There’s a darkly amusing exchange in a New York Times Sunday Magazine Q & A with Robert Rauschenberg this weekend:
Q: Aren’t you having another show now at Yale?
RR: Yes. I am not happy with it. It was organized by the gay studies department, whatever that is. It’s not an approach that makes sense.
I refused to give them permission to reproduce the works in a catalog.
Well if it’s “not an approach that makes sense” its obviated by your prior “whatever that is,” Bob.
You know perfectly well what “it” is. Always have. Like so many men of your generation (your ex, Jasper Johns for example) you’ve always scurried away from “it.”
“It” is why you never liked Andy — and he could never understand you. He respected you. He admired you. But he was just too swish for your straight-acting/ straight-appearing little self, and that was the end of the news.
That arty gay Yalies seek to claim you as one of their own may seem presumptuous to you, but it appears far too generous of them to me. These days you’re best remembered as a giant poster of Tom Cruise’s father in Vanilla Sky ( the Gigli of its day)
As for your refusal of permission, it not only marks you and La Cruise as two of a kind, it echoes the sentiments of the Republicans and their Fundie allies on this momentous weekend as San Francisco has become the romantic center of the same-sex loving universe.
Newly-elected Mayor Gavin Newsom has done the one thing that no “serious politician” ever does. He’s taken a leadership role on a moral issue of consequence to every citizen of this country.
And who better to be put in the spotlight than long-time lesbian activists Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon who were risking life and limb for gays and lesbians long before The Creature From the Blog Lagoon was born.
The Creature has, as he ceaselessly reminds us, struck all manner of poses on the subject for several years — regarding it as the key to gay rights. But it’s not a key. It’s just another door — one that the Heterosexual Dictatorship has left unsuspectingly ajar. Sully, needless to say, isn’t about to walk through it like
this charming couple. Nor does he — or the opposition — care to consider the REAL meaning of “traditional marriage” as helpfully outlined by an Eschaton poster:
Gen 29:17-28. II Samuel 3:2-5
2. Marriage shall not impede a man’s right to take concubines in addition to
his wife or wives.
II Samuel 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chronicles 11:21
3. Marriage will be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If she is
not a virgin, she shall be executed.
4. Marriage to a non believer shall be strictly forbidden
Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9, Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30
5. Marriage is for life and no law shall permit any form of divorce.
Deut 22:19; Mark 10-9-12.
6. If a married man dies without children. His brother must marry the widow.
If the brother refuses to marry the widow or deliberately does not give her
children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a
manner to be determined by law.
Gen 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10
7. In lieu of marriage (if there is no acceptable man to be found) a woman
shall get her father drunk and have sex with him in order to have children.
Not strict enought for “Dr.” Laura, I know, but that’s what it says in the Bible!
Meanwhile along the campaign trail, a throughly blinkered Democrat who shall remain nameless — John Kerry — offered the following to NPR:
But, as I have been at pains to point out, marriage does not require a church, or a priest, rabbi, minister or any other representative of Our Big Invisible Daddy in the Sky.
It does however, require a Mayor.
And so despite the pretentions of Sully, the backslidings of Kerry, and the snarlings of Rauschenberg, a whole lot of people are going to be very happy this weekend.