I wanted to revisit a topic that came up, in my diary of a week ago, The Hero of Yesterday? Turns Out He's Gay.
A question became hotly debated: Is the fact that Daniel Hernandez is gay "relevant?"
First of all, let me say this, in the big picture, I was delighted with the response the diary received. Far, far more people were supportive than not, evidenced by vast majority of comments, that it spent the day on the rec list and the 565 recommends it received. So, I hope I don't look petty by revisiting grievances.
But, I thought there is an important point to be made on how declarations of "irrelevance" have been used to silence, marginalize and erase LGBT people. And there are parallels to the silencing and erasing of other marginalized communities.
And also want to say, I always appreciate people who take time to type thoughtful and articulate comments, yes, even if they didn't agree with me. And we can debate respectfully how the pieces all fit together to build a more just world.
But, I felt my words and intentions, and those of posters who agreed with me were misconstrued by some. To hear some of the pushback, you might have thought I stridently demanded a spontaneous Gay Pride Parade to be thrown on National Mall in DC and televised nationally on all networks simultaneously and a Constitutional Amendment be passed immediately ensure full civil equality for all LGBT Americans. But I didn't suggest anything of the kind.
"It's worth making note of this."
My rhetorical framing choices were intentionally matter of fact, not at all strident or accusatory. Hernandez's orientation had been left unmentioned by the Arizona Republic and the CNN piece. I made a very conscious decision not to criticize them for that, however. I posted with the intention of adding what I felt was a relevant piece of information that had been overlooked.
The headline was very conversational, actually, "That Hero from Yesterday? Turns out he's gay." I was, more subconsciously than not, conveying the info in a offhand tone, that didn't suggest it was surprising or the most important piece of the story, but a piece, none the less.
And my words too in the diary were similarly nonchalant. I said, "It's worth making note of this."
But the straw man arguments did not bother me much. People reading what they think you wrote, rather than what you actually wrote comes with the territory of expressing your opinions publicly.
But, it was the knee-jerk, and very brief comments that struck me as disrespectful, to the topic, to me as a diarist--and much more importantly to the larger LBGT community.
There were more than a few brief, some just three words, that were just simple, thoughtless declarations the information was "not relevant."
Irrelevant Adj. 1. irrelevant - having no bearing on or connection with the subject at issue; "an irrelevant comment"; "irrelevant allegations"
Can anyone in good faith argue that Daniel is gay has absolutely no bearing or connection to this story? Or to the bigger issues of the national political scene?
Were such posters not aware of the very recent concern trolling that gay people in military combat units, would bring death and dismemberment to good soldiers? These talking points are still being echoed by a Presidential aspirant. Daniel certainly provided a clear, visceral demonstration of courage under fire, from USA Today:
"You just have to be calm and collected," he said. "You do no good to anyone if you have a breakdown.. .. It was probably not the best idea to run toward the gunshots, but people needed help."
It's a teaching moment for a nation. I know I wasn't the only one who made the instant connection to think, "sounds like a good guy to have next to you in a combat situation."
Daniel stands as testament that there's nothing inherently flawed about all gay people that renders them unfit to perform under fire. It also suggests that maybe people who have fought to keep them out of our military, may not really have the best interest of our national security and our armed forces in mind. (I know! Shocking!)
"The Gay Hispanic Hero"
It's human nature for any community to want to jump up and say, "This is one of our own" when heroes emerge. The Latino community was quick to stake their claim to Daniel. The front page of the Spanish language El Dario trumpeted the news on every bodega newsstand in New York City. Latin In America, drew attention to his ethnicity in their headline: "Daniel Hernández 'Hispanic Hero' Talks with Terra." (You know, for those people who didn't notice he was Latino by his name and his appearance.)
And it is worth noting the irony attached to this hero that he embodies in one man, two communities whose basic human dignity are under attack in Arizona.
Or is it bigger than irony? Is it a lesson? The SB-1070 law places Daniel at risk for racial profiling. Can we be grateful he wasn't detained to show his papers on his way to the event?
