Mourning the Loss of Gay Neighborhoods

It may seem insignificant or self-indulgent in the era of Trumpism and the pandemic, but I mourn the loss of gay neighborhoods.   Across the country, whether in New York City, Philadelphia, Chicago, or San Francisco, and I’ve read also around the world, the vibrant gay neighborhoods (“ghettos”) that provided shelter (in the broadest sense), nourishment, and a feeling of community to gays and lesbians for decades have become a pale stand-in for their former selves.

What happened?  The most common explanation is that with the greater acceptance of gays and lesbians by the broader society, culminating in the legalization of same-sex marriage, people no longer felt the need to congregate and they chose instead to assimilate.  Some point to real estate pressures, but I feel that is mostly bogus.  It has to do with the desire to assimilate. 

But the question remains, “Why?”  Why would you forsake the feeling of community and camaraderie of living in a heavily gay and lesbian neighborhood for life among straights?  Why would you trade the vibrancy of these neighborhoods for the relative sterility (from a LGBT perspective) of straight urban areas let alone the suburbs?

The clear answer to me is not a pretty one.  Despite 5 decades of burgeoning gay pride activities and marketing, that feeling is trumped by the more deeply-rooted internalized homophobia that is still strong among gays (I cannot speak for lesbians).  This is what the experience of societal and familial homophobia has done to us as individuals.

That is why so many choose assimilation over community.  Why the desire to see themselves as “normal” is so strong, and why they themselves still define “normal” with reference to straight norms, not the norms of the LGBT community.

There is a lot of talk and display about celebrating our difference.  There is much flaunting of that difference in Gay Pride Parades.   For many, if not most, however, it is just talk.  People mouth the words, but they have no deep meaning.  I do not minimize the valid importance for many gays and lesbians of marriage and having children.  But I do think that part of that importance is the stamp of normality that it provides.

Yes, we are out today.  In that sense we have come far in the last 50 years since Stonewall.  But with the greater acceptance, and now even marriage, comes the temptation to fulfill the desire to be “normal" while still being gay.

I have been out for 50 years.  During that time, I have cherished my straight colleagues and their embrace of me.  I was very fortunate.  We were of one mind about politics and values, what a human being should be.  We had complete respect for each other.

But I never wished to adopt a straight persona, to be like them.  I cherish my gayness.  We are different, blessedly so.  Sometimes outrageously so. 

I came out while living in Chicago’s “Boystown.”  Gays were everywhere at all hours of the day … on the streets, in the grocery store, the local bookstore.  The community was not just defined by gay bars.  

More recently I have lived in Philadelphia’s former gay neighborhood, NYC, and Boston, and the scene was not what it once was.  Now it is just defined by the bars; so few gays still live in these neighborhoods that they are invisible unless you have Gaydar.  I missed the comfort and easy camaraderie of being, of living, among fellow gays.  

Even knowing what I understand now, I still find it hard to accept that people would give that up for living in straight neighborhoods.  We live our work lives in a straight world, and as I’ve experienced, it can be very rewarding and enriching.  

But we should want to be at home in a neighborhood where we are part of a gay culture, a milieu, an ambiance that is special and that affirms who we are.  For the same reasons that ethnic neighborhoods are special and worthy of preserving - for the city, it creates a vibe which is stimulating; for the neighborhood residents, it fosters maintenance of their identity and provides a sense of belonging which the larger culture never provides.

As with many aspects of culture, what is lost is irretrievably lost.  Assimilation is healthy for society up to a point; it is important that citizens feel a commonality, that there be a social compact. Beyond that, however, assimilation is destructive of the richness of diversity that makes life interesting and a society vibrant.  Our society, unfortunately, aided by the conforming influences of technology and globalization is marching towards a homogenous world.  How sad. 

The Failure of Religion to Lead

I was reading a book the other day that happened to quote two verses from the Bible that just stopped me in my tracks, realizing what a failure not only we are as humans but what a failure religion has been in leading its flock.  The verses were:

“For what shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul?”

