McCain and His Gaydar

Senator John McCain said last week that he served in the Navy with many gays, although none had come out and identified themselves. When asked how he knew, then, he said, "I think we know by behavior and by attitudes...and lifestyle."

Now, there's some straight talk. Just as it's O.K. for women to call themselves girls, gays can talk about "gaydar," the scanning device that divides the world by sexual orientation on the basis of superficial characteristics. Straights and straight presidential candidates are generally more circumspect. But McCain's remarks constituted at most a mild distraction, barely diverting him from his last-ditch effort to shame Governor George W. Bush into a fair fight in New York by helping McCain get on the ballot there. Gay political leaders didn't make an issue of it. Kevin Ivers, press spokesman for the gay Log Cabin Republicans, who favor McCain, said, "Any gay who jumps up and down about what McCain said is being dishonest and hypocritical." Even from the other side, the response was muted. David Smith, communications director of the Human Rights Campaign and no supporter of the Arizona Senator, said, "It's always risky to stereotype, but McCain's comments are no big deal. Gays won't be picketing the Straight Talk Express."

There are a few reasons McCain got a pass, beyond his reputation for personal tolerance. Absent malice, gaydar seems relatively harmless. I consider my own gaydar benign, although wildly inaccurate and way too broad. (A man who doesn't succumb to my charms? Must be gay!) We've all guessed wrong, and not just about Rock Hudson. But could guessing be, as a gay friend put it last week, "a measure of how far we've come"? When I was growing up, who was or wasn't gay was a subject no one touched. I remember the bachelor real estate agent who cared for the antique linens as a member of the Altar Guild. Years later, I asked my mother if Tom's private life ever got discussed. And she, who by 1980 routinely talked about her gay bridge partners, said, "Absolutely not."

Would Tom be better off today, with a war-hero presidential candidate casually talking about gaydar? You bet. A national conversation about tender subjects during a campaign does a lot to break the ice. In 1992, not only would no one bring up gaydar, but also the subject of gays in the military was not nearly the preoccupation it is this time. It's one reason President Clinton's initiative to change the policy came as such a shock and then failed, resulting in the "Don't ask, don't tell" compromise.

McCain's remarks on gaydar unwittingly show the fallacy of his support for the current policy. If everyone on his submarine knew back then who was and who wasn't gay and still got along, why should gays have to cower in the closet today? Something about the word open rattles the Army. What is the thinking when the military says that asking and telling will hurt morale? That unless everyone stays in denial, no one will take a shower? One thing that we know hurts morale is forcing people to dissemble about who waits for them at home, whom they vacation with. The Joint Chiefs fret over a breakdown of discipline, as if Tailhook had been a gay bacchanalia. Whether gay or straight, sex in the barracks is a one-way ticket to the brig. We're talking about the military, not a college dorm.