Reflection: Don’t Say Straight, for Gay Pride Sunday, 06-05-22, Charles Nazarian
About a month ago a controversial statute was passed in Florida and signed by Governor Desantis that has been widely called the “Don’t Say Gay” law in the media. It criminalizes and prohibits the teaching, and even mentioning about, non-heterosexual relationships to early grade school children, among other things. The justification given for this law is that teaching children about alternate sexual orientations and gender identities amounts to corrupting their young minds and creating…heaven forbid…tolerance for relationships among adults that don’t conform to the so-called norms of married, heterosexual couples.
Viewed as part of the “red meat” for the political culture wars, this was a highly successful sales job based upon fear, misinformation and the misuse of religion. It totally ignores the fact, that like it or not, kids are very aware that many of their peers have a single parent or two parents of the same gender plus relatives and friends who don’t fit the heterosexual, conservative-Christian-based standards applied as the only ones acceptable for them to know about.
It is easy to dismiss such laws as a cynical appeal to an important sub-group of the current Republican Party but we all know that labels have power. Remember how kids would say “sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt” in response to nasty attempts at labeling other kids? Sadly it is not true, as we know from the high suicide rate among young people who identify as gay or transgender. Words, especially in this time of social media explosion, indeed can hurt us to the core and literally can kill.
We are a label-obsessed society. By giving a name to something our scientific approach to knowledge is satisfied that we not only know what it is but that on some level we are in control of it. That need to control data is very strong, especially with huge amount of information that is directed at us every day through our cell phones, tablets, computers and televisions.
Many years ago I was reminded of this because I have a grand-niece who is on the Asberger’s spectrum. She had dozens of models of pre-historic animals displayed in her bedroom and she knew the correct paleontology and Latin name for each one, but when placed in a room with competing voices chatting and or television on in the background she was helplessly incapacitated to interact and would easily become frustrated and angry. Those environments that she could not control became threatening, even if the people in them were well-meaning family members or friends. Similarly, we are often bewildered, fearful and upset when there is too much input from news or social media to digest, so people naturally fall back upon labels and patterns of attitudes towards others that are either familiar or make them feel part of a tribe that they feel they can trust. Politicians have become very skillful in identifying exploiting that fear through the use of names that seek to make their side into the good people versus the bad people.
When I was growing up in the 50’s and 60’s some of the worst words used as weapons, especially among boys in school, were “queer” or “homo” or “fag.” By the late 60’s, with the explosion of youth culture, the anti-war movement, the growing acceptance in the mainstream of feminism, and the drive for social justice and the Black power movement turned many negative labels in to points of pride. One of these involved the emergence of the word “gay” as a positive expression about liberation from being put down for a person’s right to openly live out the natural sexual attraction for a person of the same sex, whether between two women or two men. Although there had been many names, polite or nasty, given to this group over millennia this was a label one could embrace and gradually learn to celebrate openly. But, it is still an identifying label.
The music of our service today is by composers about whom we are confident through their personal stories to identify as gay, even if they did not know that meaning of the word in their own time. Samuel Barber is a good example. His brother, Clarence Barber, was the head of the music department at my alma mater, Trinity College, and many of us who were students there in the ‘70s discovered that both, highly talented brothers were gay…even if by necessity “in the closet” with regard to their careers. Samuel’s “Adagio for Strings” is beloved by many because of its heart-rending tenderness…an expression of sadness that goes to our core…and was not accidentally chosen for the movie “Platoon” as a result. Aside from k.d. lang, who is a contemporary woman who self-identifies as gay or lesbian, other composers like Saint-Saëns would not have known the term.
Which brings us to the issue I mentioned in the wisdom moment: so many of the labels we use to identify people should be adjectives because they describe only one aspect of the whole person, but we so often fall into the habit of using these terms as nouns. Examples abound and, especially as nouns, they are often used in a negative manner: she is an opportunist; he is a creep; they are bigots. If we truly recognize the inherent worth and dignity of every person, the first principle of Unitarian Universalism, we need to listen to ourselves and how we use language when labeling others.
So when in that dark room in Hartford so long ago the participant in the discussion declared that he was not a homosexual, but a homosexual human being…he was pointing to dehumanizing potential for the way our society uses classification and labels to devalue a class of people or to undermine the full potential of a person based upon only one aspect of their personalities. At the time, it seemed good to have the new name “gay” with at least a more positive and happy connotation in our language…but by now it is clear that many kids use the term “gay” the way they once used the term “fag” with the same hurtful results. And such terminology begins early in grade school, which is why it is so important to teach history and tolerance at an early age…exactly the opposite of the new Florida law’s intention, which is why it is so insidious and was fought by companies like Disney, who understand that children are smart and that teaching inclusion through stories and role models is an essential part of socialization.
