I’ll come out and say that I think the piling on about Richardson’s failure to top out on the P.C. meter is a little out of hand. We can’t seem to get enough of criticizing candidates for seeming to be pre-programmed interest group-pandering robots, yet here we’ve got someone with a very solid record who is being crucified for sharing a perspective that deviates from the party line. Well, he’s not the only one with an opinion that deviates from the party line. In this diary I would like to give some airing to an alternative reality, namely mine, and highlight some inconvenient truths about Richardson.
I have no evidence wheter my experience of my ultimate "orientation" is unique only to me, or if lots of other "straight" folks are aware that forcings in their life other than their genetic makeup have played an important or possibly even decisive role in the sexual label that would be applied to them today. But I suspect that the binary choices with which we are presented from all sides silences discussion of this question.
Follow me below the fold, if you will. Please try to bring your open mind along!
My Experience
So what’s up with those quotations marks around "orientation" and "straight" in my Intro.?
I have spent years of my life as an open lesbian in a few different relationships, but most of my life straight. I’ve never cared for the label "bisexual," as it implies some sort of inability to decide which I’ve never experienced. At the end of the day, certain traits in others appeal to me and attract me. I’ve come to realize those traits that appeal to me are more commonly found in men, but sometimes in women. I can be attracted to or fall in love with a member of either gender under the right circumstances. So at the end of the day, it is certainly a "choice" for me.
Not surprisingly, I would be identified today as straight. I am married. I have two children. I have no longing for another partner of either gender, as monogamy has always felt right to me. I say "not surprisingly" I am called straight because the grooves of society will tend to carry a person like me to straightness by virtue of opportunity and expectation, if nothing else.
None of the available labels feels right to me. If the first person I ever fell deeply in love with hadn’t betrayed me so badly I could easily have imagined staying with her forever. And then the story I have today would be a very different one.
Genetics? Well, certainly not in some uncomplicated, linear way.
Little-discussed portion of Richardson’s comments from GLBT debate:
It’s — you know, I don’t see this as an issue of science or definition. I see gays and lesbians as people as a matter of human decency. I see it as a matter of love and companionship and people loving each other. You know I don’t like to categorize people.
Should I repeat that again? That is actually a much more progressive point of view, in my humble opinion, than "people can't help being gay," which buys into the notion that there is something to "help" in the first place.
Now, as to Richardson’s response outside of that statement? Oh, I too wish he had been more prepared. He should have been aware of and shown his awareness of research which is pointing toward genetic components to sexuality. But then again, he sees the research as irrelevant to the big picture here. Would he be allowed to hold that point of view if he also mentioned the research first? Am I?
I am going to repeat this again:
I see gays and lesbians as people as a matter of human decency. I see it as a matter of love and companionship and people loving each other.
What have we come to when that beautifully-phrased response warrants disgust and hatred?
Barney Frank’s comment on Richardson’s apology/clarification:
Governor Bill Richardson's apology for the mistake he made in saying that sexual orientation is a choice did not surprise me, because he has been a strong supporter of our right to be treated fairly throughout his public career. It is especially relevant that he voted consistently on our side from the start of his Congressional career in the 1980s, when the issue of LGBT rights had far less support even from Democrats that it has today.
I regret Gov. Richardson's misstatement - as I sometimes regret one or two of my own - but his error in the pressure of a debate should not detract from his very strong record in defense of equality for all Americans, including those of us who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or trans gender.
I think this speaks for itself.
Testimonial from New Mexican lesbians who know the Governor discussing his record:
Commentary by Barbara Wold on Democracy for New Mexico:
I'm gay, and I'm also a progressive Democrat. I write this blog and help coordinate a progressive grassroots group. I have both supported and been opposed to any number of Gov. Bill Richardson's actions and positions during his time in office here in New Mexico, whether related to health care, campaign funding, ethics, the environment, energy, education, budget matters or paper ballot voting (where election reform activists worked closely and sucessfully with Richardson and Dem legislators). I haven't decided on a presidential candidate and I'm keeping my options open. I have no axe to grind.