“Who shall ascend onto the hill of the Lord?  He that hath clean hands and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully.”

These are core principles of Christian teaching, together with “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”  Similar teaching with different words can be found in all the great religions.

According to a 2017 Gallup poll, 37% of Americans are classified as “highly religious” based on their self-reports of church attendance and the importance of religion in their lives.  Another 30% are classified as moderately religious.  

Yet the same poll found that 48% of highly religious Americans approve of Trump’s performance in office, 40% of the moderately religious.  Regarding party affiliation, 80% of Republicans are classed highly or moderately religious, but only 61% of Democrats.

How does one make sense of this data considering the teachings noted above?  It is obvious that there is a serious disconnect between what people feel being religious means regarding their own and others’ actions and the teachings of the Bible and other spiritual sources.  This is not only seen in the support of the religious for Trump but in their everyday actions, be it within their family or in the context of their work.  

We live in a culture that promotes the quest for power at all cost, vanity, and deceitfulness.  We live in a culture that is supremely irreligious.  But why do the religious, who rebel against some aspects of modern culture, not stand up against this ethical and moral cancer?

One could look at this situation and say that the failing is due to the weakness of man.  But that is only part of the answer.  The more damning (pardon the pun) answer is that our major religions, especially the more orthodox branches, have failed to pass on the most meaningful aspects of their religion … how one acts towards his fellow man.  Of course they give lip service to the moral and ethical responsibilities of man, but they do not press the point.

Instead the orthodox branches of religion are obsessed with gaining power, with having influence, and as a result stress the functional aspects of orthodox religious practice far more than the moral or ethical aspects.  The only moral aspects they promote are cherry-picked from the Bible and again are geared to their defeating what they see as enemies of their power.

And so, whether it’s their stand against a woman’s choice, which they label “pro-life” and “anti-abortion” (is anyone pro-abortion?), or whether it’s their stand against the LGBT community, that is the orthodox moral litmus test for being a good Christian or a good Jew.  To abstain from vanity, from deceitfulness, from the quest for power and wealth at all cost seems not to concern them.

And this is not just a criticism of Evangelical Christians (much has been written about the apparent hypocrisy of their support for Trump) or ultra-orthodox Jews.  The Catholic Church in general has fallen into this same trap.  Actually, the preeminence of survival is nothing new for the Church.  It has historically seen its most important role as preserving its power, its presence.  So for example, during WWII, Pope Pius said nothing about what was happening to the Jews in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy or the conquered countries.  He was more concerned that the church not be attacked.

And what about the ongoing scandal of the abuse of children, not just boys, by Catholic clergy?  Not just the abuse, but the deceitful, disingenuous actions of church leaders in keeping the truth of this monstrous moral failure from their own flock.  All in the name of preserving the power and strength of the Church.  

If one reads the Bible in its entirety, not just the favored sections intoned in the culture wars, they will know that they and their religion have failed.  That they are not leading a religious life in any truly meaningful way.  Evangelicals may be “born again,” and ultra-orthodox Jews may maintain all the rituals and study the Bible and pray for hours, but orthodox Christians are not doing what Jesus would do, and ultra-orthodox Jews are not doing what G-d would have them do in dealing with their fellow man.  And by the way, I should note that the eastern religions are not free of this problem.  Look at the violence that Buddhist monks have promoted against the Muslim Rohingya of Myanmar.

Religion should be at the forefront of a real culture war, which is to say against the prevailing culture’s promotion of power, vanity, and deceitfulness.  It should be our moral compass.  But that would take real courage because it would risk turning people off and thus “weakening” the church’s power and presence.  

It is ironic that it is the less-orthodox, less-conservative branches of the religions that do a better job at teaching the moral values of their religion, and those who are classified as “not religious” who do a better job at implementing those values.  Something has gone haywire.