I honestly find it hard to imagine that someone would say to a Latino cheering this hero as one of their own that "It's irrelevant! And when you point that out you are implying that Latinos can't be heroes and reinforcing racist beliefs," as was argued here and echoed elsewhere in the comments.
LGBT press including The Dallas Voice felt it was an important element to the story. The gay community was about as unanimous as we get agreeing it was newsworthy and relevant. Scarcely a LGBT blog failed to report it: Pam's House Blend, JoeMyGod, GayAmericaBlog, The Bilerico Project, LGBT | POV, Lez Get Real, After Elton, Queerty, Towleroad. I could post links all day, but it was very evident many, many LGBT people found it relevant. This message quickly rocketed to viral ubiquitity on Twitter:
Hey, John McCain. You know the hero intern who ran toward gunfire & saved #Gifford's life? He's gay. #DADT
Steve Silberman asked a question that seemed more than relevant, but simply obvious: Why Can’t the Heroic Intern Who Saved Giffords’ Life Get Married in Arizona? Is this question not as relevant as asking why the SB-1070 law should continue to deny him a life free from suspicion? If not, why not?
Interviewing Daniel for Democracy Now, Amy Goodman managed to find relevant context without reaching very far afield.
AMY GOODMAN: Daniel Hernandez, your activism goes way back. You have been brave in so many ways. You have served on the City of Tucson Commission on Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Issues. You’re a well-known gay activist in the University of Arizona community. Can you talk about your activism and how it fits into your support for Congressmember Giffords?
But the mainstream press doesn't seem the least inclined to ask any similiar questions. The divide was, and still is huge. And telling. A cursory search of mainstream outlets reveals few hits. There's The Atlantic, if Andrew Sullivan counts. (Psst! He's gay.) Only semi-mainstream Salon offered parity to the two facets of Hernandez's identity. Note the headline for Mary Elizabeth William's January 10 post:
"The Giffords shooting's gay, Hispanic hero."
That it shows the world that a hero can be gay or straight, can speak English or Spanish or both, and that stupid laws can exist in places full of good people. And anyone who has any doubt of what kind of person deserves to serve next to him in battle, or stand before their community and declare their love, or go to school, or walk down the street without being asked for paperwork needs to hear that and remember that, again and again until it sinks in. Yes, the "gay Hispanic American" saved a life on Saturday, and yes, it does matter.
A History of Erasing
And this story can not live in a world where it has "no bearing on or connection" to the sad history of erasing of the gay identity of heroes. Now, I'm a gay activist, with a pretty good education on LGBT history and Oliver Sipple's story escaped my notice until commenters brought it up. I think that alone speaks volumes about the erasing of gay history. ashowboat posted this:
This unfortunate event reminds me when I was 17 years old in 1975 and Oliver Sipple performed the heroic act of saving President Ford's life. Oliver lunged at Sara Moore just as she was pulling the trigger, causing the shot to miss Ford.
Daulton added:
Remember when Oliver Sipple saved Gerald Ford's life? Reportedly when the administration found out he was gay, he was dis-invited to visit the White House. And when the press reported Sipple was gay, his family disowned him.
Sipple filed an invasion of privacy lawsuit against the San Francisco Chronicle and--germane to this discussion--"A state appellate court ruled against him, finding his sexual orientation was a legitimate part of the story." Sipple's final days were unpleasant, he descended into alcoholism and died at 47.
Sipple's orientation becoming known erased his heroism, and his story has largely been erased from history. Congratulations to Sacremento Bee for revisiting it in December, upon the passage of DADT repeal. (Sipple was a former Marine.)
And then there is the story of Alan Turing. An English mathematician, Turing worked with Allied Forces in the Second World War. His code-cracking of Nazi messages in a project known as Hut 8 was key to ally victory. The project's head later wrote: "There should be no question in anyone's mind that Turing's work was the biggest factor in Hut 8's success."
Turing may have well saved the free world and his work is credited with jump-starting the computer age. But, in 1952, the British government came after him. He was prosecuted with a "gross indecency" charge by after admitting a sexual relationship with another man. He accepted chemical castration in lieu of prison and two years later he killed himself. Gay activists petitioned the British Government for an official apology, which was delivered in 2009.