Sometimes I've applauded what Gov. Richardson has accomplished. At times I've been highly critical of him. Sometimes I've lacked trust in what he's saying. But one thing I've learned to trust him on over time is his strong support on issues of importance to the GLBT community -- because I've watched him push through a number of pro-equality initiatives, even when it's been difficult to do so in a state that's conservative in many respects. And I've witnessed him keep trying when a measure like a domestic partnership bill is being bashed by legislators on both sides of the aisle. (During our last legislative sesssion, such a bill lost by one vote.) And as far as I know, he has always interacted with members of the GLBT community with real ease and compassion, whether at pride events, or at a GLBT retirement community ribbon cutting or in other settings.
Do I wish Richardson and every other Democratic politician would just be done with it and proclaim their unequivocal support for gay civil marriage? Of course. I strongly believe that anyone who says they support equal rights for all under the law should have no qualms about doing that. Unfortunately, we're not there yet. I have confidence we will be someday soon, but in the meantime I applaud Democrats for taking positions in support of the fullest domestic partnerships and civil unions that might be achievable legislatively right now. Richardson is one of those Dems.
In other words, despite all the negative punditry about Bill Richardson's performance at last week's GLBT presidential forum on LOGO, I have no fears that he is a bigot in terms of GLBT folks. None whatsoever. We all know that at times he can be verbally clumsy, inarticulate or unclear, especially when he's harried or tired, and I think this was what caused the snafu at last week's GLBT presidential forum on LOGO. I just wanted to get that said publicly so primary voters will make their decisions pro or con based on analyzing other facets of Richardson's character and positions -- but not on any misperception that he's biased against members of the GLBT community.
(bolding mine)
Some comments posted in response:
I think the media and others are giving him a real hard time on this, and I just wanted to say my piece. Bill Richardson is many things, but in no way is he an enemy of the GLBT community -- just the opposite in fact.
I had the same thought. Was it a slow news week? Was it just time to pick on him? The reaction seemed way out of line. Gay or not Gay, we see still like to believe we have some lifestyle choices open to us.
Posted by: suz | Aug 14, 2007 9:04:43 AM
I think many GLBT people don't have a choice but I also think there are many people in the "gray areas" of sexuality and gender who are more fluid and essentially choose their paths. As Richardson said, whether it's a choice or not, everyone needs to be treated equally under the law, period.
I also thought Edwards and Hillary were way worse than Richardson on the issues. Edwards never did explain why he is against gay marriage and he pandered by taking back his "religious faith" excuse. Hillary wouldn't commit to much, not even to try and get rid of DOMA.
Basically, though, I believe all of the Democratic candidates would work hard to improve things for GLBT people. Just a matter of degree and what they are prepared to say publicly during the race.
Posted by: GLBT voter | Aug 14, 2007 10:19:38 AM
Thank you for Stephen Cassidy for posting some of the Richardson materials elsewhere.
CONCLUSION: My POV, FWIW
I have always thought that the argument from genetics is shortsighted, unprincipled and potentially dangerous. I understand why it seems appealing (and I recognize its short-term utility in possibly moving Equal Protection law in a better direction); however as knowledge of and ability to manipulate the human genome become more refined, it is no petty point to suggest that unless attitudes are liberalized more generally, e.g.,
I see gays and lesbians as people as a matter of human decency. I see it as a matter of love and companionship and people loving each other.
there is real risk that homosexuality will be pushed into the category of a disease-state or a genetic anomaly. It’s not crazy to worry about this this. And the argument from genetics at this time fails to capture the variety of experience around sexuality, while its binary nature likely helps mask honest discussion of sexual ambiguity. Such discussion might have more allegedly "straight" folks admitting publicly that they're actually a little more bent than most people assume.
My goal in this diary isn’t to suggest that ambiguity is the only story on sexual orientation or that everyone is in the gray area. Just to say that some people - maybe even a lot of people - are. Can we discuss this like grown-ups? Or is there only one way to talk about the issue and, if you fail to tow the line you will be destroyed?
(P.S., I understand the arguments that, right or wrong aside, Richardson’s failure to prepare and deliver the expected answer on time is more evidence of his unpreparedness for the presidency. People are free to discuss that point, if they wish, but that is really not the point of this diary. I’d just like to have an honest and open discussion of whether there is room for a broader conception of sexuality.)
NOTE: I am not a Richardson supporter.
So, in sum, my questions to all: Is it only acceptable to believe that sexual practice derives from something called sexual orientation and that that orientation is present from birth? Is that what the research today clearly tells us or are there uncertainties in the research? Does that POV jibe with people's personal experiences of their own sexuality?