IT'S BECOME a matter of course for liberals, particularly unabashedly blue-state liberals, to lament one of the greatest ironies of this election: that in an election framed by the GOP to be about the dual threats of terrorism and gay marriage, those areas most threatened by both voted overwhelmingly against the president. The latter is something worth noting in the context of our own community.
With the campaign against gays igniting across the country, resulting in the passage of anti-gay marriage measures in 11 states and the driving of 22 percent of total voters out to the polls to cast a ballot for "moral values" (more than any other issue in this campaign), its local manifestations right here in Charlottesville should not be overlooked.
On Oct. 25, The Daily Progress ran an uncredited quarter-page ad calling homosexuality "a detestable act, an abomination, wickedness, disgusting, gross sin" and pointing to the Bible as a "way out" for gays. Much brow-beating has occurred about the lapse in journalistic oversight to run such an inflammatory and hateful ad without a source or indication that it was paid for, and unendorsed by the newspaper. But greater than the question of The Daily Progress' responsibility for the flap is the climate out of which such propaganda even arises to begin with.
There are close to 14,000 gays and lesbians living in Virginia. That's not even a third of the homosexual population of New York and barely more than a tenth of that of California. Mississippi, Montana, Arkansas and Utah -- states that passed anti-gay measures with overwhelming margins -- are all home to fewer than 5,000 gay and lesbian individuals each. How is that it that states with the statistically least to fear in terms of the "homosexual threat" are somehow the most fearful? If the authors of The Daily Progress ad are justified in their terror of this supposed threat to traditional morality and family values, why have the states, who are by all measure "under siege" by large gay populations, not joined them in fighting back?
One explanation lies in a simple matter of semantics, the subtle difference between homophobia and heterosexism. Although exposure to gay populations sadly doesn't always fix an anti-gay attitude, it does seem to cure the paralyzing fear that grips so much of this country. Think, for example, of blue collar union workers, a demographic that went solidly for John Kerry in cities like Boston or New York, and a group that, at least traditionally, one would not expect to find waving rainbow flags in a pride parade. Yet living and working side by side with the thousands of gays and lesbians that populate major blue state cities allows individuals, even ones who hold attitudes or religious convictions against that lifestyle, to realize that the "gay threat" is utter myth, that although they may not personally support gay marriage, their own marriages and families are hardly jeopardized by its possibility. Because they don't perceive gay marriage as a threat, they're more likely to vote on their rational self interest. Conversely, a resident of rural Mississippi who might well spend their entire life without meeting a homosexual (or at least, an un-closeted homosexual) develops a crippling horror of the unknown, falling prey to the doomsday scenarios of rampant homosexuality overtaking their homes and churches sickeningly, but brilliantly, exploited in this election by conservatives. The best example of such fear mongering was the Republican National Committee's propaganda campaign in two Southern states warning of "liberals" seeking to allow gay marriage and ban the Bible
According to CNN exit polls, only 16 percent of Northeasterners voted on "moral issues"-- less than the percentages that voted on Iraq, terrorism and the economy -- compared to the 24 percent of those in Southern states who voted on the same -- more than any other issue. So, to put it another way, many blue state individuals who regularly come into contact with gays and lesbians may share views on the nature of homosexuality with the red staters who never will, but realize as a result of this exposure that it is not worth their time, or, in the case of this most recent local skirmish, advertising dollars, to wage a campaign against gays. They recognize that their jobs, safety and children's future matter more than any fabricated imperiled morality.
All of which is simply to put a new frame on an inescapable debate. It is little wonder that our own town is far from exempt from the war over the meaning of values raging across the country, but it certainly provides an irony to compete with any other in the whole state of affairs.
"Family values" in the states with the largest gay populations means supporting a political agenda that values the health and economic situation of families.
Apparently, family values in red states like Virginia means the cowardice of smearing anti-gay venom across the pages of a local newspaper while hiding in anonymity.
Irony, indeed.
Katie Cristol's column appears Mondays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at kcristol@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 2 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
SHRAUGER: McIntire’s three-year model limits opportunities for first-year students
By Alex Shrauger | 4 days agoBy pigeonholing students into commerce so early, the University violates its own mission of providing a holistic education that produces students capable of succeeding in a variety of fields.