Since this Gay Pride Sunday one might be curious about where the term “gay” came from. ‘The word’s original meaning meant something to the effect of “joyful”, “carefree”, “full of mirth”, or “bright and showy.” However, around the early parts of the 17th century, the word began to be associated with immorality. Later, according to an Oxford dictionary definition at the time, the meaning of the word had changed to mean “addicted to pleasures and dissipations. Often euphemistically: Of loose and immoral life, meaning more or less uninhibited. Fast-forward to the 19th century and the word gay referred to a woman who was a prostitute and a gay man was someone who slept with a lot of women (ironically enough). Also at this time, the phrase to “gay it” meant to have sex.
Around the 1920s and 1930s, however, the word started to have a new meaning. In terms of the sexual meaning of the word, a “gay man” no longer just meant a man who had sex with a lot of women, but now started to refer to men who had sex with other men. There was also another word “gay cat” at this time which meant a homosexual boy.
By 1955, the word gay now officially acquired the new added definition of meaning homosexual males. Gay men themselves seem to have been behind the driving thrust for this new definition as they felt (and many still do), that “homosexual” is much too clinical, sounding like a disorder. As such, it was common amongst the gay community to refer to one another as “gay” decades before this was a commonly known definition (reportedly homosexual men were calling one another gay as early as the 1920s). At this time, homosexual women were referred to as lesbians, not gay. Although women could still be called gay if they were prostitutes as that meaning had not yet 100% disappeared.
Since then, gay, meaning homosexual male, has steadily driven out all the other definitions that have floated about through time and of course also has gradually begun supplementing the word ‘lesbian’ as referring to women who are homosexual.’ How ironic this is when we consider that in our culture, growing up as a gay person is often anything but joyful and carefree! Religious organizations of many denominations and backgrounds continue to portray gay women and men as inherently sinful and guilty of abhorrent behaviors unacceptable to God. Kids who suspect that they may be transgendered are particularly under attack and there is even a Texas law that makes their parents criminals if they help them with medical and psychological care. Most young people who think they might be gay are terrified of the reactions from their families and peer group. They often internalize self-loathing as a result and Bible teachings, such as “love thy neighbor as thyself” ring especially hollow when you do not actually like who you may be.
This is one of the more remarkable societal features of feeling an outcast in one’s formative years: assuming you survive the emotional tumult, it leads a person to question all cultural systems or religions that leave you outside of the acceptable norms. Fortunately, questioning truth is central to Unitarian Universalism.
This is clearly one reason why so many people, who identify as gay, straight, or something between, have found a safe and supportive home in our churches. Our sex education program, Our Whole Lives, which goes back many decades emphasizes that sexuality is a gift, that sexual expression and gender identities encompass a wide spectrum (not necessarily either/or), and that who you love is a matter of choice in which one preference is not better than another. For the Universalists, the first step in this direction is belief that all of creation emanates from a loving God, who seeks for us to return to our Source. Although our bodies are mortal and may be viewed as from “dust to dust” our spirits come from light and return to light. For the Unitarians, the starting point is that creation is good and human beings of all kinds possess that inherent goodness. Either way, it is a message that so many young people need to hear, especially in today’s ugly and divisive political landscape that often seeks to use religion as a cultural weapon.
Of course, we can’t be blind to the phrases in Leviticus in the Hebrew Bible that use damning terms like “abomination” but it is all about context. First of all, survival of tribal societies in the Middle East depended upon numbers: having large families was essential to insure survival. One could not have Joshua and Moshe or Ruth and Naomi riding off happily into the sunset as couples…they needed men and women to reproduce in quantity. And one must also take into account that other Levitican “abominations” were things like eating shellfish or even handling the skin of a pig. Not even the most rabid fundamentalist Christian of today would deny themselves a shrimp cocktail or a game of football!
The New Testament, based upon the life and teachings of Jesus, is more subtle. We quickly get into the original definition of words in Hebrew or Greek versus their present-day translations by scholars; or the examination of the Apostle Paul as one who started as a Jewish legal zealot tormenting Christians who may have been at war with his sexuality and who complained of “a thorn in his side” by psychologists. A dear friend of mine, who had wrestled with these issues due to his Catholic upbringing, taught me to focus on the two actual acts by Jesus that may point to a deeper truth.
One of them concerns the Roman Centurian in Luke 7:1–10, who risked his position by publicly asking Jesus to save his ailing young man. In some English translations the young man is described as his servant or slave, but scholars note that no Roman, especially not a Centurian, would have risked his entire life for such a low-rank person. The most accurate Greek translation of the word “pais” indicates that this was his lover.
