A new film by Gus Van Sant (of “Good Will Hunting” fame) memorializing the first iconic politician of the gay liberation movement, Harvey Milk, gets an interesting, if predictable review by neocon shill John Podhoretz in The Weekly Standard (yet again proving, in mini-Pod’s case, that the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree). In the text of his review, mini-Pod perfectly illustrates my sharp concern with the issue of gay marriage.
Specifically, he notes:
The real Milk was a sexual liberationist of a very specific 1970s type. “As homosexuals, we can’t depend on the heterosexual model,” Shilts quotes him as saying to one boyfriend in San Francisco by way of explaining why he had another boyfriend in Los Angeles. “We grow up with the heterosexual model, but we don’t have to follow it. We should be developing our own lifestyle. There’s no reason you can’t love more than one person at a time.” Shilts adds: “That ultimately was what his politics were all about, Harvey decided.”…..It is understandable that screenwriter Black and director Gus Van Sant do not want to muddy their iconographic portrait with the inconvenient truth about Milk’s polyamorous views or behavior. They no longer represent the vanguard of the effort to expand gay rights, which is now focused almost solely on the institution of marriage. But it is a distortion, and a significant one.
Hence, my inclination towards opposition to the gay marriage fight. As mini-Pod makes quite clear, the current “vanguard” effort to expand “gay rights” masks unforgivable and intolerable constraints (mini-Pod, of course, feels otherwise due to his contemptible politics) which–smuggled in under the guise of an increase in freedom and equality–become even more intractable in the fight for universal autonomy (all warfare is based on deception, wrote Sun Tzu). Of course, bigotry based on embarrassingly antiquated social norms is not acceptable either. And so, I find myself quite torn on this issue. Though I cannot support the bans on gay marriage, I find the fight to overturn them misguided. And so, like any good fighter, I hope that self-identified “gay rights” advocates will return to their 1970’s gay liberation movement roots and find alternative, less constraining battlegrounds in which to engage resources in their struggle ultimately to have the ability to live their lives according to their own deliberative choices unfettered by intolerable norms.