Editorial Column by Mike Schiller, author of "Created Equal"
Visit www.mikeschiller.com
Text & photo (c) 2001 Mike Schiller

Traditional Values From A Gay Perspective
By Mike Schiller
April 30, 2001

I have always had very traditional values. I believe in marriage (as an entity of love, not of reproduction), I believe that two people should get to know one another before getting sexually involved, I believe in monogamy, and behaviorally I am very reserved and shy. I come from an upper-income upbringing, I am an unabashed capitalist, yet I do believe corporations should not be immune to the law. As a gay person, I do not believe in promiscuity, I do not use drugs, and I do not work out in the gym. Additionally, I have never been a part of the 'Chelsea Scene'. It is not my lifestyle. I do not attend circuit parties, I've never been to Fire Island, and quite frankly I find that I do not identify with that way of life (Yet I do not judge those who do, I simply don't relate to it). My lifestyle has nothing to do with my sexual orientation, and I see no reason it should. I am an outspoken Democrat and loyal Clinton/Gore supporter.

Yet when I seek out people whose way of life is most consistent with mine, I inevitably encounter gay republicans- whom I immediately reject upon learning about their political allegiances. This leads me to ponder a question, why are these people turning to republicanism? Is it really because they agree with the actions of these politicians? Even most heterosexual moderate republicans have withdrawn their support of Bush because of his extremism, and yet the gay republicans have been among the few people in this country who have been delusional enough to continue support him unconditionally despite his destructive policies and actions. Many gay republicans justify their allegiance to the right wing using the statement, "Just because I'm gay doesn't mean I have to be a liberal".

True, sexual orientation should not define your ideology or beliefs, but since my pursuit of gay people with the same living habits as myself has turned up so many gay republicans, it makes me wonder if these gay people are voting republican for lifestyle-related reasons which are equally shallow. Are they turning to republicans because they think that being a liberal will make them perceived as a "stereotypical gay person?" Are they turning to republicanism because they want to fight gay stereotypes by trying to win acceptance from the most anti-gay sector of society imaginable? I think they are. This, however, is an decision equivalent to the very thing they are decrying. Why should they make their political decisions based on their social habits? Politics are about law and policy, no more and no less. If you're going to vote for a republican, it should be becuase their policies are truly the policies you feel are priorities for you.

I may be different from most gay people, I may not be a part of the 'gay scene', but do I need to sell out my own civil rights just to prove that I'm different? I know I'm different from other gay people. I know that I do not identify with most gay people, and I know what my values are. I'm comfortable enough in my individuality that I do not have to prove it by trying to make friends with politicians who have opposed the civil rights that I have spent most of my life fighting for. Sexual orientation should only be a non-issue in the way any person lives their life, but when there are groups of people fighting to pass discriminatory laws there is a clear and present need to take action to prevent those people from suceeding. When organizations like the Christian Coalition and Concerned Women for America go out and vote in overwhelming numbers for a particular candidate, I am not going to vote for that person because it would only empower those groups to achieve their discriminatory agenda.

It is wrong to justify the far right wing's intolerance as a 'valid difference in views' when such views go against the very principles which drove our founding fathers to create a Constitution. The Constitution was drafted to prevent people's personal or religious views from corrupting the legal system of our government. It was created to ensure that the government could continue to function as an objective entity regardless of people's personal beliefs. While they may not have had gay or black people, or women for that matter, in mind when they wrote the constitution, they had the foresight to realize the threat of allowing people's personal beliefs to be a factor in governing, hence the slogan "all men are created equal" was born. They realized that in order to preserve a free country, the emotions of the majority must occasionally be ignored for the sake of protecting the rights of all people. Any civil rights laws passed to add sexual orientation to existing civil rights laws which already cover race, religion and gender would merely be a clarification of the existing yet not adequately specified principles of the Constitution.

Gay republicans claim to be 'changing the party from the inside' and yet these gay republicans are not changing anything at all, in fact a great deal of them work to prevent civil rights legislation from being passed; and some go as far as to support discriminatory legislation. They are defeating the very causes they claim to be 'working from the inside' to achieve. All this simply to try and convince themselves that sexual orientation is a 'non-issue'. I've got news for them, sexual orientation is only made into as issue because of prejudiced people. It's not our fault that intolerance exists. Even now, centuries after the civil war, racial intolerance still exists. Intolerance will never be legislated out of existence, but it's effects on people's lives can be minimized through fair civil rights protection legislation. Civil rights laws do not 'make an issue' out of sexual orientation, they do the opposite. They help prevent sexual orientation from being treated as an issue by employers, landlords, and other entities or individuals. Passing these laws will not make us more or less like any other individuals in this country, it will help to ease the effects of other people's personal beliefs on our lives.

I have grown frustrated by this pattern of encountering gay republicans who seem to be joining that party for the purpose of defying a stereotype. Isn't it just as bad to do something to defy stereotypes as it is to do something to conform? It reminds me of the early nineties when 'non conformity' became so popular that it evolved into a form of conformity. The alternative music audience has been known to treat artists in such a shallow manner. An artist was great until they started getting played on the radio. Should I like Kurt Cobain because of what his music means to me, or because everyone else likes him, and once he becomes popular does that mean I have to stop liking him? If I stopped liking him just because he became popular that would be as wrong as liking him only because he is popular. The same applies to the reverse. If you really liked Debbie Gibson while she was popular, why would you stop liking her after she stopped getting played on the radio?

The answer is clear. Just because you may not 'run with the pack', doesn't mean you have to deliberately oppose everything the pack likes or does in order to be different. You should be comfortable enough in who you are and what you stand for to be able to make objective decisions. If there is a large group of people working to pass harmful and invasive legislation that would discriminate against you based on your sexual orientation, ignoring the problem is not going to help. You will only suffer the consequences later in life. Sexual orientation will never be viewed by all people as a non-issue. Religion has never been a total non-issue, race has never been a total non-issue. The people who make it an issue out of prejudice are doing so out of ignorance which has existed for millennia in many different permutations. Homophobia will not disappear even if gay people treat their sexual orientation as a non issue. There will always be people trying to deny us our fundamental human rights, and joining them does not help anyone.

I may be different from many gay people, I may have a different world view than a lot of them do, I may lead a very traditional lifestyle, but I know I can do that as a Democrat. I will not support any politician who would refer to equal rights as "special rights". I will not support a politician who opposes a woman's right to choose, when certain health factors can occasionally make abortion a necessary option. I will not support a politician who would vote against anti-hate-crimes legislation, when such legislation could at the very least serve as an additional deterrent which would have served its purpose even if it saved only one life. I will never support a politician who opposes civil unions. I would also never date anyone who would support a politician who opposes civil unions because it says a lot about the importance of relationships in that person's life.

When you vote, you are essentially saying what your priorities are. I believe that there is nothing more important in life than love. The right to express that love and celebrate that love through a legally recognized lifetime commitment is paramount to all other political issues. When a person votes for someone who opposes that right, it says that their relationship, and the rights and responsibilities that committed couples need to have in order to function in many ways, are not a priority to them. The greatest expression of love is to trust someone so much that you would be willing to sign a contract to be equally responsible for one another and stay together for better or worse. Since I do have very traditional values, I personally could never date a gay republican. Their actions express from the onset that they would not value me or our relationship, and I value myself more than that.

Mike Schiller is the author of "Created Equal?" a poem about the denial of marriage rights to gays and lesbians. He has completed his first book, "Sentences I Freed From The Ropes They Tried To Weave Around Me." due out this spring. He also runs a successful poetry web site, www.mikeschiller.com , which currently averages over 3,000 visitors per month.

Other Schiller POV Articles