Understanding Homophobia
BY PAUL EVENSEN
The liberal in South Carolina is
even after
all of these years
hard pressed
to understand the motives of the radical right when they take such actions
as orchestrating Greenville County Council's recent anti-gay resolution.
With no reference point from which to understand right-wing
extremists, liberals have drawn conclusions that are too simplistic. They
have labeled the right "hateful" and motivated by fear. This weak
understanding has resulted in an ineffective response which allows the
extreme right to monopolize politics and even to define liberals.
This domination offers profound lessons; the focus here is to
understand the motives and tactics of the radical right and to suggest a
thoughtful, centrist response.
Fear
The fear felt by the radical right operates on levels much deeper than
just a fear of those different from themselves. It is based on the notion
that since the "gay lifestyle" is a choice and gay couples cannot
procreate, gay people must recruit. This is as simple as it appears: a
fear based on utter ignorance of the dynamics of gay life. It is a premise
so preposterous most liberals stop at this point and respond at this
level. Liberals work to dispel this fear through various attempts at
educating the right and the public in general. The fear they are fighting,
however, runs profoundly deeper than they understand.
There is a fear venerated by the fundamentalist, worn as a badge of
pride: the fear of God. Make no mistake, many people believe that fire
could literally rain from heaven and destroy us for allowing gays in our
midst. Even more people believe they will be held accountable when they
get to heaven for not actively opposing gays. So the more deep-seated fear
is of a punitive God who will bring retribution if the "gay scourge" is
not removed from the land.
The radical right also fears what it perceives as the roots of gay
orientation: a duplicitous trick by Satan to lead a nation of God astray.
Hence, gays are agents of evil, knowingly or not. The religious right
fears its children could be recruited by Satan himself. Many of those who
spoke last month at the Greenville County Council meeting, for example,
carried books purporting to expose the rampant witchcraft among gays and
lesbians. The greatest fear of the radical right is of the unseen world of
spiritual warfare behind the masks of the everyday citizens they call
their neighbors. As such, educational efforts will continue to have little
or no effect.
Hate
Several speakers at the council session claimed that they did not hate
gays, but rather hated the sin gays commit. This rhetorical device is
critical to the radical right's position. Gays and lesbians see their
orientation as a part of themselves and so the "sin versus sinner"
concept makes no sense. The gay community simply hears, "They hate me."
Many fundamentalists do hate gays, since gays are seen as the agent of
the devil that is destroying their nation and taking their children. But
the far right is able to maintain its Christian requirement for love by
creating this separation between the person and that person's sexual
identity. This accounts for the vehement opposition by the right to any
theory which would puts gay identity into biological terms.
Activists who oppose the actions of the radical right chant "Stop the
hate!" This response is profoundly ineffective. First, the sin vs.
sinner caveat allows the radical right to duck the charge. Second,
chanting outside of any church or church function is a guaranteed loss.
Who appears more hateful, the upstanding people in church praying for the
poor sinners or the screaming activists outside? Activists clearly lose
the sound bite war. What's more, they become what they claim to oppose.
Tactics
In addition to the deeper roots of fear and the "love thy neighbor,
hate the sin" two-step lies the question of how the church relates to the
state. Liberals and constitutional conservatives see the separation of
church and state as an incontrovertible rule set forth in the
constitution.
The radical right, while it believes the state ought not recognize a
specific denominational church, thinks the "church catholic" (or
universal) should control the state. The far right does not see this
belief to be in conflict with constitutional principles.
In the view of the extreme right, it is the business of government to
decide what makes a good citizen and to enact laws promoting that
standard. The question of what characterizes a good citizen is in
fundamentalists' eyes is a profoundly religious one. The real issue behind
the wording of this question is, "What is the chief end of man?" This is
the ultimate first question of nearly all denominational catechisms.
The result of this chain of logic is that the government should look
to the church for guidance on issues of good citizenship. Read no further
than the first paragraphs of the Greenville anti-gay resolution and you
will see this circuitous logic in action. " there are increasing assaults
on those community standards which further the protection of the public's
safety, health and welfare "
The argument against homosexuality has become a matter of public
safety. Surely, public safety falls into the domain of government. In the
eyes of the extreme right, it is in no violation of any constitutional
prohibition when it turns county council into its bully pulpit.