Jesus was willing to go into the Centurion’s house to heal his lover, but the centurion stopped him, saying, “Sir, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell one to go, and he goes; and another to come, and he comes. I tell my servant to do something, and he does it.” Jesus marveled and told the crowd around him, “Not even in Israel have I found such faith!” To the centurion he said, “Go; be it done for you as you have believed.” And his boyfriend was healed at that moment.
Homosexual relationships and even marriages were accepted in Roman culture, unlike in Hebrew societies, so these scholars insist that this story shows the compassion Jesus demonstrated by telling the Centurian that his lover was healed through his faith. It goes far past eating with tax-collectors in Jesus’ radicalism.
Another is found in the story of the death and resurrection of Lazarus in John 11:1-44. If you recall, Lazarus’ sisters Martha and Mary had sent word that he was dying and they were angry with Jesus for coming four days after his death, saying that if only he had come sooner their brother would not have died. But in the drama that unfolds, Jesus calls out and Lazarus awakes from death. This is the miracle, above all others, that shocks the Jewish authorities and causes such frenzy as the news spreads prior to Jesus’ arrival in Jerusalem soon afterwards. What is sometimes lost in the story is how Jesus wept when he came to the tomb and the Jews note “Behold, How he loved him!” Of course, the story is to foreshadow Jesus’ own resurrection.
Some believe that Lazarus of Bethany was the “beloved disciple” of Jesus — and maybe even his lover. Scholars theorize that Lazarus was also the unnamed “one whom Jesus loved,” also known as “the beloved disciple,” referenced at least five times in the Gospel of John. Lazarus and his sisters also formed a nontraditional family at a time when there was huge pressure for heterosexual marriage. All three of them were close to Jesus, which makes the story so full of meaning.
Perhaps the most intriguing New Testament story of inclusion, rather than of rejection and condemnation, comes after Jesus in the Acts of the Apostles 8:26-40 from our reading. Here again, there is a lot of hidden meaning. The Ethiopian whom Philip baptizes, is probably not only a man of color but one with very dark-skin from a very different culture and he is a eunuch in service to Candace the Queen. One has to know the context to fully understand what this means.
Although the Ethiopians from Nubia had a patriarchal society with a succession of kings, women had a much more equal standing with men. When a king died his wife would rule as queen until a male heir was of age, thus there was actually a lineage of many queens called Kandake who were known as powerful rulers and fierce warriors. In fact, Alexander the Great is said to have avoided veering south into Nubia in his quest for conquering the world because he did not want to risk being defeated by a woman! The culture was also known for the practice of female and male prostitution, including persons of the same sex, in royal temples, so the eunuch was about as far-removed from a devout, observant Jew as culturally and ethnically possible!
And yet here he is reading the Hebrew Scriptures but not understanding the meaning until Philip explains it to him. When he asks if he may be baptized, Philip answers him, “If you believe with all your heart, you may” and he answers “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” This is perhaps the ultimate expression of inclusion to be found in the New Testament. One that many segregationists and fundamentalists might prefer to ignore, but it is undeniable that the good news Philip preaches is for the entire world, regardless of race, ethnicity, sexual identity or gender expression. Of course, we are not told what happens when he returns to the palace of Candace the Queen! That would make interesting reading.
Let’s now leave ancient times. I recently was fortunate to watch a Ted Talk about the discoveries about the human genomic sequence, how there are certain ones that correspond to a person’s sexual orientation, and how this relates to evolution. Studies of the human genomic sequence are recent and much is yet to be learned but in early 2021 several studies indicated a remarkable correspondence between a group of genomes and gay sexual identification. The presenter noted with regret that there are so far more studies about male gay identification, but that the science was ongoing to see if there are corresponding genomes about female gay orientation. One thing is already clear: there is unambiguous and mounting evidence that sexual orientation is not purely a choice; the statistical occurrence of people who identify as gay with this genomic sequence is simply too large. So for the first time, science is corroborating what gay women and men have been saying forever…our attractions are as natural to us as those of people who identify as heterosexual or straight. Of course, this flies in the face of some religious dogma that prefers to simply see gay behavior as bad or unnatural. To some of some of us, perhaps 10% of the population, it is as natural as the color of our eyes or the sun rising every morning!
But the presenter asked a followup question that was really intriguing, “since gay people don’t typically reproduce and raise kids, why hasn’t evolution simple done away with them over time?” Statistically speaking, we should have died out long ago. The hypothesis is that there must be some evolutionary benefit to having gay women and men as part of successful societies that gives them an edge. So far two answers have started to emerge from the data and from anthropology.
