Is Freedom simple or complicated?
The feeling of being free seems to be simplicity itself. As
easy and ordinary as passing time quietly in a park with someone you care for.
But reaching that clear and unhindered moment is a complex ordeal. In reality, there may be nothing
uncomplicated about freedom at all. But truths like that are ignored in our
sound-bite society.
Sheridan Square Park in NYC is named for General Philip
Sheridan. It is also the home of the Gay Liberation Movement Monument.
Some would agree with you if you said Sheridan fought for
freedom. In the Civil War he did to the Shenandoah Valley what Sherman did to
other Southern states when he marched from Atlanta to the sea. He inflicted
relentless destruction, crushing the will of confederate civilians to wage war.
He fought for the end of slavery, but was relentless and without mercy when it
came to vanquishing his enemy. If you were a Virginian slave – or unionist – he
was a liberator. If you were a Virginian secessionist, he was a sadistic
invader.
Those freed from Slavery, those fighting to save the Union,
might insist he was willing to pay a terrible price for their freedom. The
immediate victims of that price, whose farms and homes were destroyed, likely
disagree.
He was General Grant’s favorite general, and when Ulysses
became president, Sheridan led a genocidal war against Native Americans, he
attacked the Cheyenne, Kiowa, and Comanche tribes in their winter quarters,
taking their supplies and livestock and killing those who resisted, driving the
rest back into their reservations. He did the same later to the Sioux, although
in 1876 there was a set back when Custer was ambushed. His troops killed not
just warriors, but women, children and old men. They also gave them blankets
with smallpox, spreading disease among the populations and allowed professional
hunters, trespassing on Indian land, to slaughter bison, knowing that the
buffalo was a way of life for Native Americans. Sheridan said: "Let them
kill, skin and sell until the buffalo is exterminated".
Settlers who had been victims of attacks might say Sheridan
fought for their freedom. People living in those states – and everyone else in
the nation, because all benefitted from agriculture, mining and other industries that
followed in those states, enriching our national economy – might also say that because of Sheridan’s merciless warfare, we live in freedom today. Native Americans have a different perspective. Sheridan
was one of the strategists enacting the American Indian holocaust that was
Manifest Destiny. Sheridan is their Eichmann.
Sharing space with Sheridan in his namesake park is the
monument to Gay Liberation. The stonewall riots began in this neighborhood in
1969. They may not have been the actual first step towards civil rights and
equality for homosexuals, but no previous event was as visible or memorable.
Homosexuality was illegal, and homosexuals existed in an underground
society that was under constant harassment by police. Consensual sex between adults
was treated as a crime, because it was a crime. Laws prohibited sex between members of the same gender. African American Americans and women were successfully
protesting for equal rights. Even Native Americans had AIM – the American
Indian Movement – that was almost as successful. In spite of a few celebrities,
like Tennessee Williams, who had come out before coming out was a term, gays were ostracized, the segment of the population
that dared not speak its name. Police raided and harassed the clientele of bars
in the west village, where gays were able to enjoy some freedom, however
clandestinely. The night Judy Garland died the police decided to raid and the
mourners decided enough was enough and what might have on the surface seemed
like camp, suddenly turned into a resistance movement and a fight for freedom
began.
Many homosexual men and women were active participants in the
anti-war, civil war and women’s liberation movements of the era, but always
remained in the closet. Many political values and goals were shared, but the
organizations behind those movements could be as homophobic as society at large.
To come out was to risk not just being ostracized, but legal repercussions in the
form of fines and prison. Most of the gay New Yorkers leading the stonewall
riots were inspired by other political movements of the era. They had a genuine
grief for Judy Garland – she was probably the most outspoken gay rights
supporter of her generation of celebrities – and finally stood up to the police
harassment, who were cruelly enforcing an unjust law.
Freedom is never simple, is it?
Rights have to be defined, put into law. Laws require
regulations to be written, so disputes can be litigated and even that
litigation and case law further shapes those rights, and ultimately that
freedom.
But the right to love who you want. Desiring who you want to
desire? That seems simple. Starts simply most times at least, love does. Starts
with a you and an I, what could be more basic? You don’t tell your heart how to
feel, it works the other way around.
Freedom requires more than just laws. Rights are enshrined
in law, but laws are not enough. Attitudes have to change, which takes time,
education and individual experiences.
