By Hillel Aron
By Joseph Tsidulko
By Patrick Range McDonald
By David Futch
By Hillel Aron
By Dennis Romero
By Jill Stewart
By Dennis Romero
If you don’t count Buchanan.
Odd to think of a culture demanding divorce when only a generation ago Nelson Rockefeller’s remarriage was seriously regarded as the key reason for depriving him a shot at the presidency. For Catholics the prohibition was so great that the church’s Legion of Decency deemed High Society, the musical remake of The Philadelphia Story, to be “morally objectionable” because it “deals with divorce.” Ironically, this was the penultimate starring role for Grace Kelly, who, despite an offscreen reputation suggestive of a ’70s-era gay man, pulled off a fairy-tale wedding to Prince Rainer of Monaco that would be the most celebrated spectacle of its kind until Charles and Di — a coupling that would end in the squalor typical of middle-class divorces.
But while that royal marriage was in force, it served its purpose. Like all marriages, it provided a stage for the play/pretend of “fidelity” with no outside party having any right to question it or any other marital alliance, be they Frank Sinatra and Mia Farrow, Paul and Jane Bowles, Ernest Borgnine and Ethel Merman, or Barry Diller and Diane von Furstenberg. The serial pseudo-monogamy of Elizabeth Taylor, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani and Billy Bob Thornton has its charms. But in times like these one can’t but be impressed by the restraint of Warren Beatty.
Still, it’s a brave new world out there, what with Woody Allen marrying his daughter and David Letterman announcing on television that he’s about to father a child by a woman he hasn’t married. Small beer compared to Jodie Foster’s fatherless offspring and Michael Jackson’s white children. But we’ve come a long way from the time when Ingrid Bergman’s “infidelity” was denounced on the Senate floor.
Where do we go from here? An exchange on Salon between interviewer David Bowman and author Laura Kipness gives the game away.
Bowman: “Many gay-marriage couplings are not monogamous, and the couple maintains the emotional security to deal with peripheral sex.”
Kipness: “I think it’s hard to generalize.”
Oh, come on, Laura — go ahead and generalize! Even homophobe supreme Paul Cameron says, “Marital sex tends toward the boring end. Generally it doesn’t deliver the kind of sheer sexual pleasure that homosexual sex does.” Indeed, what sparks Queer Eye for the Straight Guy is the sneaking suspicion that, when it comes not just to food, clothes and interior decor but romance, gays do it better.
Michel Foucault said it best: “I think what most bothers most of those who are not gay about gayness is the gay ‘lifestyle,’ not the sex acts themselves . . . the common fear that gays will develop relationships that are intense and satisfying even though they do not conform to the ideas of relationships held by others. It is the prospect that gays will create as yet unforeseen kinds of relationships that many people cannot tolerate.”
“Gay marriage”? Darling, we’re just getting started!