaming either the
crude world of politics or Satan for not recognizing his or her full and true
nature. If homosexuality is to be regarded as natural, should we start by not
pressuring these families to do shoddy and humiliating self-exorcisms for our
entertainment?
Of the politicians, only the Libertarians and Greens, the irrelevant creeds in
the American political system, can stand with their heads held high on this
matter, for they were both consistently pro-gay rights from day one, as
matter of principle and not opportunity. I admired President Obama's
embrace of gay rights only when he showed the moxie to take the message
to the people of Senegal and the wider African continent, even though he
knew it might tarnish their perception of him; this was a real sign of
sincerity to me. In the end, however, one does not need Jeffersonian
philosophy to justify keeping the government out of people's private and
family lives. Giving the government the power to keep two people in love
apart is what is at stake here. There is no real need for living or dead
presidents, and non-existent, supernatural entities to weigh in on that
question, is there? (Having never been a victim of the ailment, I perhaps
underestimate homophobia.)
Love Outlives
P a g e | 94