Changes and Resistances:
Gay Couple John Banta and
Daniel O’Donnell
Ruiqi Ye
Ruiqi Ye
On January 29, Daniel J. O’Donnell, an openly gay Manhattan
Assemblyman, held his 400-plus-guest wedding with John Banta at Guastavino’s in
Manhattan. Their
wedding represents the progress of same-sex marriage in the continuing gay
emancipation in the United
States. Elissa Gootman’s New York Times
article, “John Banta and Daniel O’Donnell- Vows”, delineates how the romantic
relationship between Mr. O’Donnell and Mr. Banta has influenced their careers
and social life. Based on their stories, I use Gayle Rubin and John D’Emilio’s
theories about sexual hierarchy to exam the changes of social views towards
homosexuality and resistances of homosexuals to compulsory heterosexuality.
Back in the 1900s, gay marriage or even homosexuality was
unimaginable. According to Rubin (13), the dominant sexual value system depicted
any sexual variations other than heterosexual sex as “abnormal” and “unnatural”.
This heterosexual supremacy in the American culture stemmed not only from
religion, but also “science” as psychology, and was further demonstrated in the
legal system. Therefore, homosexual behaviors were labeled as a “heinous sin”, a
“serious crime”, and “diseased”. (John D’emilio, 13) These oppressions together
have inhibited the construction of a homosexual identity and forced
heterosexuality upon humans. Gootman reports that Mr. O’Donnell and Mr. Banta “weren’t
pursuing a romance at first at all” and they remained close friends for years
before going to the next stage. Apparently, the general sexual value system
took root in both Mr. O’Donnell’s and Mr. Banta’s minds. The couple neither identified
themselves as gays nor realized that their feelings for each other were
romantic love. In fact, they both assumed heterosexuality as the society forced
on them. “Mr. O’Donnell said that if the notion of falling for a man occurred
to him, he would have sealed off his heart.” (Gootman) Nonetheless, when Mr. O’Donnell
did found out the truth, he chose to continue the relationship against the
traditional sexual values. On one hand, compulsory heterosexuality in the
American society has been so powerful that it nearly breaks up lovers like Mr.
O’Donnell and Mr. Banta; on the other hand, the continued romantic relationships
between Mr. O’Donnell and Mr. Banta despite the hostile social environment represents
their resistances to the sexual hierarchy.
In the early 1900s, the oppressive sexual value system
not only renders homosexuals inferior, but also generated a practical problem
for them: unemployment. According to Rubin (7), homosexuals were once linked to
communism for weakening the American power and excluded from government
employment. Rubin (21) also states that in the 1960s, “the vast majority of
homosexuals had to choose between honest poverty and the strain of maintaining
a false identity.” Although Mr. Banta and Mr. O’Donnell did not start to work
until the1980s, they also experienced the fear of coming out and lived more
than a decade of secret life. They kept “separate apartments”, and made “pronoun-changing”,
in which “we went to the movies” became “I went”. (Gootman) Interestingly,
after Mr. Banta and Mr. O’Donnell decided to live together as openly gay men,
their careers were not affected much as homosexuals’ careers did. Instead, they
worked hard to resist the prejudice against LGBTQs and rose in their careers.
Specifically, Mr. O’Donnell opened a new law office in the mid-1990s and was
elected to the State Assembly in 2002. (Gootman) Mr. O’Donnell’s success in
career as an openly gay politician indicates that homosexuals are not mentally
ill, sinful, and illegitimate anymore and they deserve civil service employment.
Also, Mr. O’Donnell’s success is a perfect example of resistance against the
overwhelming heterosexual supremacy in the political domain.
The campaign for same-sex marriage is another active
resistance to compulsory heterosexuality put up by homosexuals. Mr. O’Donnell,
as a Manhattan Assemblyman, has been one of the most vocal activists for
same-sex marriage. His strategies include giving speeches to the public and
even bringing Mr. Banta to his work place to show how much they deserve a
marriage license. Finally, upon the triumph of gay marriage, he married Mr.
Banta at the age of 51.