This line dance from pulpit to council is not entirely necessary,
since the radical right believes the United States is founded on its
concept of God. "In God we trust" is a clear mandate for extremists to
involve their church in local, state and national government.
Fundamentalists revise American history to exclude any deistic influences.
To them, there has been a continuous and solid line of like believers
since the Mayflower. Their understanding of God was the constitutional
framers' understanding of God.
The bottom line for the extreme right is that the framers of the
Constitution were fundamentalists. Therefore, when the Constitution was
created, it was written with their definition of God and state. The 20th
century fundamentalist is, therefore, called to return us to the moral
days of our founding fathers, when homosexuals and witches were burned.
When a fundamentalist speaks to a government body, he does so with the
full authority of God and George Washington. There is no separation of
church and state because our state was, in essence, created by the
fundamentalist church.
Response
If education falls flat in the face of such deep-seated fears; if
exposing the hatred behind the message is ineffective because the right
sees people and their sexual identity as separate; and if the need for
separation of church and state is lost on the radical right; what can
progressives do to interject their values and vision for South Carolina?
Paramount to effective advocacy is to understand to whom you are
directing your efforts. To argue with the radical right is impossible.
Progressives reason from different sources and use different methods. They
do not believe they have a corner on God's truth.
The far right and the left are proverbial ships passing in the night.
The arguments do not clash with each other, and the differences in concept
and language insure that each side will never come close to their
opponent's position.
As such, advocacy should be directed at the broad center that spans
the gulf between these opposing viewpoints. This conclusion has already
been reached by many who oppose the radical right.
This reality has not, however, dawned on most gays and lesbians. The
gay community continues to rail against the far right as if it held their
future. But it does not.
In the words of Ralph Reed, president of the Christian Coalition,
fundamentalists risk imminent irrelevance similar to that of the
prohibitionist movement earlier this century.
The real struggle, then, is to act in a way during this short-term
swing in political power that will shift the minds of those in the center
to embrace the left. The radical right can be counted on to continue its
antics, which take many forms, all of which are newsworthy to the press.
Therefore, the gay and lesbian community is no longer required to
fight for media attention. Progressives now may carefully orchestrate
their response to the radical right and define their vision to the public.
Such an opportunity has not been given to any other minority group since
the beginning of the current media age.
One way to put this reality into immediate action is to support rather
than oppose the Olympic run through the Upstate. Progressives should
advocate vehemently for its arrival. There is no more profound an
expression of the liberal belief than the Olympic movement. Unity in the
face of division
community
woven from diversity. This is the progressive vision of South Carolina.
Taking this stance positively defines the liberal cause rather than
negatively framing it as the usual spoilsport simply for the sake of
attention.
By exposing the radical right as being opposed to progressive values
and the Olympic games, progressives make a strong statement for their
beliefs while acting in the greater good of the community. It allows gays
and lesbians to act as the community citizens they claim to be.
This is not to suggest that gays and lesbians not demand a place at
the table. They have the unique opportunity to demand and gain this place
they have long deserved. Their message has consistently been to recognize
that gays are part of the community.
Now is the time for them to act on that truth and realize the rewards.
Taking the high road allows the progressive movement in South Carolina to
define its own values and will give those who want to support the cause a
way to bring gays and lesbians into the mainstream.
The reality of the radical right guarantees an ongoing struggle. The
gay and lesbian community has the unique opportunity to allow the far
right to appear to be the destroyers of community. If the progressive
movement is not careful with its use of protest politics, it will be given
this moniker instead.
Educating those who populate the political center is a long-term
process. If the progressive movement employs tactics inconsistent with the
values they choose to live by, the radical right wins again. The radical
right will have forced progressives to live contrary to their values.
In the words of Dr. Bob Jones, Sr., progressives must not "sacrifice
the permanent on the altar of the immediate." To borrow other conservative
words, "the ends do not justify the means."
Who you are during the struggle is as important as the struggle's
final outcome. Liberals must live the values they offer as a vision for
the New South if they ever hope to become its leaders.
Paul Evensen graduated from Bob Jones University in 1989, returned
as a graduate assistant professor of speech, and left the University in
1990. He is a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Kansas and will be
leaving Greenville in July.
