Reading about Cynthia Nixon’s assertion that she chose to be gay feels familiar to me. I have often said this about myself. That I chose to be a lesbian.
Over the last 5 years, I have altered my view a bit. Because I know myself so much better than I did right after I came out.
I no longer believe that I could ever be in a relationship with a man – no matter how fulfilling – and not miss being with a woman. I do now know for a fact that I can go, oh, years with women and never miss being with men. In my estimation, this makes me a lesbian. Yes, a real one. (Because, you see, the fact that I enjoyed sex with men in the past has earned me the designation of not-real from real lesbians.)
(I had a fantastic conversation about it with my very smart friends on LiveJournal back in 2007 here: Is This A Controversy? I do miss the in-depth-ness of discussion on LJ…)
The argument The Deserving Gay make against saying such things in public is that it will hamper the movement to make gayness constitutionally protected. This is the same argument that is made when TDG want to minimize the visibility of the bisexual, queer and transgender letters in LGBTQ because we might scare off the straight people who don’t currently hate us, or are on the fence about hating us.
It’s unseemly. Stay in the background, please, and when we get our rights we promise to come back and give you yours.
The Deserving Gay are the publicly acceptable(ish) face of the queer rights movement. They tend to win hearts and minds with the ‘just like you but gay’ argument and focus on a very nuclear family version of queerness. Unthreatening, reflecting the values of most Americans. You know, polo-shirted handsome men posing outside their restored Craftsman bungalow with their adopted foreign-born child and golden retriever. Lesbians with their blended families and blissful looking stepchildren posing on a hike in the mountains with REI gear and an organic picnic lunch.
Anyway, it feels like there is a shushing that erupts whenever someone queer and public discusses the possibility that their sexuality is a product of thoughtful contemplation. It’s fine to think these things, but we mustn’t say them out loud.
I have always had a problem with this dirty little secret and the keeping of it. The implication is that queerness is only acceptable if it is some mutation that cannot be avoided. Like a birth defect. It’s not our fault. We were born this way.
And besides the obvious – there is nothing wrong with being queer and this feels like begging for tolerance – I also think that we may be setting ourselves up for failure on three fronts.
Firstly, if gayness is proven NOT to be entirely genetic – if, for instance, as Simon LeVay has worried – science discovers that the genetic or inherent component must also be accompanied by a component of choice, and the only legal foundation for the rights of the gay are based on the ‘immutable characteristics’ test, we can lose the protections we have won because it is still possible to choose straightness. And as Nature seems to abhor the either/or dichotomy, my money is on a more complicated nature+nurture+desire+choice combination.
Secondly, winning legal protection for gay men and women based on immutable characteristics does nothing to win protection for the B and the T and the Q. Or the gay-by-choice. Like me. And apparently, Cynthia Nixon.
Thirdly, if it is found that the genetic component can be manipulated, or that ‘protecting’ the fetus from hormonal exposure at key times during gestation will prevent gayness, and our only acceptance is based on the inevitability of our sexual desires, then we are looking at the distinct possibility that much of the culture will try to manipulate reproduction to eliminate queerness altogether through medical means.
The only way to ensure protection for the queer – even the Undeserving Queer – is to change the prevailing attitude of most people, and not to It’s okay to be gay if you are born that way. We need to aim a little higher.
redzorah 
I don’t think immutability is a dispositive factor to determine whether there is a protected classification. I mean religion is a protected classification and everyone agrees that anyone can choose their own religion. I think looking at sexual orientation as a part of an indiviudals of identiy will be the key to gaining protection. Further, making sexual orientation a suspect classification will also have an impact on hetrosexuals because then, they can’t be discriminated against either.
When looking specifically at the marriage context, there are several established principles that already point toward expanding protection. Marriage is an established fundamental right, states can’t create arbitrary rules intended to discriminate against individuals (racial miscegination rules), etc. I think the problem that may arise out of all the marriage litigation is that a narrowly defined “protection” will be created only in the marriage sense. This doesn’t do much for broader protections, but would be narrowly crafted and confusing to read (much like the decision in Lawrence).
I think that sexuality is very fluid, and that makes some people uncomfortable. To recognize this fluidity in others means recognizing it in yourself. Just like how the most homophobic bully in high school ends up coming out as gay years later. I think people have feelings they aren’t entirely comfortable with. If someone is gay, that means they can have no straight feelings, etc. It’s not that black and white.
We are supposed to be a country that celebrates freedom, as long as you are not hurting others or breaking the law.
It shouldn’t matter whether you choose to be gay, you were born that way, or you flip-flop back and forth all your life. Sexuality is so extraordinarily fluid and people tend to forget that.
I’ll just end with this little quote from a BBC science fiction show that I used to like. “You people [21st century humans] and your quaint little categories.” – Captain Jack Harkness.