The Importance of Separation of Church and State

The founders of the United States were deeply religious.   But they were not narrow-minded or bigoted in their religious thought.  They were students of the Enlightenment.  And so in writing the 1st Amendment they saw to it that the government would neither pass any law respecting the establishment of religion, thus forcing it on people, nor one prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

As worded, the amendment is all about prohibiting what the government can do.  In interpreting the amendment, the courts early on looked to a January 1802 letter written by Thomas Jefferson which stated that the language in the amendment “built a wall of separation between Church and State.”  This phrase echoed a statement made by Roger Williams, the founder of the first Baptist church in America who spoke of “a wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world.”

President Trump is correct that the prohibition on election activity by churches is a result of a law pushed by Lyndon Johnson.  It impacts all non-profit, 501(c) 3 organizations, not just churches.  There is no existing constitutional law/case mandating this prohibition.

However, that is not to say that there exists no basis in the constitution for such prohibition at least as it pertains to churches.  Certainly not if we look at the intent of the founders, which is the standard in vogue with conservative jurists, including the current Supreme Court nominee Judge Gorsuch.

A wall is only a solid wall if it is two-sided.  The government is restricted regarding what it can do that affects religion and people’s free choice.  And churches, which is to say religion, should be restricted from engaging directly in political matters such as campaigns.  

Why?  Churches should not be sullied by engaging in politics.  As Roger Williams eloquently said, the garden of the church needs to be separated from the wilderness of the world.  Encroachment of the “wilderness” comes not just through laws that might restrict or command religious practice, which is the literal meaning of the 1st Amendment, but through the church becoming entangled in the wilderness.

I see this reading of the 1st Amendment as being an important part of protecting religious freedom.  Churches do have free speech and can speak out on any issue concerning the public or the state.  And indeed they use this right very effectively and appropriately.  Churches should be a moral authority.  But to take that one step further and allow churches to actively support specific candidates or parties, which is what President Trump wants to allow, would lead churches and religious organizations down the proverbial slippery slope and create a problem.

For centuries, churches were not involved in politics both because they thought that the world of politics was sordid and because there was no need to.   Freedom of religion was set in the Constitution.  

But at some point in the 1980s, Evangelical leaders started getting concerned that their values, what they felt were American values, were being undermined either by liberals or by less religious people.  And with the encouragement of Republican operatives, they got involved in politics.  To protect the America that they felt was the true America.

And here one sees clearly the problem.  This is not about freedom of religion.  No one was telling Evangelicals that they couldn’t do or practice what they felt were the standards, the commandments of their religion.  This is about one religion wanting to impose its view of morality upon the entire society, not by forcing everyone to join the same religion but through the law.   Which is in effect against the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment.

As generally recognized, the establishment clause "not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion." 

Or more recently, when they offer services to the public through their businesses, they want to be able to discriminate regarding who they serve.  But we have a law in this country.  It is part of the civil rights laws that if you serve the public you cannot discriminate in who your serve.  Period.  That doesn’t keep you from practicing your religion and remaining true to your beliefs.  That is something private.  It just stops you from forcing your morality on others when you put yourself out as a purveyor to the public.  Because then it impacts other people. 

If churches start campaigning for candidates, which has already happened despite the Johnson Amendment, then when a candidate is elected and recognizes his debt to these churches, the person is likely to propose actions, as has President Trump, which please that group even as it tramples on the rights of others.  

His vow to find a conservative jurist committed to overturning Roe v Wade was an effort to win the evangelical vote by getting the organized evangelical church and other organizations to support him and campaign for him.  And now he has carried through on that promise, despite the fact that as recently as 1999 he said that he was “very” pro-choice.  

Likewise there have been articles written about memos circulating in the White House that would turn back the rights that have been recognized for LGBT people, again despite the fact that as recently as November 13, 2016 he said that he was “fine” with gay marriage and that the matter was “settled.”