Sheridan’s bloody acts in the Civil War led to enshrinement
in law of civil rights for American blacks through constitutional amendments.
But Jim Crow nullified those amendments for about another 90 years. Supreme
Court decisions, additional amendments to the constitution, national, state and
locals and accompanying regulations, were needed to not just over throw Jim
Crow but to make those rights a reality in every state, including the Shenandoah
Valley. But it wasn’t just the legal reality. Segregation was easy to accept
because if the other is not part of your day to day life, they remain other. In
this sense, civil rights legislation allowed for personal racism to be
overcome. They enabled the possibility for to experience the humanity of the stranger.
There’s certainly
more work to be done, and there will be more work to done in four years when
Obama leaves office, but we are at a point now that was unimaginable when I was
a kid.
Gay Liberation began as a local phenomena. Anti Sodomy laws
still existed in some states into this century. Attitudes had to change, people
risked everything for coming out. AIDS happened.
This statue celebrated its 20th Annivrsary in the summer. In
1992, I had friends and colleagues who were out and some who were not. Gay men
and women seemed welcomed, no big deal, some of my best friends are sort of
thing. But the idea of gay marriage was still seen as such a radical pipe dream to
be ridiculous. It hadn’t happened in Europe even. Ten years earlier (I was
still in College), I could count the people I knew who were out on one hand and
still be able to hitch hike.
In 2012, gay marriage is legal in New York, and the
populations of two other states voted it into law. I wonder if two decades of
commemoration through art by this sculpture had something to do with the
process of accepting one step sufficiently so that next step could be taken.
I love freedom. I support freedom unconditionally – I think
I do, but if you have a bone worth picking then let’s get a beer and talk about
it. My only issue with gay marriage is nomenclature. It is not an argument
against, but thoughtful nitpicking. Wife and Husband are gender specific nouns,
but they are used more commonly than spouse. How will gay marriage affect the usage and legal
meaning of those terms? Only observation allays this concern, I do not have a
stand one way or another on a preferred outcome regarding word choice.
The religious argument against gay marriage is intellectually
dishonest. The premise is that somehow the whole of society will suffer because
an adult is permitted to have sex with an adult who wants to have sex with
them. Their lack of purity hurts us all, the argument essentially goes. The
purity argument, which comes from a dubious interpretation of the
Book of Deuteronomy is an unsubstantiated premise, and not just because I used
the adjective dubious.
Freedom of religion means you can practice yours freely, but
to use the religious argument to deny a freedom is sheer hypocrisy, not to mention
an attitude of ignorance and ingratitude about a freedom essential to the
believer’s quality of life. To put it more plainly, you are not doing unto
others. If you are using the same vehicle by which you are free to eliminate the
freedom of an other, than you are abusing the system and in fact, taking away some
of your freedom by eliminating the freedom of choice for others.
Our constitution allows you to interpret scripture to see homosexuality as a
sin, but sin cannot be made illegal just on the basis of your religious belief.
Murder and theft, for instance, may be sins, but they are also against property
rights – of your self and your possessions – and if they were not illegal, then
society would collapse. There is no property equivalent for consensual sex, in spite of what
until now were centuries of western societies trying to set up legal
prohibitions against sex deemed sinful.
Marriage may be a sacrament, but sacraments by definition
are not legal constructs. They can not be bound— or impeded – by the laws of man
because they are about recognition – perhaps even an interface – with the
invisible or supernatural world, i.e. God. Allowing two people to enter into a
social contract and granting them the rights and privileges of that contract is
common sense. Let’s accept that the evolution of acceptance has been gradual but if two
individuals are not allowed the benefits of that social contract, they are
indeed being persecuted. Gay Marriage
allows a freedom that was denied for some individuals; those who oppose it are
unable to – and in fact do not – claim, much less prove, that their freedoms
are in any way impeded by Gay Marriage. The argument that gay marriage diminishes
the institution of marriage is simply hypocritical and is a similar argument
supporting anti-sodomy laws, that the whole of society is diminished by the
sexual impurity of two consenting adults. In the decades after the 1969 Gay
Liberation Movement, society has survived the revocation of anti-sodomy laws.
The idea that while society can but the institution of marriage cannot is ridiculous.
