As a straight social libertarian-conservative, I've published a number of opinions on gay identity politics. Let me summarize briefly: I've long respected the right of gays to freely associate, form their own communities and live and let live, without government intervention on consenting adult relationships. As a matter of Catholic/Christian ethics, I do not approve of the gay lifestyle; at the same time, I respect free will and the right of consenting adults to pursue happiness in life.
On the hot topic issue of gay marriage, I have no objection to a state/community setting legal marriage standards consistent with the majority social preference, and for thousands of years the institution of marriage has been the foundation of procreation reflected in the related institution of famly. Gays, by nature, cannot reproduce. Exclusivity of the marriage bond promotes social stability, and procreation facilitates societal preservation. In my assessment, under the tenth amendment, states have the right to set public morals. For instance, some nudists believe that they have the right to disrobe in public. I don't have an issue with consensual nudity in homes, private clubs, beaches, etc., but I don't think that nudists have the right to impose their preference on the majority. Now if a majority of state residents considered public nudity acceptable, I would accept that although I would probably migrate to a clothed community or a more traditional state; states could compete for nudist residents via relevant public policy. What I don't accept is a tyrannical judiciary overriding state standards on some polemical finding of 'discrimination'. For example, as a professor, I had a criterion of 70% for a passing grade of C. I was not discriminating against lower-achieving students: they had a fair opportunity to perform during test periods. Similar considerations are relevant in consideration of marriage. The traditional definition of marriage was not arbitrary but an evolved social construct; it was not devised after the fact to "discriminate" against single-sex, plural or other nontraditional relationships as, say, in the manner of Jim Crow laws in the South. The traditional definition of marriage was entrenched in English law, the basis of American law.
None of the legal battles in question involved the prohibition of nontraditional relationships. I've pointed out in past commentaries that Texas, a traditional marriage state, had openly gay communities, e.g., during the time I lived in Houston. Gays have had the right to make contracts and in a number of states like California had legally sanctioned marriage-like rights (e.g., inheritance, hospital visitation). I've suspect that there are 2 fundamental reasons why gay activists have sought to co-opt the heterosexual construct of marriage: (1) win social approval of their relationships and (2) access marriage legal rights/privileges. As to the first point, I don't think you win hearts and minds by imposing your preferences through government force; it's a corruption of the political process and can be counterproductive.
The second point is more interesting. The fact is, I've never felt that the State conferred legitimacy on the institution of marriage (I consider it more of a private-sector socioreligious construct). I oppose State attempts to intervene in the private sector institutions of marriage and family, including said legally-conferred rights/privileges and support their privatization.
The following revelation has not changed my views. Let me preface this discussion by saying some of my relatives have made it clear for privacy reasons they did not want me to discuss them in my blog. Second, few if any relatives share my political perspective. This is particularly true of my nephew in question who was an ardent Obama supporter in 2008, and we haven't discussed politics since then. He personally has not revealed his sexual identity to me, although he and I had a personal discussion the week of my Dad's funeral mass last year.
I do believe I've speculated in past posts how I would feel if I found out one of my young relatives is gay. I felt that there was a good chance; about 2.5-4% of the population is gay, and I have 21 nephews and nieces. I have no doubt that I've met or befriended gays without knowing their orientation. I've mentioned I met a couple of lesbians while in the Navy at Orlando. One was a fellow math instructor at NPS; she was a DisneyWorld fanatic and accompanied me on my first and only visit. (The reason I knew about her orientation is that there were maybe 150 instructors at the school, all but a handful male and most of us were single. At least one woman was married, and two of the single ladies were already in relationships with male colleagues. For us, her sexual orientation was not more significant than, say, my having double-jointed thumbs; she was a smart, capable, friendly, professional math instructor, and that's all that mattered.)
