Weather | Sports | Forums | Comics | Classifieds | Calendar | Movies
David K. Johnson assumes people already know that he's gay.
"Just about anybody in the field of gay and lesbian history that's writing on the topic is gay or lesbian," he says.
But Johnson, a visiting assistant professor of history at the University of South Florida, doesn't think his sexuality has been a roadblock in his career, even in an academic field as traditionally conservative as history.
Johnson, 43, received acclaim for his 2003 book on homosexuality during the 1950s, The Lavender Scare: The Cold War Persecution of Gays and Lesbians in the Federal Government. At USF, he has taught on gender and sexuality issues in American history - a topic he says not every school cares to broach. On Oct. 21, he'll speak on the subject as part of the university's Women's Studies Colloquia Series.
"The fact that gay marriage is a hot-button issue in this presidential election underscores the need to historicize issues of sexuality," he says.
Johnson recently spoke with Times staff writer Jay Cridlin about homosexuality and politics past, present and future.
Here are excerpts.
It's an old line, but I suppose it bears repeating. Would it be more damaging for a male politician to be caught with an underage girl or a middle-aged man?
It depends on what part of the country it is. I think it matters less and less the sex of the other person. In the (New Jersey Gov. Jim) McGreevey case, it certainly wasn't about whether it was a gay or a straight affair. More than anything, it's about the oppressiveness of being in the closet more than it is about being gay.
What was your reaction when you saw Gov. McGreevey's press conference?
I thought it was very unfortunate. It sends the wrong message. He comes out as gay and then immediately resigns. The superficial message that sends is: There's something wrong with being gay. I don't think it really is about being gay. It's about being in the closet.
Could somebody in his position have come out of the closet 50 years ago?
Absolutely not. Even a low-level government bureaucrat would not have come out during the '50s and '60s, during the Cold War. In fact, they might have been outed by the government itself. The federal government had an explicit program to ferret out and fire gay and lesbian employees under the belief that they were a threat to national security.
It's difficult to imagine that assertion in today's climate, where "national security" is a phrase we use on a daily basis.
No, gay people are not considered a threat to national security like they were in the 1950s. But the context in which opponents of same-sex marriage make their arguments is very similar. In the 1950s, people said communists or homosexuals were a threat to national security, they were threatening our Western way of life, they were helping the other side in this apocalyptic battle between good and evil that was the Cold War.
When President Bush first announced that he was in favor of a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, he prefaced it by saying, "A strong America needs strong families." Which puts it in the framework of strength and national security and the future of the country and Western civilization.
Is this an issue that should be politicized?
Well, marriage is about a legal right. It's inherently political. It's unfortunate that it has become, even for lots of gay people, sort of a litmus test of whether or not someone is pro-gay or antigay. There are other issues out there - job discrimination, hate crimes legislation - that have been been forgotten in the push toward gay marriage. There are lots of gay people who don't necessarily think that's the prime issue for the movement, but it has become it.
What's your take on Dick Cheney, whose daughter is a lesbian? What's your take on the position he's in?
He's distanced himself from the president's position, which is very interesting. It underscores the thing that gay rights groups have said for years: The biggest variable in whether or not one is in favor of gay rights is whether or not one personally knows someone who's gay or lesbian.
Is there a chance homosexuals could become an effective, election-turning voting bloc?
I think they have been already. According to exit polls from 1992, gays and lesbians overwhelmingly supported Clinton and helped get him elected. In the last election, many gays and lesbians, I think about a million, voted for Bush, because - well, I don't know why. But partly because he ran on a "compassionate conservatism" platform.
Do those voters feel betrayed by Clinton or Bush, given the moves that they made during their presidencies?
It seems clear that many of them feel betrayed by Bush and his support of a constitutional amendment to forever ban gay marriage. It may have the effect of not only galvanizing right-wing supporters of Bush but also galvanizing gays and lesbians to oppose him.
What about Clinton?
Yeah, I think a lot of gays and lesbians do feel betrayed by Clinton. But their expectations were in many ways unrealistic. To assume that he could just go in there and through the power of the presidency change everything in American politics - it just doesn't work that way. Certainly, he still remains the most gay-friendly president we have ever had.
How do you think historians will remember the gay marriage debate of the early 21st century?
I'd like to think it will be remembered in the same way that opposition to interracial marriage is now remembered. Many of the same arguments were made in the '50s and '60s by people who were opposed to getting rid of bans against interracial marriage - arguments that now seem incredibly bigoted and really ridiculous.
Give me the year in which an openly gay man or woman will be elected president.
(Laughs) Not in my lifetime. How's that?