Japhy, while I generally agree with you views I do think that you underestimate some of the sentiments that are often invisible in some of these places until probed.

Visits to my cousins currently living in Lancaster County, PA often remind me of this because they do reflect some of these tendecies on many levels. In "relaxed" casual conversations with locals things do often come out that are actually indicative of the fact that a lot of these people, while outwardly nice and often devoutly religious, really don't think very much about others, or have inflated notions of "conspiracies" they've learned about on talk radio.

For example, I've been told more than once that the ACLU is out to outlaw religion in America. I've heard full support for bombing civilians in countires that might have terrorists hiding in them because "better there than here". And of course there's the old standard: "Gay marriage will lead to the end of the traditional family". Most of the positions are generally delivered in a much friendlier tone of voice than Rush Limabugh uses, but they remain the same nonetheless.

The gun issue is also a fun one. Here in PA there is a stark divide between the rural population and the Philly metro area. Philly has a horrific amount of gun violence right now and the city and Governor Rendell are trying desperately to find ways to clamp down on it. But any attempt at gun restrictions in PA inevitably gets shot down (pun intended) in the state legislature. Even a recent, seemingly reasonable, bill aimed at requiring people to report the loss or theft of guns to police was shot down. It in no way limited anyone's ownership of guns. But it was still opposed as "eroding" rights of gun owners. I've been told that guns are protection against tyrannical government. Weird, almost every Iraqi over 14 had one and they still had a tyrannical government. Go figure.

And the same really holds true of us. Beliefs play a big part in the way small town America thinks, and I think that you do underestimate the role of religion in our struggle fro equality. While I agree that most people don't spend a lot of time thinking about gays the issue inevitably comes up whenever any kind of gay rights law is under discussion. Then small town America is often mobilized against us by religious leaders or personal values that tell them that what we do is "sinful" and that we must be discouraged in order to save our souls. State consitutional bans on same-sex marriages (and in some cases domestic partnerships) for example were not passed by passive people who ignored us, but by people who actively pulled the lever to vote against equal rights for us.

Now, all of that said, Obama's remark was stupid. But only in that he said it. I don't necessarily disagree, because I do see a lot of people clinging to guns and religion to provide them with an illusion of security in uncertain times. He shouldn't have said it, but there it is. This isn't to say they're unfriendly demons. I know lots of smiling Middle America folks who are very polite to me but whom I also know cast their votes against equal rights for me. The same goes for coastal urbanites.

Thanks. As always I love your vlog!

Hey Japhy,

Have you read The Stranger Next Door: The Story of a Small Communitys Battle Over Sex, Faith, and Civil Rights? It's a great book that came out a few years ago by this lesbian sociologist Arlene Stein who went to a small town in Oregan to interview evangelicals and others who were involved in the fight to prevent giving "special rights" to gay people. It's fascinating to see the other side of these activists and their place in the wider community. The author was generally welcomed by them and treated with respect. It's easy to demonize small town values, and even anti-gay activists as motivated primarily by fear and hate. But the story is often more complicated than that. Christianity isn't usually the primary motivatation. Most small town Christians are just trying to live their lives they best way they can and don't care about national politics. And neither is it just economic problems that motivate them, unlike what Obama said. I think the LGBT community needs to do more to reach out to rural communities and to appreciate that much of the hatred we think exists there is really just a fiction that's been told by mainstream media (and often our gay media, as well) that fits a false, ratings-driven political narrative of red-vs-blue, urban-vs-rural, conservative-vs-liberal. The reality on the ground, as they say, is not so simple.

I really look forward to watching your vlog. We need more sociological and historical sophistication in our political dialogue and you bring that here.

Cheers.

PS: Would you post a link to your documentary?

I do not think Obama's comments were "dumb"... poorly worded, maybe... but not "dumb".  I see what he's getting at, though.  I grew up in small town America (in North Carolina)... at the last census, there were about 50,000 in my home county.  This is a community where, like most other small towns I've lived in, unemployment is high, everything costs way too much, and crime rates are generally up.  Most people you talk to there will tell you that they may have come to their religious beliefs by way of trying to turn their lives around, but now they will tell you they cling to it as a means of having some kind of hope that life will get better.  These are people that see the effects of an economic downturn early on, and are usually the last to see any economic improvements.  These are people that assume everyone, at least in their town, is a heterosexual Christian and anyone who's different is a "threat" to the very fabric of their community... or at the very least, an oddity that shouldn't be readily trusted.  Now, I'm not saying this is true in all small towns, but in the ones I've personally lived in, it is.  You do find exceptions... people who don't hate gays and who aren't racially prejudiced... but they are exceptions.

