Unmasking the Real Opposition

There’s a videotape making the rounds. Copies are scarce, and when I finally tracked one down, it was in the hands of a faculty member at the Annenberg school over at USC. To get it sprung, I had to promise a 24-hour return.

But this video was worth the scramble. The footage reveals a salient moment in the recent debate over the now-vetoed gay rights legislation. The sequence was taken from the cameras of Cal-Span, which televises the doings in our state Legislature.

This video will make some weep and some laugh. But its real value is this: We get to see the layers peeled back on the gay issue. We see the real debate emerge. And, finally, we come to understand the true nature of the decision that confronted Pete Wilson.

The tape begins with the droning of a floor debate in the Assembly. The bill’s sponsor, Assemblyman Terry Friedman, describes how the bill has been chopped down to satisfy its critics.

At present, he says, the bill only protects gay persons against discrimination in the job market. These same protections already are enjoyed by persons of color, by the old, the disabled and the religiously eccentric.

That is all the bill will do, he says. Housing provisions have been eliminated. Quotas are specifically prohibited. He waves a sheet containing the names of business associations that support AB 101 and urge its speedy passage.

Then comes our hero of the day, Assemblyman David Knowles. The Republican whip in the Assembly, Knowles is no friend to AB 101 and he has no interest in quotas or housing provisions. He wants to discuss the gay “lifestyle.”

“I believe,” he begins, “that every Californian has the right to know the specifics about the lifestyle--the lifestyle --that every one of the legislators who puts up an ‘aye’ vote for AB 101 advocates for California.”

Knowles then proceeds to describe the “lifestyle.” Direct quotes from his speech must stop at this point because such quotes cannot be printed in a family newspaper. Some paraphrases will give you the idea.

Knowles starts by listing venereal diseases known to occur among gay persons and cites their frequency of occurrence in various orifices. He goes on to describe a range of sexual acts. He calls these acts “disgusting” and is about to continue his performance when he is interrupted.

Republican Tom McClintock rises to say that he regards Knowles’ language as unparliamentary and asks him to shut up. Democrat Steve Peace notes the presence of Cal-Span cameras and reminds Knowles that his speech is being broadcast into peoples’ living rooms.

But their objections are overruled by Speaker Willie Brown, who cites Knowles’ right to proceed. Knowles resumes with gusto. He describes acts involving urination and defecation. He describes a novel use of bullwhips. All of these acts bring such horror to Knowles that he cannot help but mention a few more. Then, suddenly, he is interrupted again.

Democrat Gwen Moore comes forward on a point of order. She asks Speaker Brown to silence Knowles on the grounds that his remarks do not address the merits of the gay rights legislation.

She also is overruled. Knowles is allowed to crank up again but this time he quickly comes to his point. “Every green light (for a ‘yes’ vote) you see on the board advocates everything I just read to you,” he says, and finally sits down.

Now we could easily dismiss Knowles and his stunt. But I think we should not. Here’s why: When Pete Wilson vetoed the gay rights legislation a week later, he was not responding to the business community or to concerns about messy litigation. The business community was neutral or positive on AB 101.

No, Pete Wilson was responding to the David Knowleses of the world. They are the ones who threatened him with political death a few weeks earlier at the Anaheim Republican convention if he signed the gay legislation. They are the ones who passed a resolution demanding that the bill be vetoed because homosexuals brought AIDS to the world.

And they prevailed.

True enough, there is no logical connection between AIDS and employment discrimination. Just as there is no connection between the use of bullwhips and discrimination. But it doesn’t matter. The visceral connection is deep and powerful to those who seem to have replaced Communism with homosexuality, and Wilson was sufficiently cowed by it.

Maybe it was best that Willie let Knowles keep going. Knowles deserved to be heard because his remarks amounted to the operative argument.

But, for what it’s worth, didn’t the Marquis de Sade like bullwhips first? And wasn’t he--mostly--a hetero?