Al's Opinions

The title of this essay is probably not the best one I could have chosen. To explain my opinion about the subject, I have to write about how my opinion has changed. I start with the first glimpse I had of a homosexual person (or “queer”), which occurred when I was about nineteen years old and a student at Michigan State College. For the benefit of you youngsters, the name of that institution was changed some years after I graduated in 1944 to Michigan State University. At the time I was there, old timers remembered that the name had been changed not long before from Michigan Agricultural College. In fact, the tall smoke stack at the power building, where piles of coal were burned in the generation of electricity to light the campus, had the initials “MSC” on the north side and “MAC” on the south side. The south side faced the south campus, where the agricultural field plots were.

One day my friend J and I went on an adventure to a road house outside of East Lansing, where the law against underage drinking was not vigorously enforced. I have several vague recollections of that road house. To begin, we gained admittance by passing ourselves off as workers. We were given the task of collecting used drinking glasses and other dirty table utensils. I can recall the procedure of “cleaning” the drinking glasses. They were dipped in a sink of soapy water and pressed against a rotating brush, then rinsed and returned to the supply of “clean” glasses. The soapy water may have contained a strong germicide or it may be that the patrons were all healthy. I never heard of any outbreak of some dreadful, contagious disease associated with the road house.

During a lull in our clean-up duties, J pointed out to me a homosexual man. I don’t think the term “gay” was in use yet at the time, and I can’t remember how J referred to him. Was it “Queer?” “Faggot?” “Fairy?” I don’t know, but probably the term was “fairy,” as that was a commonly used term in those days for homosexual men. I remember my own feeling at the sight of the person. He was dressed rather differently from others, so he stood out in the crowd, but I can’t remember any more details of his clothing. My reaction was like that I had in Alaska, may years later, at the sight of a grizzly bear in the distance. It wasn’t scorn or hatred or disgust. It was fear and caution. I kept a careful distance between myself and that man.

Later that day my friend and I returned to the campus and to the dormitory where we stayed. We made a spectacular entrance into the dining hall dressed, as well as we could, in the current “zoot suit” style, with baggy pants and long key chains and neckties tied in the fashion of bow ties.

A few years later, I was working for a government research laboratory and was on a field trip to a plant in Boston that manufactured underwater sound transducers for the Navy. One of the technicians in the plant told about a homosexual man who had been at the plant not long before. He said that this man told him that he liked men better than women. There was no tone of scorn or hatred in the technician’s manner of speech. He was simply recounting something that he thought was rather unusual and interesting.

Several years later I was living in California. I became involved in politics and was attending a convention of the California Democratic Council. I don’t remember where; it may have been Long Beach. I was introduced to two delegates to the convention from San Francisco. They were gay men. They greeted me effusively and politely. One of them kissed my hand. Their manner was, to my way of thinking, effeminate. That is, they acted in the way one supposes women would act rather than men. Clearly, they were no menace and had no resemblance to grizzly bears or other large predators. Since that time I have met other gay men who do not act in that manner. It has occurred to me that the two guys from San Francisco were putting on an act and teasing me a little.

Finally, I can mention several gay men whom I have met and become fairly well acquainted with in recent years. One was B, whom I met in Co-counseling. B and I co-counseled a few times. In one private session with me, he told me he was gay. I had a very good opinion of him and from what I could see, I would have trusted him to care for young children. Later, again in a political context, I met E, K, A, G, and M. These are all homosexual men. Their demeanors do not mark them as unusual or “queer.” I would not know that they were homosexual unless they had told me. E, A, and M openly told me of their sexual preferences. I learned of K’s preference from a friend who knew him better than I. G and E have exposed their preferences in writing and make no secret of their sexual orientation.

My present opinion is that none of these individuals are grizzly bears. One of them is politically ambitious and can be a bit obnoxious at times. He has a rather aggressive personality. I am on good terms with all of them and have no hesitation in addressing them by first names. I do not see how they could be considered any sort of menace to me, to any other individual, or to society. They have live-in partners. They have long-term commitments, just as I have a long-term commitment to my beloved wife. If they wish to consider themselves married, if they wish to have solemn ceremonies to celebrate their commitments, if they wish to have benefits like those that society bestows on “legally married” couples, I have no objection. In fact, I applaud their commitments to their partners. No one will ever be able to convince me that allowing gay men and women to marry their partners is in any way a threat to me or to my own marriage.