But more than that, if the institution – for lack of a
better term – of marriage depends on the legal definition of the social
contract, and as such threatened by gay marriage, then you are abandoning the
sacramental notion of marriage. If that institution is the Sacrament, then it
cannot be diminished through law because sacraments are beyond – by definition external
to – “our” laws. Sacraments and institutions are distinct entities. An institution enshrined by and through, law, that it is a
social contract and as such, influenced by legislation and plebiscite, is
contrary to a sacramental institution. They are not one and the same, and once
they are, the sacramental aspect of marriage dissolves, because Freedom of
religion means freedom of belief. Once it is enshrined in law, it is a fact and
no longer a belief. The best you can hope for is peaceful coexistence, which is
why even when you get married in a house of worship, witnessed by friends, family and a congregation of fellow
believers, you also get a marriage license. The social contract of marriage is not equivalent
to the sacramental union, but the religious argument against marriage wants to
make it equivalent and that will only diminish the sacramental union, the very
basis of the argument. That seems to me to be also the definition of hypocrisy.
The only way the Civil War could have been prevented was if
the founding fathers nullified slavery with the constitution. Insufficient
numbers of slaveholders were willing to voluntarily give up their slaves. Thus, the war came.
By 1860, the only resolution
left was the Battle Cry of Freedom. The Indian Wars America fought against Native
Americans in the Plains States should have been avoided. Our government broke
every treaty, and combined genocidal military tactics of direct assaults on
civilian populations – the very tactics that won the Civil War and World War II
– as well as enacting policies for the extermination of the Buffalo, the basis
of a way of life for all the key tribes. Greed and racism motivated the free to
make others less free. Co-existence with American Indian Tribes was possible,
it had been official policy for decades and was supported by many in the 1870s
and 1880s, but of course that side lost.
Gay rights never came to war fare, although Matthew Shepard
and the millions of AIDs victims, particularly those ignored by the government
and our overall healthcare system of no-system in the 80s and (early-to-mid)
90s, might not have been able to tell the difference. In a sense, Gay Marriage
is similar to Civil Rights legislation, a correction, a focus of law that
ensures freedom that may have only been implied in previous amendments to the
constitution as well state, local and case law.
Gay Marriage did not seem as obvious in 1992 when this
statue was finally erected in Sheridan Square Park, even though by then, all other equal rights for gay men and
women had become the norm (at least round these parts). Legislation is an
important first step for rights, but it is just the first steps and changing
attitudes and perceptions, removing that mental BUT – as in, I have nothing
against gays, BUT – requires time, patience, discourse and conversation. A realization
that a lot of that BUT is more about you than me. Denying somebody freedom is
your problem, not theirs but sadly, you may be the one in power.
I like the eeriness of this statue, the refrigerator white
of the sculpture is both other-wordily and natural. In fact ,its nocturnal glow
seems preternatural. At night these statues seem incandescent. George Segal is the sculptor of the Gay Liberation
Movement Monument. Two castings were made of the statue, which are brass and
painted white, in 1979 but did not reach the intended spot until 1992.
Some gays originally protested the statue, deriding for
appearing to depict “cruising couples.” I’m old enough to have seen the Pacino
film, to have read John Rechy, and remember hearing those funny bits on Howard
Stern about Parkway Rest Stops, so that thought crossed my mind.
Casual sex was – and is – part of gay society – just as it
is common in Heterosexual society – but the anonymous environment of a park has
long been replaced by the more anonymous and open space of the Internet. People
use to hook up in a park, NO WAY! So, times have made that perception obsolete
and the sculpture more closely resembles the artist’s original intention,
depicting a natural moment between couples in a park, showing them to be as
human as anyone else, regardless of sexuality. Context can be everything.
And now, most parks are like Sheridan Square, where couples
of any gender can pass time un-harassed. And, if harassed, there are laws to
protect them.
The need to be who you are is a universal aspiration. Every
human being wants that. Everybody wants that freedom. It is an ideal that
represents the best of America; an ideal Sheridan’s Commander-and-Chief rightly
said was the last best hope for mankind.
The freedom to be in
a park un-harassed deserves the permanence of public art. We live life by
moments, as such freedom seems simple but the facts tell another more
complicated story that politics all too often trivializes.
In my Toy Story hallucination, I imagine conversations between the Gay Liberation Movement and General Phillip
Sheridan statues. Are they about the simplicity of an ideal or the complexity of reaching it? Who takes what side, and when?