It may seem unseemly for a man of my advanced years to write an essay about sexual matters. On the other hand, it also seems to me that I had no choice in the matter. If my mother were to reprimand me for having thoughts about ungodly matters, I would be forced to tell her, “Look, Mom, it ain’t me. It’s all these other fellows talking about sex.”
In the past week or so, we find that the Governor of New York State is proposing to introduce a bill in his legislature to authorize marriage between people of the same gender. That was followed quickly by the announcement from the Pentagon that the military services are going to rid themselves of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. And finally there was the controversy stirred up by the announcement that Mr. Obama is going to deliver the commencement speech at Notre Dame University. The controversy is anchored in Obama’s thoughts about permitting abortions.
I propose that we start with the proposal by David Patterson, the Governor of New York, to introduce a bill that would permit marriages between homosexual people. Governor Patterson is a little late to the dance in that there seems to be a movement toward permitting such marriages in this country. A week or so ago the great state of Iowa passed a bill in its legislature to permit such marriages. There are now four or five states that permit such marriages and we have the great state of New Jersey, where I now live, threatening to do the same thing.
My views on this matter are well known to the readers of Ezra’s Essays. It is my belief that a good number of people are born with homosexual tendencies just as there are people who are left-handed or who become bald. Fundamentally, I believe that there is no such thing as acquired homosexuality. In short, a person who has homosexual tendencies can do nothing about it. Beyond that, there are those who would argue that nothing should be done about it. I belong in the latter camp.
If a lesbian couple or a gay couple lived next door to me, it would have absolutely no effect whatsoever upon my marriage. It would seem to me that Christian charity would have a complete understanding of this situation. But, unfortunately, the misunderstanding originates with Christian conservatives. Curiously, they cite an obscure reference in Leviticus which holds that a man should not sleep with another man. It is of great significance that female homosexuals are not mentioned at all. To a large measure, the opposition to homosexual marriages is confined to gay people of the male gender.
In the Episcopal Church, a bishop in New Hampshire is a gay man named Gene Robinson. He has lived with his partner for many years. In my humble opinion, the Reverend Robinson seems to have shown great love for his longstanding partner. Yet the Episcopal Church is now threatened with a schism which would split the church apart and which could endanger the Anglican Communion under the Archbishop of Canterbury.
It escapes my understanding totally that a religion that embraces love of one’s fellow man should condemn a man because he suffers from a condition over which he has no control. To repeat an argument that I have used on previous occasions, according to Christian beliefs, all of us are manufactured in the image of God. Are we to conclude that in the case of gay people or lesbian women, God made a hell of a mistake? At this point, may I say that God made no mistake, even if those words come from a person with no religious affiliation whatsoever. Governor Patterson will have a monstrous battle on his hands because his proposal will arouse all sorts of religious opposition. I have no intention of seeking a gay partner to take into New York to realize the benefits of the Governor’s bill. I am just a straight man in New Jersey, transplanted from my Missouri roots, who wishes David Patterson God speed in his efforts to overcome a ridiculous bias.
Now we turn from a matter of religion to the military. In pursuing this subject in the military, I am on firmer ground having served a hitch in the American Army. During my period of service, there was no formal policy against gay people in the military. It was after the war ended that the conservatives on the right demanded that the military should have a policy excluding gay people. The debate ended when the military accepted the idea of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” If I may say so, based upon my experience with the American Army, this is a preposterous solution to this question.
During my service, I was never propositioned by a gay soldier. I suspect that, in all likelihood, there were gay people who served with me. But there were never any overtures made to engage in a sexual romp. No one ever snuck into my bed or cot in the tents or barracks and said, “Let’s make out.” That didn’t happen. In other words, the government set out to address a problem that really didn’t exist.
In its application, the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy has resulted in the discharge of thousands of people who are badly needed. For example, there were several hundred translators skilled in the use of the Arabic language who were dismissed under this policy. As a result, I am told, there are thousands of pages of documents that are untranslated because the interpreters have been fired. This is nothing less than cutting off your nose to spite your face. And it is a national disgrace.
The Secretary of Defense, Mr. Gates, now says that it will take as much as five years to make the new policy effective. I see no reason why it should take as much as five years to do what is right and should have been done all along. But in the final analysis, I should be grateful that the American Army and the other military services are now doing the right thing. That is an accomplishment in and of itself.
Now we return to the proposed commencement address to be given by Barack Obama to the graduating class at Notre Dame University. As is widely known among the readers of Ezra’s Essays, I have failed to attend a college of any sort. However, in the bargain as a child of Irish parentage, I have followed the fortunes of Notre Dame very carefully over the years. When I was a youngster growing up, autumn Saturday afternoons were reserved for hearing the broadcast of Notre Dame football. To a large extent, I lived and died with the outcome of Notre Dame football games. I suggest that there are millions of other people of Irish ancestry who are similarly affected. In the final analysis, the Notre Dame football club is called the “Fighting Irish.” Perhaps that name says it all.
Now it seems that the fact that Barack Obama supports a woman’s right to choose, which is in accordance with decided law in this country, has made him ineligible to deliver the commencement address at Notre Dame University in 2009 which includes an honorary doctorate. It has always been my belief that universities exist for the purpose of the free exchange of ideas. Under Father Hesburgh, who guided the fortunes of Notre Dame for many years, that would be the case. His successors extended the invitation to Barack Obama in the same spirit that Father Hesburgh originated. There is now a movement that would seek to deny Obama this opportunity to express his views and to receive an honorary doctorate. My guess is that the movement to stop Obama’s speech will fail miserably and that the talk will take place.
I suppose that those who are opposed to the speech only approve of a speaker who produces the standard Roman Catholic line of opposition to abortion in all circumstances. But that is not the purpose of having a great university like Notre Dame. In the end it is quite likely that those who oppose a Roman Catholic’s right to choose will still hold that view after his speech. And those who want freedom of choice for women in their pregnancy will probably still hold that view as well. So in all likelihood, Obama’s speech will change no minds. But on the other hand, he deserves to be heard, which is in the spirit of a great university such as Notre Dame.
Well, now I have told you about Governor Patterson introducing a same-sex marriage bill in New York and the lifting of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. And, finally, I have mentioned the commencement address by the President at Notre DameUniversity this coming June. I know that this essay started out to talk about sex, sex, and more sex.
If I may offer a thought in conclusion, it might be that homosexual arrangements, in marriage or in the “a cappella” arrangement, might be beneficial to all concerned because lesbians and gay men do not impregnate each other; thus the issue of abortion is completely avoided.
This then is my solution to the problem, which seems to antagonize so many of those on the Christian right. And to readers of Ezra’s Essays, I apologize for the thought that the title of this essay might lead one to believe that this was an essay about salacious thoughts. But seminarians like myself are devoid of such evil and wicked things. We are like the driven snow.
E. E. CARR
April 21, 2009
Essay 378
~~~
Kevin’s commentary: Man, I think Pop passed up a shot at an even raunchier title, namely “Sex Sex and Gay Sex” or “Gay Sex, Gay Sex and Gay Sex.” But alas, he has yet to reach out to me as a title consultant. Generally speaking he does just fine on his own.
The content of this essay makes me proud of my grandfather for being so progressive. Things were different back when he was growing up, and the opinions he holds now are almost guaranteed to have been generated from introspection. I like to think that in part, the fact that I grew up in a very tolerant household is directly attributable to Pop’s tolerance of basically everyone, except I suppose German/Japanese automobile makers. And that last quirk didn’t rub off onto Mom, so my brothers and I are, I hope, largely free and clear of these weird biases that so many people still hold.