Tiger Woods

Tiger seems to have captured our national attention.  He is everywhere.  In magazines.  On the internet.  In the papers.  On television.  His exploits have been studied and dissected from every conceivable angle.  Of course there is the obligatory distancing angle.  This is when the media, in an attempt to save face, shakes it's head and wags it's finger at all the media attention.  They perfunctorily put on disapproving faces, complete with furrowed brow and slightly downturned lips in a mask vaguely resembling human concern, and wonder aloud about the toll all this attention might be taking on Tiger Woods and his wife; how having cameras shoved in their respective faces could be psychically damaging.  They do this while showing us footage of them having cameras shoved in their faces.  The media washes their hands of any seeming impropriety by covering the coverage, not the story.  

It seems this circular logic serves two purposes - two obvious purposes.  The newscasters get to pretend that they are removed from the feeding frenzy - that they are somehow above it.  At the same time it allows them to propagate it.    The signal this sends is that they know they've got actual stories to report on, but they're going to spend their time, and ours, on the whereabouts of Tiger Woods' dick.  Health care reform?  Later in the hour.  Two wars.  Later.  The economy.  Later.  The global warming extravaganza in Copenhagen.  Boring - but wait, there's some violence.  So that's a little better.  But still later.  Despicable.  

Why are we so fascinated?  

I think that the root of our fascination lies in the fact that we think we know Tiger Woods.  We have come to know him on the golf course and in thirty second commercial snipets.  We've seen his picture myriad times in magazines and on billboards.  They all repeat the same basic mantra:  Tiger Woods is a stand up guy - honest.  He may not be our friend, but he would be if he lived next door to us - if he weren't arguably the greatest athlete of all time.  We may not have ever met him, but we have come to believe that we know him nonetheless.  And that is the definition of fame - the people who know you outnumber the people that you know.

But we don't know him.  We know his image - his carefully crafted image.  He looks young and wholesome.  He's attractive, but not in an off-putting way.  He's seems open and friendly.  He looks kind.  In no way does he look like a cheater.  Of any sort.  His eyes convey a sense of honesty.  Add to that his comportment on the golf course.  In control.  Together.  Classy. 

All of these variables have been skillfully whittled and harnessed.  Ads were created and words were put into his mouth.  Words that we would believe coming out of this pure, honest looking guy.  And they were repeated.  Over and over.  And over again.  Until we began to think that this two dimensional figure - a creature of publicity machine magic - was a full and complete human being.

We were sold the idea of a man who would never cheat.  On the golf course or in his marriage.  And we bought it.  We live in an age where marketing is truth.  And we're fascinated when we peek behind the curtain to discover that these cartoon characters don't exist.

I think that is why we're so fascinated by how many women Tiger Woods has slept with.  Would we be half as fascinated if it were a pre-Annette Bening Warren Beatty?  I doubt it.  His stock in trade was his dick - which he supposedly happily shared with every woman in Hollywood.  Except for Shirley MacLaine.  The interesting story there would be if he actually didn't sleep with all those women.

Iconization doesn't lend itself to subtlety.  It is borne of repetition and gets its traction with broad strokes.  It is, by nature, simple.  Iconization shatters under the weight of the complex or complicated.  And certainly can not withstand the pressure of human contradiction.

Clearly we didn't know Tiger Woods.  Of course now we think we do.  Most of us still haven't met him, but we have this new piece of information which, once digested, will give us the impression that we know him now.  But the truth is that most of us will never meet him and will never know the slightest thing about him.  The truth is that it takes a lifetime to know friends.  A lifetime to know lovers.  A lifetime to know ourselves.  So how can we possibly know someone we've never even seen in person?

And lest anyone think that I've gotten so wrapped up in the felling of Tiger Woods that I've momentarily stopped being an angry gay male, consider this: his marriage is perfectly legal.  In all fifty states.  I've yet to hear even one of the "defenders of traditional marriage," one of the clergy who fight so virulently to ensure that my marriage remains lesser, one of the leaders of the National Organization for Marriage voice concern about teaching Tiger's marriage to young children.  I've yet to hear even one of them condemn his marriage or challenge it's sanctity.  Or legality.

He's fucking the right people. 

 

Visibility.

Tonight I find myself typing with trembling fingers.  It seems that the marriage equality fight might finally come to New Jersey.  And, if it does, there's a possibility that I might get the chance to marry my best friend, my love, my lover, my partner, my occasional tormentor, my comic relief, my shelter, my shield, my fan, my smack upside the head, my so many things.  I am grateful for all that he is to me.  And I am grateful for all that he allows me to be for him.  Sometimes I think the most loving act is the gleeful, gracious acceptance of love.  That he has fallen in love with me, and thus given me the opportunity to spend my life loving him, is a blessing I am not talented enough to express in words.  And while it's quite clear that in the apprehensive, skittish world of politics anything or nothing can happen at a moment's notice, it seems at this moment that New Jersey's number is about to be called.

I find myself frustrated, depressed, angry, horrified, driven to distraction by our recent losses.  The truth appears to be neither as flashy nor as seductive as fear.  It feels that we simply can not break up that generations old bedrock of ignorance that our opponents have built their house of cards on.  

It's a game of fear.  Our opponents use it to their advantage, brilliantly.  Marriage equality isn't even up for a vote yet (a despicable idea if ever there was one, yet here we are, voting on my relationship while peeking into Tiger Woods' marriage without the slightest thought that it should be put to a referendum) in New Jersey and already I've heard a horrific yet effective radio ad denouncing it.  At the end of the ad is a disclaimer from the station that the "views expressed may not necessarily be the views of the station."  Well, that's not entirely true.  I doubt they would take money from anyone who would advocate reverting to spousal ownership - a truly traditional idea.  So while they may not agree with the ideas expressed, at the very least they don't find them offensive enough to forgo that advertising money.