Before I left the Navy, I worked at the JAG office. The work wasn't as exciting as television shows make it out to be. One task that sticks out in my memory; I was told to interview the owner of a truck whose side mirror had been snapped off by a passing Navy vehicle; I think that he snapped as I ran through the protocol and probably hung up on me, calling me a bureaucratic tool. I also remember shadowing for Officer of the Day duties, including doing a walkthrough of certain barracks. One I'll never forget was reeking of the smell of vomit as soon as you walked in; I nearly gagged over the stench. For whatever reason, I was never assigned to serve as the officer. I later discovered this was the place they housed the "gays" before discharge. The story on the grapevine was that a number of men became disillusioned with working and living on a ship or submarine, but the Navy owed their asses for a multi-year period of enlistment; one way straights tried to force the issue was to "get caught" engaging in a homosexual sex act, given strict military codes on the issue.
I was head over heels in love with a beautiful petite Italian-American yeoman (administrative assistant), and our personalities clicked instantly. Unfortunately, she was involved with a married guy on the Left Coast, even typing up his civil service paperwork, to my chagrin (my ethics rules out adultery, and she was not favorably disposed to my Catholicism, but tell that to my heart). Fraternization between officers and enlisted is strongly discouraged (although my first sister, an Air Force nurse at the time, did meet her husband at work). I didn't really care because I would be out of the Navy within a matter of days or weeks, but I kept appearances while my boss was in the proximity. She had another enlisted lady friend who often dropped by the office. I guess I must have been wearing my heart on my sleeve, because I remember her telling Anne once, "Tell him to go out and buy us some ice cream cones from the BX", as if I were her dog performing tricks. Anne never abused my interest in her, except one time she asked me to drive her friend around the base to look for her lost beret (I don't think we ended up finding it). Somehow one day the topic of gays came up, and I said something to the effect I didn't know any gays or lesbians (beyond my former colleague), and Anne laughed at me, revealing that Beret Girl was a lesbian.
I suppose some might wonder if a never-married bachelor like me is gay; for the most part, my being single has been an artifact of a limited social life and a workaholic/road warrior lifestyle. I've had relationships, but none have gotten to a serious stage. I missed my chance with Anne when she finally broke things off with that married civil servant while I lived in San Antonio in my first computer programming job. The last time I saw Anne I had been invited to my best friend Joe's wedding to another newly available instructor, and Anne was my guest. Anne would later mail me her own wedding invitation after the event. I think perhaps I hoped to find the chemistry I had with Anne with subsequent women I've dated, and that hasn't happened.
My Mom decided to visit my out-of-state brother for Thanksgiving and as is her custom, she sent out some pictures (without comment) in a couple of emails yesterday. I recognized my engaged niece and her fiancé (due to be married this coming spring), but I didn't recognize the young man seated next to my nephew. Now that fact doesn't necessarily mean a relationship; for example, he could have been a fellow teacher at my nephew's school, hundreds of miles away from home, that my nephew invited him. It's just the pictures were somewhat intimate with my nephew's arm around his friend's shoulders in multiple photos, and my sister-in-law even posed from behind/between them.
I emailed my mom and asked her if my nephew was gay. She tersely replied, "Maybe." I then emailed my brother who confirmed and named his partner. I subsequently emailed my nephew directly; as of the time of this post, he has not responded to my email. (It's possible that he didn't want me to know.)
My response: my brother brought him as a young baby to my baby sister's wedding around the end of my academic career in Illinois, and we shared a hotel room. Years later the family moved to the Joliet area, about an hour's drive away from where I lived in the southwest suburbs of Chicago, where my brother worked at a former employer's refinery. He was a sweet kid who always wanted me to stay overnight and made sure my sister-in-law invited me to his birthday party. (He did have, like his dad, a mischievous side--he always knew how to push his big sister's buttons.) I have loved him since I first held him as a baby, and that's never going to change. I wish for him the love and happiness he seeks in life and the same for his chosen partner in life. He's an outstanding, bright teacher with a Master's in English, and I'm proud of him.
(My niece and my nephew were both involved in the performing arts during their school years, obviously not inheriting their talent from my gene pool; the former initially aspired to sing opera, and I think my nephew was more into musical theater. You and I know it's harder to encounter a conservative or libertarian professor in the arts than any other endangered species. So I expect we'll continue to agree to disagree on politics.)