I won't even get into the "clinging to their guns" thing except to say this... if you make these people think you're going to take away their guns, it's tantamount to declaring war on them.  One of the first reasons they'll give you for not giving up their guns will be something along the lines of needing it "in case the government turns against them" and they have to fight.  Sounds bitter to me.  They will not give up their guns, because they are a security blanket... and for many of the men (at least in my hometown), their guns are directly connected to their masculinity.  I was given a gun as a birthday present by my dad... on my 8th birthday... and that should say something about the mentality of the average person in that town, a mentality that hasn't changed much since then.

You have to look at the big picture to see why they are bitter.  These folks see the government as the ultimate power to make things better or worse.  If there's an economic upturn, they praise whomever is in office at the time as a "good politician", and if there's an economic downturn, they verbally crucify the "evil politicians".  Many of them feel their voices aren't being heard by politicians, others believe that candidates will say whatever you want to hear just to get your vote... and then forget you once elected.  This has been their experience, and yes, they are bitter... or maybe "jaded" would be a better term.  I don't see this only in small town America, either... I see it where I live now, in one of the near suburbs of Chicago.  So no, Obama's comments weren't "dumb" and he's not "out of touch"... but he could have chosen different wording and perhaps his meaning would have been better understood.

 I also think it's a bit delusional to say that small town America isn't anti-gay.  Yes, there are exceptions where it doesn't matter, it isn't thought about... but the majority of small towns I've lived in are quite homophobic.  It's not readily apparent if you're an outsider, but if you live there, it's in your face every day.  In many of these towns, you have to remain somewhat closeted in order to keep a job or to not be denied housing.  You constantly have to be aware of who and what is around you at all times, because gay bashing is still considered a "sport".  You don't dare express any kind of affection in public for your partner, nor do you act like he's your partner, unless you want to be harrassed at home... or even have your property vandalized.  No, not every gay man or lesbian has these experiences in every small town, but in my experience, it's always there as a real result of being "too visible"... and in my hometown, most of the gay community remains so far in the closet they've become fixtures, out of the fear of this sort of retaliation and worse.  In my case, I refused to censor myself or remain closeted, and over the years, I experienced the hatred, hostility and violence of small town America first hand, until I could afford to move elsewhere.  So, yes, I agree that to assume all small towns and their residents are anti-gay is to be bigoted, but to paint the picture that we're always welcome there and gay isn't an issue is rather delusional.

 

I think that when we discuss 'small town' america and gay politics we are on the wrong side behind the 8 ball. As bigoted as many people in small towns are, they still understand community, and the diversity of community. Perhaps that's just in the upper midwest with the northern European attitude of live and let live. But these are the communities that gay men went back to die in the 1980's and who ofen recieved them and learned a lesson of tolerance.

But I feel our real detractors and the fight we are loosing is with the x-burbs. And not all x-burbs but certain ones that become huge communities of like minded individuals. The 5,000 seat churches that are part of a national organization of hate. Like minded people flock to these communities and they create a wall of hate around themselves. That's where a real evil festers.

.

The very rural and small Nebraska town I grew up is only 30 miles from where Brendan Teena was murdered. When talking to my mother about the murder she told me “it was sad (I’ve always wondered if she said “sad” to placate me), but he shouldn’t have been here and doing what he was doing.” Unfortunately I believe her comment sums up the feelings that most of the people in that area felt. If you come into our playground and you don’t play our games, don’t be surprised - or even blame us - if someone kills you.

Growing up I shared many of the same experiences as NativeDude, the homophobic remarks and the constant threats of violence. I grew up being told that I was different in a way that made me a lower kind of human and that I didn’t deserve to be honored, valued or respected. I felt like a “sick chick” waiting to be pecked to death by the other chicks. I had to constantly censor what I said and make sure my gestures weren’t effeminate lest I would give others an opportunity to ridicule and humiliate me. And the situation was made worse by parents who made it known that they thought I was mentally ill, and certainly would have preferred if I lived a loveless, unfulfilled life in the closet.

