"Was Lincoln gay?" Debate Is Also Relevant to Greatness

[ED Note: This is a continuation of an argument that more-or-less starts here in Hprof's diary "Was Lincoln Gay? A Historian's View": "why couldn't". I also re-inserted a line from there, per SeanF's protestation in a comment below.]

It's enough for scholars to believe that Lincoln a great statesperson, Whitman was a great poet,  Tchaikovsky a great composer, James Baldwin a great novelist, Margaret Cho a great comic, [insert/substitute your picks, or people you understand to be great], etc.

One needs not look at their personal lives or bring out just one personal characteristic to come to these conclusions. One need only compare their artistic output with others' to determine their greatness (using whatever standard one wishes).

Some may argue that to bring in this superfluous stuff diminishes the accomplishment. But I disagree.

I think Tchaikovsky, to cite an earlier example, can be considered to have been all these things: a great gay composer, a great Russian composer, a great composer in whatever musical genre people place him. None of these subcategories keep me from thinking he was a great composer, period. And it's important that people draw from his life however they choose.

It is important we recognize and value the common good these artists do and transcend personal stuff to improve our lives. In a work environment, we may think poorly of a colleague's personal life but still try and cooperate to accomplish tasks for the good of ourselves (we're viewed as productive) and the organization (we attain its leaders' goals). It's important in that a writer or comic or politician can look upon respective exemplars' craft, regardless of their background, to learn how to perform more effectively. Personal lives of great people rightly mean nothing in this context.

They mean a lot, however, to those who try to mold their lives on a myth, or allegorical narrative. Those wanting to create or change the world will often draw upon one of, or a combination of, myths: a warrior myth, a poet myth, even a lawyer myth, ad infinitum. Many (not all) feel they can understand and embody these myths better if prior exemplars share their personal innate characteristics. (Some even try to alter themselves to acquire the exemplar's characteristics, but that's for another argument.) I guess some may see this as pride and perhaps vanity. I, however, see it as empowerment. The important perspective here is theirs and not their mentors' (as tragic as that may seem). They are the one determining their mentors' greatness, and, as I said above, the myth-followers are free to do so however they choose.

A politician is frequently only as successful in gaining power to the extent the politician can understand and align policy with constituents' personal narratives, or at least appear to. Sure, this method isn't the only way to become successful as a politician, but I think it's a worthy one (if applied honestly).

I'm reading Barack Obama's memoir Dreams From My Father, and in it, he undergoes such a transformation in the way he organizes the community of Altgeld in Chicago. He learns that he can't keep his personal motivations separate from his organizing work. He must join his narrative with those of people in the community to bring positive change in their lives.

Maybe it's technically a needless step to some, but many find a need to connect with others on a personal level if they are to join in a cause. For many (if not nearly all) people, the political arena is based on the personal.

On a societal level, the value of transcending the personal becomes paramount (perhaps a tautology). When a personal characteristic, especially one that most consider innate, of one person or a group becomes an object of derision, scorn or discrimination, then the society, through government, must determine whether supporting those people's rights aligns with its ideals.

Most of the great struggles throughout United States history involve civil rights, or, to put it dryly, this determination process. In the case of sexual orientation, let's view the actions of those who believe organizations should be allowed to discriminate against people identifying as "gender-queer" (to use one term I've seen some use positively). They argue that homosexuality isn't innate and therefore that it doesn't fall under Constitutional protection. They try and show how homosexuality is harmful to society. They draft laws that ban adult gay and lesbian sexual practices. They try to relegate gays and lesbians (etc.) to something akin to second-class citizenship by drafting discriminatory laws, and more important, Constitutional amendments. (Incidentally, by drafting Constitutional amendments to bar gay marriage and/or civil unions, anti-gay activists in effect concede the point that the Constitution as it stands does not distinguish between straights and gays when granting rights.) Anti-gay activists try to take rights and power from gay individuals. In some way, they believe that the US will be a stronger nation if it denies the gay-positive myth.

The United States government, by protecting its citizens' rights, must both transcend and protect the process of personal myth and self-identification if it is to allow its people's greatness to further its ideals.

This is why the Lincoln sexual orientation debate matters. If Lincoln were gay, the fact he did great things counters several arguments of activists who work to discriminate against gays and lesbians and gender-queers. Lincoln didn't harm society (or at the very least brought about needed change (end to enslavement, etc.) to allow us to protect society from harm), Lincoln was an exemplary politician and not deemed unfit for office. If those activists had been able to deny gays freedoms, then, not only would they have discriminated against Lincoln for being gay, they would have been discriminating against a great person.

Yes, Lincoln's sexual orientation matters little in determining the value of his actions. Do gays specifically need Lincoln to have been gay in order to create a gay-positive myth? I highly doubt it. But just about everyone needs positive examples to follow if they are to lead great lives. If someone reaches greatness by identifying with Lincoln's sexual orientation (as concluded) as part of a gay-positive myth, then we all benefit. Our society can't afford to bar potential greatness, and this is why I am against all governmental discrimination on basis of innate characteristics.

(An aside: I believe my use of the terms "greatness" and "rights" prevents a Harrison-Bergeron-style Constitution of enforced equality (see "Harrison Bergeron" by Kurt Vonnegut). Though one may live as fully as possible, it does not mean one can accomplish as much as any other human can. The concept of "greatness," however, is broad enough to allow for this, and even a "limited" life (whatever that means), given the same rights, can accomplish things of great benefit.)