It would have been unthinkable as recently as 2012 for a gay man married to another man to be a legitimate, top-tier presidential candidate for either of the two major parties in the United States.
Almost as astonishing as Pete Buttigieg’s accomplishment is the fact that a significant segment of the liberal commentariat is working hard to reject his success as a gay man in politics, arguing that he is not gay enough. Indeed, for some of the nastier and crueler corners of the left-wing intelligentsia, Buttigieg is a “Mary Pete,” the gay equivalent of an Uncle Tom.
“What makes Buttigieg an easy and reassuring choice for … older, white, straight people, and a disturbing possibility for the queer people who seem to be criticizing him for not being gay enough?” the New Yorker’s Masha Gessen asks in an article titled, “The queer opposition to Pete Buttigieg, explained.”
Gessen adds, “It is that he is profoundly, essentially conservative. He is an old politician in a young man’s body, a straight politician in a gay man’s body.”
At the heart of Gessen’s article is the idea that Buttigieg is a lesser class of gay because he was not bullied enough and because he supports a style of gay and transgender politics that “aims to erase difference.”
I mean, the former South Bend, Indiana, mayor is married to a man. What more do you want from him?
Gessen helpfully explains: “The notion that some of us think Buttigieg is not gay enough has an identifiable relationship to the facts.” Uh, okay. Great writing.
Gessen does finally get around to explaining that there are two types of gays: those who “have the experience of never fitting in” and those who “blend in” — who you wouldn’t know are gay unless they told you. Buttigieg is one of the latter, and somehow, this is disqualifying.
But then, what if the second category spends so much effort “blending in” precisely because those people don’t feel like they “fit in” anywhere?
“He didn’t just wait until he was established in his political career [to come out as gay],” the article continues. “He also waited until after attitudes toward homosexuality had changed and same-sex marriage had become legal in more than half the states and was recognized by the federal government — all thanks to the courage and work of people who came out before Buttigieg did.”
Gessen adds, “Many a reader might have wondered, as I did when my friend mentioned her relationship with her students, what it must be like to have the option of not being exposed.”
All I am getting from Gessen’s commentary is that the writer and activist resents that Buttigieg, by Gessen’s estimation, does not appear to have suffered very much for being gay.
Gessen’s article reads every bit as bitter and resentful as that since-retracted New Republic article titled “My Mayor Pete problem,” which argued similarly that Buttigieg is a bad gay person because he is too restrained and because he had a different experience growing up gay.
Yeah, shame on him.