The influence of churches in campaigns is bad for our freedoms and ultimately religion.  Our system of rights maintains that we all, not just a few, have rights.  And the rights guaranteed by the 1st Amendment are indeed the strongest.  

But even they are not absolute.  No one can exercise a right if in so doing they infringe on the rights of another person.  That is the basis of all laws and regulations that impact people’s rights.  There is a greater good that is always considered.  That is as true for the freedom of religion and for the other rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.  If one religion does not respect the rights of others of another religion or no religion, that is a sad day for religion in our democracy.

There is one more reason why Trump’s idea is a bad one.  America has been blessedly free for most of its history of the open religious antagonism and warfare that plagued Europe for centuries.  Yes, there has been anti-semitism in various forms, as well as anti-catholicism.   But there has not been open hostility between the various religious establishments.

If churches start being involved in campaigns with those supporting the winner benefiting in some way and having their view be ascendant, there is much more likely to develop the kind of deep-seated animosity that was a feature of European history for so long.   These feelings may be below the surface in America, but they are there and it wouldn’t take much to raise them to a different, vocal level. 

The Johnson Amendment should not be repealed and churches/religious organizations should voluntarily refrain from campaigning for individual candidates or parties for the reason that it is just not seemly.   To quote Roger Williams again, “There should be a wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world.

I urge the President to reconsider his support of churches’ campaigning in support of specific candidates or parties.  And I urge Congress to maintain the Johnson Amendment in force.

To Republican Senators Who Rejected Trump: Don't Abandon Your Principles

Everyone assumes that Republicans have control of the Senate and that Democrats will have to resort to endless filibusters in attempting to stop those aspects of Trump’s agenda that denigrate or attack specific groups of American citizens on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity.  But there is another possibility, which strangely I have not seen discussed in the media nor regarding which I have received any petitions.

Four Republican Senators publicly disavowed Trump prior to the election … Gail Collins (ME), Ben Sasse (NE), Jeff Flake (AZ), and Lindsay Graham (SC) … saying that he was unfit to serve as President, that he would divide the country, that he did not respect human dignity, and did not represent their party.  What should they do now?

Trump is making a show of reaching out to those who slammed him, such as Mitt Romney, but it is only show and indicates no moderation of his positions and attitudes.  His true intentions are shown by the consistency of his character, the major appointments given his cronies, and most scarily his naming Steve Bannon, the racist, anti-Semitic alt right guru of Breitbart News, as the White House’s Chief Strategist and Senior Counselor.  (News Flash: Trump tells The New York Times that he disavows the alt right and that Bannon and Brietbart are not alt right or racist.  So much for honesty.)

The four have a critical decision to make now which will impact the future of this country and the welfare of their fellow citizens.  The new Senate will have 51 Republicans (including them), 48 Democrats, and 1 Independent who caucuses with the Democrats.  Thus Trump/

Republicans only control the Senate by a 2-vote margin.  The four have the power to nullify that.

Will the four have the courage of their convictions?  The most courageous position for them would be to switch their party identity to Independent (there is precedent for this).  They wouldn’t have to caucus with the Democrats, which they would probably be uncomfortable doing.  Just changing to Independent, and not caucusing with the Republicans, would deprive Republicans and Trump of a majority and thus control of the Senate and its committees.  Since they didn’t vote for him for President because they thought he was unfit, this would seem appropriate.

However, they are life-long Republicans, hold the Party (at least in its former iteration) dear, and so switching would be unlikely.  The next option, still courageous, would be for them to work with Trump and the Republican majority when they can morally support measures before the Senate, but clearly indicate, ideally upfront and in concert, that they will vote with the Democrats to block measures that are morally unacceptable.

The last option, which would show no courage whatsoever, would be to cave in to Trump’s bullying and act as part of the Republican majority regardless the measure.  To vote in lock-step with the majority leader as they did during the Obama administration.

Upon their action depends the fate of the nation not just for the next four years but perhaps for the foreseeable future.  Each of these Senators will have to decide what to do.  The issue cannot be evaded.