Through the story of Mr. O’Donnell and Mr. Banta, we
can see how gay couples rise from the bottom of sexual hierarchy in the 1900s
to a status of legal married couple in the present time and how previously “abnormal”
homosexuality becomes natural. Mr. O’Donnell and Mr. Banta’s success shows an
increasing tolerance to homosexuals in the American society in terms of
employment and social life. A Large part of these changes results from the
efforts of LGBTQ communities, which strive to influence the dichotomy of
repression and resistance.
Works Cited
Rubin,
Gayle. “Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality.”
Social Perspectives in Gay and Lesbian
Studies ed. Peter M Nardi and Beth Schneider. 1993. Print.
D’Emilio,
John. “Homosexuality and American Society: An overview.” Sexual Politics, sexual communities in the United States 1940-1970.
Chicago, University
of Chicago Press, 1983.
Print
Gootman,
Elissa. “John Banta and Daniel O’Donnell- Vows” New York Times. New York Times, 3 February 2012. web. 8 February
2012.
I agree with you that, although we’ve come a long way in a century, gays are still oppressed by our society’s compulsory heterosexuality. I find it very interesting that the now married couple John Banta and Daniel O’Donnell at first were scared of and tried to hide their love for each other. This is obviously a repercussion of compulsory heterosexuality and heterosexism in our society. It reminds me of John Bernshaw and Lynn Letukas’ article, “The Low Down on the Down Low: Origins, Risks and Identifications”. Although it wasn’t mentioned if either Banta or O’Donnell maintained heterosexual relationships, it was mentioned that they didn’t identify as homosexual and didn’t recognize their romantic love for one another for a long time. “The down low is novel because the men purportedly engaging in same-sex behavior do not subscribe to contemporary understandings of ‘homosexual’ or ‘gay’”(Barnshaw, Letukas, 479). Banta and O’Donnell became part of the down-low culture as they were pressured by society to be heterosexual. This was only a phase for them, though, much like most considered to be in the ‘down low’. “Some understand the down low as a ‘pit stop’ where down low men are seen as ‘transitioning’ from heterosexual to homosexual identification”(Bernshaw, Letukas, 487). The two men finally accepted themselves for who they were and got married. I agree with you that this is a good sign for LGBTQ acceptance in society.
ReplyDeleteBibliography
John Barnshaw and Lyn Letukas “The Low Down on the Down Low: Origins, Risks and Identifications” in Health Sociology Review Vol. 19, Issue 4 December 2010.
I agree that Assemblyman Daniel O’Donnell’s and John Banta’s relationship had to overcome the social pressures of heterosexuality and that they’re marriage at Guastavino’s in Manhattan was a symbol of overcoming the socially accepted sexual hierarchy. Barbara Smith says in “Homophobia: Why Bring It Up?” that “homophobia is usually the last oppression to be mentioned, the last to be taken seriously, and the last to go” (282). In the 1900’s, homosexuality was not even acknowledged as an option for sexual relationships; by the 1950’s, homosexuality was brutally ostracized and viewed as “diseased”; only now is it beginning to becoming socially accepted and safer for same-sex partners to be publicly affectionate towards on another (D’Emilio 1983). The social evolution of sexual acceptance has been a slow and arduous process, but now that positive same-sex relationships such as O’Donnell’s and Banta’s are becoming more publicized, they are also becoming more socially accepted. Also, the more that same-sex relationships are socially accepted, the more they are positively portrayed in the media, which leads to further acceptance from the heterosexist society. This cycle is what is causes the LGBTQ community to become more embraced, with individuals like O’Donnell and Banta leading the way in diminishing homophobia and LGBTQ oppression for future generations.
ReplyDeleteD’Emilio, John. "Homosexuality and American Society: An Overview" from Sexual
Politics, Sexual, Communities in the United States 1940- 1970. Chicago, Ill: University
of Chicago Press, 1983.
Smith, Barbara. “Homophobia: Why Bring It Up?” The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader. New York and London: Henry Ablelove, 1993. Print.