First, there appears to be a strong correlation to the occurrence of the gay genomic sequence with children born as third, fourth or later in a family. The occurrence is apparently much less likely for the first-born, and remains lower for second children. The hypothesis is that a natural process is at work that favors generational reproduction of the early children in a family, and thus its chance to grow and survive with less need for reproduction in larger families.
Second, there is also a strong correlation to occurrence of the gay genomic sequence with children whose mothers experienced some kind of trauma in early pregnancy. This could be in the form of food deprivation or an anxiety reaction to circumstances around them. The hypothesis is that another natural process is at work that might help to insure that rather than leaving the family unit, this member may serve a different function in looking after the other siblings and/or their offspring, or perhaps in looking after the parents themselves as they age.
Third, and related to the second, there is now quite a lot of evidence that as uncles and aunts to the children of their siblings that gay women and men often serve an extremely useful, and evolutionary significant, purpose in helping to insure the success of the family without raising children of their own. In fact, in some cultures of the South Pacific, there is a recognized role for a male family member who dresses in clothing more like his female counterparts and whose role is highly respected as a teacher and facilitator within the culture. Perhaps in a less dramatic way, we can easily observe that gay aunts and uncles in our culture often can serve as go-to people when the parental relationships are under stress or when a younger family member needs a nudge in a creative or educational direction from somebody other than a parent.
There are other examples from our recent history that are not necessarily happy or easy to accept, but still telling about the many important roles gay women and men have played in our progress as a culture. A significant one is Bayard Rustin.
He was African-American and raised in Pennsylvania where his family was involved in civil rights work. In 1936, he moved to Harlem, New York City and earned a living as a nightclub and stage singer, and continued activism for civil rights. In the pacifist Fellowship of Reconciliation (FOR), Rustin practiced nonviolence. He was a leading activist of the early 1947–1955 civil-rights movement, helping to initiate a 1947 Freedom Ride to challenge with civil disobedience racial segregation on interstate busing.
He was a key person behind Martin Luther King, Jr.’s leadership, and helped to organize the Southern Christian Leadership Conference to strengthen King’s position. Rustin became a leading strategist of the civil rights movement from 1955 to 1968. He was the chief organizer of the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. Rustin also influenced young activists, such as Tom Kahn and Stokely Carmichael, in organizations like the Congress on Racial Equality (CORE) and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC).
After the passage of the civil-rights legislation of 1964–65, Rustin focused attention on the economic problems of working-class and unemployed African Americans. He served on many humanitarian missions, such as aiding refugees from Communist Vietnam and Cambodia. He was on a humanitarian mission in Haiti when he died in 1987.
Rustin was a gay man who had been arrested for a homosexual act in 1953. Homosexuality was criminalized in parts of the United States until 2003. Rustin’s sexuality, or at least his embarrassingly public criminal charge, was criticized by some fellow pacifists and civil-rights leaders, especially from Black Church leaders. To avoid such attacks, Rustin served only rarely as a public spokesperson but usually acted as an influential adviser to civil-rights leaders behind the scenes. In the 1970s, he became a public advocate on behalf of gay and lesbian causes. On November 20, 2013, President Barack Obama posthumously awarded Rustin the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
Whatever the science ultimately concludes, I think we have already come to that place in America where it is unthinkable to return to a time when simply loving the person of your choice could land you in jail…and we are never going back. Of course, the recent rightward direction of the Supreme Court and the willingness of so many Americans to follow demagogues using hate and fear for political advantage…like the Governor of Florida…has put us on high-alert. We can never, ever take our freedoms for granted. We must always be vigilant to safeguard the freedom and rights of all, especially those who are most vulnerable to discrimination. Our recognition of the interconnected web of existence demands nothing less from us. As we celebrate Gay Pride Month, as we should with parades and festivities, we also have to acknowledge the responsibility we bare to sustain human rights and counteract bigotry and discrimination everywhere and anywhere it appears to be taking hold.
So, since there are some people would try to prevent us from saying the word gay with our kids in a positive light, l wonder how they would feel if a law was passed that flipped the tables and was named “Don’t Say Straight”? You would not be allowed to discuss loving relationships between men and women or role models with school children. It is obviously ridiculous, isn’t it? This illuminates the double-standard practiced by a narrow-minded group of people who seek to use our laws to enforce their cultural and religious views on everyone else. Some of us are old enough to remember Anita Bryant, the orange juice huckster, who tried to smear gay people while smiling in the Florida sunshine. Most of us lost many wonderful friends and family members, nearly a whole generation, to AIDS and we will never forget those dark days when fundamentalists liked to call it the gay plague. So let’s resolve to continue to work forcefully and confidently for inclusion and for freedom because we are part of a wonderfully diverse human family.
