Morals Clause

When does a gay event involving sex warrant a protest? Or warrant a warrant?

Last month during Mid-Atlantic Leather Weekend (which kinda got overshadowed by the inauguration that same weekend), a religious group that believes homosexuality is “evil” tried to keep a leather S&M party from happening at the Doubletree Hotel in Arlington.

The head of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, a group “dedicated to exposing the homosexual activist agenda,” tried to stop a “play party” because such an event in a hotel conference room is “illegal and a public health concern.” Oh, and it’s also immoral.

From what I’ve been able to gather, the party went on as scheduled. It seems Truth wanted to protect our sense of morals, but it’s a very selective set of morals.

First, think about just how wrong the president’s statement was. What exactly is illegal? Unless money exchanged hands, there’s no prostitution. And the last time I checked, people were allowed to have consensual sex in a private room. (Perhaps there’s a whip-brandishing prohibition in the state legislature that we overlooked). And the hotel allowed a private suite for this. At midnight. Impressionable youngsters would hardly be ambling into the room for the shock of their lives.

As far as a health concern, I don’t see an added risk different than straight couple or groups getting together (and don’t for a second think that doesn’t happen). Maybe Truth assumed everyone at the party would be doing it raw, but somehow I don’t think the group was fixated on condoms and safe sex.

The real reason is the “moral” issue, but it seems to be more about finding gay sexuality threatening and trying to shut it down. This is a city full of gentleman’s clubs and little flyers tucked under windshield wipers with pictures of half-naked women for clubs, parties, or whatever. And since when is S&M a strictly gay concept?

I would have more respect for this Truth organization if they flew to Los Angels and showed up at the Playboy Mansion to protest Hugh Hefner and beseech him to close down his bunny den of iniquity. After all, people don’t go there just for the champagne. Hell, some of Hefner’s playmates have their own reality show on VH1 – indicative of a kind of middle-America acceptance.

But something that advertises “pig sex” seems to be the final straw for some moralists. The already grim view they hold on gays becomes stretched to the breaking point. They may not be crazy about the Playboy Mansion, but because heterosexuality is their idea of the only “normal” orientation, Hugh and Co. are relatively forgivable. But men in leather who dare to fly their freak flag are sick bastards.

I think people like Truth members don’t pick up on the inequity of their moral focus. It reminds me of straights I have met who castigate homosexuality but have sex and/or live together outside of marriage. The virtue of being straight makes something seem not as bad as, you know, the other people.

Perhaps Truth needs to ask itself who and what it is fighting for, and to what end. It’s almost funny to have moral saviors try to rescue people who don’t need to be saved.