When I moved to San Francisco and got into recovery for my drug and alcohol abuse, and then went on to work with other gay men on their substance abuse issues, I realized my story was not unique at all. And - just like me - there were many, many gay men from rural communities who suffered the same lack of self-respect and the tools needed to live happy and fulfilling lives.

.

Japhy,

Like Psionycx, I generally agree w/ your views.  However, I was a bit surprised you jumped on the media train that is giving a lot of traction to Obama's "bitter" comment. 

I agree that what Obama said was politically dumb, but I also think there's a good deal of truth in his comments.  Although there are people in small towns who are open-minded & people in metro areas that are closed-minded (re: the latter, see exburbs especially, as several posters have pointed out), I think it's very naive to believe that, generally speaking, small towns are hospitable places for gays or any other minority group to live in.  (BTW, Obama did NOT say that all people in small towns were "bitter.")  If you look at your average American small town, I seriously doubt you'll find much in the way of diversity.  And since people tend to fear/loathe/hate those who are different than them, I think there's a lot of truth in Obama's comments that small towners tend to dislike those different from themselves (which I took to mean, amongst other things, gay people).  If you are gay, or a person of color, or a Muslim, etc., would you be welcomed by the majority of the populace of a small town?  I seriously doubt it.

To me, the worst aspect of Obama's comments is how his opponents have twisted them into meaning that he is an "elitist."  I find it extremely ridiculous that Hillary & McCain can point fingers at Obama & call him an elitist when you consider their backgrounds versus his.  And Hillary was especially loathesome in her attack - how she made it a point that Obama was speaking to a group IN SAN FRANCISCO.  Everyone knows that it's a veiled reference to the gay community when politicians emphasize San Fran.  For those who don't think that Hillary will throw our community under the bus, that was a preview.

 

Some of you are forgetting that this was a two sentence response to a specific question and not an entire speech that Obama researched, wrote and delivered to cover ALL of the factors, possibilities and nuances that might influence a jobless, economically struggling, angry and frustrated voter in rural America to vote for politicians that ship their jobs over seas, spend billions a month on a never ending war that we shouldn’t have gotten into, give huge tax breaks to the richest people in America and billions in tax breaks to companies that are making hundreds of millions in profits, and running up a debt that our grandchildren will never be able to pay off, JUST because they agree with them on issues of god, guns, gays and immigrants.

 

Obama’s only fault was that, off the cuff, he used politically insensitive words like “bitter” and “cling to”.  The message was accurate even if the delivery was problematic.  Obama himself has acknowledged that.

 

Anyone who watched the ABC debate fiasco the other night saw a real, live, breathing manifestation of what Obama was talking about embodied in Mrs. Nash McCabe.  She was the woman that ABC got to ask Obama about the all important flag pin issue.  As it turns out, Mrs. McCabe wasn’t just a person that ABC found on the street.  In fact she had already had her 15 minutes of fame when she appeared in a New York Times article on April 4.  In the Times interview McCabe is identified as “an UNEMPLOYED clerk typist in a SMALL CITY in Western Pennsylvania” (the very demographic that Obama spoke of).  So what was her PRIMARY issue when considering who to vote for for President?  Jobs?; the war?; the debt?; Social Security?; Healthcare?  Nope, nope, nope, nope, nope!  Her big concern was, in HER words, “How can I vote for a president who won't wear a flag pin?”

 

THAT is exactly the unbelievable phenomenon that Obama was referring to. 

 

Of course the issue is more complex than just that but again I remind everyone that this was a two sentence response to a question and not a speech on the subject.

 

What I took most umbrage to in Japhy's opinion piece this week is the idea that small-town America is somehow ignorant of gay people, as if that ignorance were somehow moral, innocuous, possible (in this day and age), or an accurate depiction of really what's happening.