Just two extreme examples of treatment that is very commonplace. Still today, so many movie stars, professional athletes, politicians, business leaders scrupulously hide their gay identity, knowing any relevant achievements will forgotten and eclipsed by its disclosure.
LGBT people grow up assimilating these lessons. Only when we "pass" can we escape the punishment for committing "the crime" of being who we are. It's so ingrained into our culture, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" actually codified it into the law of the land. Pretend to be someone you're not and you're OK. (Please also see Senator Lindsey Graham or Ken Mehlman for other examples.) That Daniel voluntarily shared this information with the press in the glare of a national stoplight is, in and of itself, an extraordinary act of courage for a man of just 20.
And I am willing to bet the final sad chapter of Turing's life is still erased from most of our country's textbooks books, denying a new generation an important teaching moment about the disparity between how gay and straight heroes are treated. Someone in Texas probably argued for editing it out, because "it isn't relevant." Of course it isn't. Except 59 years later there are still people trying to cure the gay, getting rich and taking more lives in the process.
But, that's the easy, lazy justification for editing something out: declare it definitively "not relevant." But "relevance" is always a very subjective criteria. What is relevant to one person is not relevant to another. And generally we decide what's relevant by popular consensus. See how that works against gays? 90% of America can comfortably view the issues blinded by the luxury of their own privilege as I admitted to being. The very popular consensus on relevance in the LGBT community does little to influence the mainstream, in part because gays are outnumbered by more than 9:1.
There is an undeniable force that seeks to erase that which is deemed "inconvenient," "unflattering," or "unseemly."
But, it's also undeniable that had the shooter been gay, the media most certainly would have found that a relevant fact worth reporting. Were they shy about reporting the sexual orientations of serial killers Jeffery Dahmer or Andrew Cunanan? Did they choose to diplomatically omit it because it was "not relevant?" Was there even a debate about whether it was relevant to report this? (No. There was not a debate. This question I posed rhetorically.)
Wednesday at the memorial service President Obama honored Daniel as a hero and invited the country to do the same. This is very welcome and indisputable evidence that the worst days are behind us. Are we confident a Republican President would not have "pulled a Ford" and shuffled Daniel quietly aside?
Have we arrived at a place where that same animus and hatred that destroyed the lives of Sipple and Turning has been eradicated? No. Clearly not. It still exists in abundance. A popular figure recently declared that DADT repeal killed all those birds and fish in Arkansas. These declarations pop up every time there is a disaster; Katrina, 9/11, the Srebrenica massacre, the 2004 tsunami, earthquake in Haiti, you name it. If tragedy befalls the world, it's all because of the gays! They are nutcases, yes. But they wouldn't keep saying it over and over if it wasn't a popular and profitable message that pleases a wide audience.
Ergo, it's worth making a note of--not ignoring--information that contradicts and confounds this relentless, unending cacophony of the lunatics.
Now, I'll usually tweet an announcement when I've posted. But as a central question of debate became clear, later in the day, I Tweeted a second time. I thought I'd ask my followers what they thought:
I got a ton of responses. Really, unprecedented number. All of them "Hell's yeah!" No surprise, it was a question for the choir, I tweet a lot about LGBT issues and most of my followers are LGBT, or at least very supportive allies. I got one response, which made my day. Ok, week. Ok, month. Ok, I had it embroidered on a pillow:
But my favorite response from the whole discussion was and remains the one that came from Kossack caryltoo. She posted this:
I'm thrilled to know because my 17-year-old son is gay. I will definitely tell him about this guy.
by caryltoo on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 06:08:23 PM EST
And it made all the pie fights in the world worth it. (Carlytoo, you're a cool mom!) I'm sure her son will appreciate knowing, if he didn't. And that was all I really hoped to accomplish: to draw the attention of people who WOULD find it relevant.
And we see Caryltoo won't be getting this info from mainstream media. That's why many of us blog. To fill in the relevant gaps that the mainstream edits out.