Fear.  On another level our politicians vote their own personal fears.  Although I think it is often the case that they fear marriage equality less than they fear winding up actually affected by the current "recession."  Like the rest of us, they are afraid of losing their jobs.  Unlike the rest of us, when they play politics, it's for real.  And the consequences of their fears are catastrophic.  

This is why I find myself occasionally overwhelmed with what feels like an impotent anger.  Their fears, to some extent, dictate my life.  Their fears place boundaries around some of us - around me - but not around others.  So I have to step back from my emotions.  When I read things day in and day out about myself that aren't true but which clearly resonate with the fearful and ignorant - when hypocrisy struts around with grandeur and arrogance - when religion is called upon to do the dirty work for those who's abnormal, fetishized obsession with gay people propels them to crisscross the country spewing bile and providing a breeding ground for intolerance, ignorance and hate, all the while disavowing any violence that might take place in their wake - I must step back and look at the bigger picture.

The bigger picture is, in a word, visibility.  As hurt and disgusted as I am on a daily basis, I must remind myself that even if it seems that we are losing, and even as those righteous defenders of inequality gloat in their momentary victories, they are a mercifully short-sighted group.  Visibility.  This is about the long haul.  Visibility.  This is about being on the news every single night.  Fighting.  Winning some.  Losing too many.  But still fighting.  And visible.  Visible on television.  Visible in our everyday lives.  Visible to kids who are struggling with being gay.  Visible to their parents.  There's not a more powerful political statement than being out of the closet.  That simply can not be overstated.  To paraphrase Harvey Milk:  When they know us they don't vote against us.  

Visibility.

Things will change when our elected officials fear not voting for equal rights.  When the negative repercussions to their livelihood stem from voting "no" on marriage equality.  I pray that the fury we felt this week when the New York Senate voted to deny us our civil rights will not ebb, but instead will fester and propel us to the voting booths come election time.  If that happens - if those cowardly men and women lose their jobs because of the vote they cast against equality - then last week will have been a victory for us.  Because their successors will understand that bigotry is no longer a bankable voting block, but equality is.

Save the Children

New York isn't getting marriage equality and it looks as if New Jersey won't be getting it either.  Thirty one states have already allowed the rights of LGBT Americans to be voted on.  And thirty one states have voted to deny LGTB Americans their rights.

Why are our opponents so successful?

Fear.  They manipulate it brilliantly.

That is not surprising.  They know exactly what chords strike maximum horror in their listeners.  They know exactly what to say.  They know exactly how to say it.

Children are their weapons.

The children.  Fear for the children.  Teaching the children.  Protect the children.  Inappropriate for children.  Children.  Children.  Children.

What I have found more and more frustrating is the response to these charges by our gay leaders.  Largely, silence.  They stick to the legal matters being debated:  "We're not talking about children and schools.  We're talking about marriage equality."  Or, "What about protecting the children of gay families?"  I find this utterly maddening.

By not respecting, listening to and responding to their central and most powerful arguments, we're leaving ourselves open to having already existing fear and prejudice easily manipulated.  We must confront the fears being stirred, not ignore them.  We're not doing ourselves any favors by turning our backs on their most potent weapon.  Quite the opposite.  By not discussing it, we're giving it tacit approval.  They talk about the children, and we try to get back to the facts:  adults getting married.  It sometimes gives the impression that we're the ones changing the subject.  

I'll never understand why we don't delve into it head first.

Our opponents are forever repeating the mantra that they don't dislike gay people.  That they would never condone violence against an L, G, B or T person.  And that old chestnut:  They have gay friends.  On the surface, they wish us well.  This has a specific purpose:  it absolves guilt.  It allows those who wish to deny us our rights to feel good about their hate. Or at least not feel bad about it.  This is a vital part of the emotional chess game they are playing.  People might harbor prejudices, but they feel guilty about them.  Remove that guilt and it's open season.

But they are lying.  They do not wish us well.  They wish us gone.  

This isn't about marriage equality.  And this isn't about workplace discrimination.  It's not even about protecting religious freedoms (another red herring they throw out into the ethers to great effect).  These are just window dressing.

Their goal is to eradicate homosexuality.

If you think I'm taking too great a leap here - if you think I've lost my mind and have gone off the rails, consider this simple question:  Why is it bad to teach our children homosexuality?  (Whatever that means.)

There can only be one answer:  because homosexuality is bad.  Right away, their "we love gay people and are just trying to maintain 'traditional marriage'" argument is shattered.  They outwardly wish us well, yet their arguments are based on the notion that homosexuality is some kind of affliction.

The second unspoken and, frustratingly, unquestioned tenet of their "don't teach homosexuality to children" argument is that if we don't talk about it, don't allow it into acceptable society, don't make it commonplace, don't allow it to exist where people can see it, don't give it legal backing by repealing DOMA and enacting ENDA, keep it in the shadows and away from impressionable children, it will cease to exist. 

Succinctly: homosexuality is immoral and can be taught.  If we don't expose our children to it, they won't grow up gay.  No more gay children, no more gay adults.  

That is what they are saying.  That is what reverberates with people who have limited or no experience with the LGBT community.  And that is what never gets addressed.  

While we are busy sticking to the issues being debated, they are winning the emotional war.