When fully 80% of the voters in Tennessee decide to pull a lever (i.e., vote) to write gays and lesbians out of the constitution, that's not ignorance, and it's certainly not innocuous. That's a real, tangible act of hatred, with dire consequences for our community. And even if that vote were simply because they don't know any gays and lesbians in their own personal lives (for I admit that statistics do show that that is the primary indicator of one's position on gay rights issues), that does not make it justified. Defining a class of people as abject, and writing them out of the law, is always an unconscionable act. As Martin Luther King Jr., said:

Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. You have a moral responsibility to be intelligent.

I'd also like to add that, for what it's worth, I don't think small-town America is ignorant or completely innocuous in the creation of rich "christian fascists." After all, it was small town America that sent in their dollars to keep Tammy Faye Bakker in makeup and fake eyelashes. There is an immense amount of media -- Fox News, religious stations -- targeted particularly at these audiences, media which are both influential and detrimental to the rights of our communities. So while these opinions may be made in an environment lacking both perspectives on this issue, they are not made in a vacuum of information.

As for our "projection" onto small-town America, I would say two things. First, we wouldn't project onto small-town America if they didn't have such a disproportionate voice in Senatorial and (as a consequence) Presidential politics. (You talked about the courts as being anti-democratic -- about which, more later -- but this, really, is the anti-democratic vein in America!). But moreover, I don't think we do over-fetishize small town America. After all, suburbs (where the majority of America now lives) are both adored as the ideal of American life (house, yard, wife, kids) and reviled as hegemonic, racist, and suffocating, just as the city is adored as the center of life, culture, and commerce (and, in the skyscraper, recognized as the highest form of human achievement), while simultaenously reviled as a dirty den of vice and crime. We play these overly simplistic games in all of the many settings of America. It may be only because a majority of media are produced in large cities (at least, the media I consume) that such a fetishization may be perceived.

----

As for your kind comments towards my post last week, my thanks. A few things in reply:

--I think you're right that normally, a state-by-state strategy is a far better solution than running to the Supreme Court (as it was, ultimately, for somody laws). There is no reason to rush into federal courts on the issue of marriage. And a state-by-state strategy is, in fact, what you're seeing happen (Iowa!). But at some point, we will run into the simple truth of the sheer violence that occurs when gays and lesbians are written out of concept of constitutional equality: that these constitutional amendments so disenfranchise us as a population that neither litigation nor legislation is even a viable option. Simply put, we cannot litigate marriage in a state in which a constitutional amendment has been passed. As the Court recognized in Romer, we are now a "stranger" to the laws of 27 states -- and the political process and the judicial processes are no longer open to us on these issues. So while I agree that the Supreme Court may not be the best place, let's not forget that we have no other recourse when it comes to these 27 states (well, 26, because Hawaii's amendment is unique, but...). And that's why the Supreme Court is so important.

--Your comments about Roe and the role of the court are well taken. As an initial matter, I caution against joining the anti-Right to Privacy chorus. After all, it is the same logic that Lawrence relies upon. It's bad enough that we're still litigating over the right to bear sex toys. Do we really want to go back to the days when access contraception can be outlawed -- particularly in the AIDS era? Lives -- and the dignity of our community -- are at stake in this debate.

But more importantly, I think your argument about how "anti-democratic" the courts are -- and how as a result we should appeal to political processes for change -- is a complete capitulation to the post-Roe strategy and revisionist history of conservatives who were upset with the direction the Court took this country in the 60s and 70s, and set about on a long strategy of deligitimizing the courts, via attacks on them as anti-democratic, and with the appointment of truly extremist judges. The courts are a necessary and -- yes -- constitutively anti-democratic force in this government, and that's precisely why they're such a valuable part of the American system of government. The answer is not a flight from using the courts, or a capitulation to conservative revisionism; the answer is a counter-campaign emphasizing how a robust judiciary is as American an instution as the Presidency.

--Finally, I am still perplexed as to why you won't include Lawrence as a landmark moment in Supreme Court history. No, Lawrence didn't grant us full equality under law, but it was the Supreme Court reversing itself within 17 years, and it did affirm the right of gays and lesbians to not have our "existence" be "demean[ed]" by the law. It's a huge step forward, and let's not forget it.

P.S. The bigger cross (near Effingham, Illinois) is indeed bigger, but it's less impressive, because you can't see it from as far away -- more trees and hills.