There is also, moreover, no positive social policy actually crafted for gay people in George’s view. What does he believe we should do with our lives? Should we try to construct stable relationships – or not? In an era in which an entire generation was decimated by HIV, is it not conservative to seek greater stability and responsibility among gay citizens, by providing actual legal and social incentives for stabler lives? Alas, having studied George’s work for years, I can tell you his social policy toward me and my kind. It is that gay people should be celibate, and if not celibate, invisible. But this much we know: gays in free countries are neither going to be celibate nor invisible for the foreseeable future. So what is George’s prescription except quixotic when it isn’t demotic?
Beneath the elegant philosophical language is a blunter message to George’s gay fellow human beings: be straight or go away. And since when is that a practical option in the 21st century?
I make this point about the need to have a constructive, inclusive ethics and politics for this large minority in my big fat defense of gays wedding and in my three part series of posts on gays and Christianity. Gays exist and have finally come to openly embrace their loves and demand their rights. Closets were never a just solution to homosexuality and now they’re an impossible one. Conservatives unwilling to accommodate the realities of homosexual love and help make room for them in mainstream institutions have their heads firmly in the sand.