McCain and His Gaydar

By MARGARET CARLSON

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.

With the exception of the novelty candidates, what this campaign shows is that the country has moved some distance in its acceptance of gays. Two years ago, gay bashing was a staple of the Republican right. Lately, Republicans have largely gone quiet since their pollsters warned them to knock it off. Spreading scare stories about gays just wasn't working. Too many people had come out, and too many blue-haired mothers in the heartland didn't like hearing that their gay son or daughter was worthless and immoral.

This doesn't mean all Republicans have got religion, so to speak. Although George W. Bush has spent quality time with every special-interest group under the sun, he won't meet with Log Cabin Republicans because it would be "divisive." He'd hire a gay person, but not an openly gay one. If you intend to take your same-sex partner to the Christmas party, don't apply for a job in the Bush Administration.

While McCain wasn't blasted for an answer that might be considered politically incorrect, the Human Rights Campaign's Smith was quick to point out that gaydar is not without a serious downside: "In the halls of TIME magazine and big cities it's a safe discussion, but not everywhere." By buying into part of a stereotype, we may be giving cover to those who buy all of it. Gaydar can lead to a social form of racial profiling. The police aren't stopping gays on the highway, but a gay who comes anywhere near the Richard Simmons profile still carries an added burden in the workplace. At its worst, gaydar is deadly. At the Army base in Kentucky where Private First Class Barry Winchell was beaten to death with a baseball bat last July 5, he hadn't told that he was gay, in strict compliance with regulations. It was gaydar that tracked him down.

If McCain were to follow his comments to their logical conclusion, he would announce that his Administration will adopt a new approach to gays in the military, more consistent with his own experience on the U.S.S. Forrestal. I suggest he call it Everyone Knows! Who Cares?