“In regard to homosexuality, I must say that I believe this is an attempt to remove oneself from the present, a refusal perhaps to perpetuate the endless farce of earthly life. You see, I make love to men daily, but in the imagination,” Barack Obama, 21, wrote to ex-girlfriend Alex McNear in November 1982. The suddenly sensational 1982 letter resurfaced when Obama biographer David Garrow gave a provocative interview on his subject.
“My mind is androgynous to a great extent and I hope to make it more so until I can think in terms of people, not women as opposed to men,” Obama wrote. “But, in returning to the body, I see that I have been made a man, and physically in life, I choose to accept that contingency.”
Oh. Wait, what?
McNear dated Obama when they both attended Occidental College in Los Angeles. She redacted the revealing paragraphs, and the letter came to be owned by Emory University somehow. Emory guards the letter and doesn’t permit it to be photographed or removed. Garrow’s friend Harvey Klehr transcribed the long-hidden paragraphs by hand and sent them to the historian, who then included them in his Obama-fest,“Rising Star.”
What’s going on here?
Observations:
1. Do normal heterosexual men have persistent fantasies abut having sex with other men? No. The letter is strong evidence if not conclusive proof that Barack Obama is gay, but that he decided early in life to live a conventional heterosexual life as many other gay men have. (Not that there’s anything wrong with that.) Perhaps the decision was a pragmatic one, as being openly gay would have made a political career difficult, and certainly limited its potential.
2. I have to state that I am not surprised. Obama set off my well-honed “gaydar” (a side benefit of a life in the theater) almost from the beginning, particularly in regard to his relationship with Michelle. I was surprised that it never became an issue: the rumors were out there. Mark this down as one more example of the mainstream media protecting O and not doing its job.
3. Should the fact that Obama was a gay man in a committed heterosexual relationship have adversely influenced voters? No. Would it have? Sure, with some voters, even some black voters. Would the fact that Obama hid this aspect of his personality from the public be a legitimate reason not to trust him? Good question. Did the public have a right to know? Well, the same media decided that every rumored or reported thought rattling around the head of Donald Trump was legitimate news.
4. If the letter indicates what I think it does, Obama would not be our first gay President. The 15th President, James Buchanan, is widely believed to have been gay as well, and there is less hard evidence to support the conclusion in his case than regarding Obama. It would make Obama our best gay President so far, since Buchanan ranks among the three or four worst….but not by much.
5. If true, Obama’s sexual orientation places a new perspective on his calculated waffling on gay marriage. Personally, I never thought his position was “evolving,” as he claimed. I thought he was lying about his beliefs on the issue all along, and this confirms my conviction.
6. Obama should be judged based on what he did and said, not on what he may have felt or been thinking. Whether he was gay or not makes no difference at all to how I regard him as a President and as a public figure,
Ethics Alarms 
Minor point but,
Gay? Or Bisexual?
Unknown. But the tone of the letter and my “gaydar” suggests the former.
Seems to me kind I’m the only person without a gaydar. As gay as I am
Oh no, you’re definitely not the only one, gay or not.
Former NJ governor James McGreevy hid the fact that he was gay, and he was forced from office as a result. He lied to his wife and he lied to the voters.
This lend any credibility to Larry Sinclair, who incuriously was never afforded the same…um…hands off approach supplied to most >protected class members.
Larry Sinclair’s claims would have brought a rawness (trashiness) to the underbelly of the Obama mystique. Hardly appropriate to a Senator with style, and a moral superiority. Plus, Jeremiah Wright might have been aghast. Beating the racial drum would yield greater political traction. But the lofty demographic was established: gaydom would be vogue and no longer just known for aids.
Concluding anything based on such writings is utter nonsense. We are all fools at 21, especially fools in love. Obama may have been writing out of a desire to please someone, or trying on an identity for one reason or another, or any other flight of experimentation and/or fantasy that happens in youth. Projecting psychological fantasies onto public figures–usually to justify some political point–is the exact same sort of imagining that everyone does in private, and is unethical in public discourse.
The adult writings of every historical figure of note from 21 on, and even earlier, are routinely considered in biographies, and should be. Reasonable minds may differ on what their significance is and how much weight they should be given. One can, for example, “conclude” from the letter that Obama fantasized about having sex with men. If he had constantly fantasized about having sex with beagles or little girls and boys, would pondering that be similarly “nonsense” in your view?
We can conclude no such thing. There’s no reason to believe that Obama, of all people, was completely honest and vulnerable with a college girlfriend, or that anyone’s fantasies have signature significance, as most such flights of fancy come from nowhere and disappear similarly. It’s reasonable for such letters to come to light but unethical to form conclusions, especially if you haven’t studied the person in question very much, and if the conclusion has been a long-bandied right-wing fantasy, along with Obama’s lack of citizenship, secret Muslim adherence, affair with Beyoncé, etc.
Why would that be a “right wing” fantasy? You know, I’ve studied every President and read a t least one, usually more than one, biography of every one up through Reagan. None of them mention similar statements. That kind of admission is the last thing you would tell an ex-girlfriend just for giggles. The speculation has always been that James Buchanan made a similar admission to his then fiancee, resulting in the last minute cancellation of their planned nuptials.
Methinks you doth protest too much.
Jack:
I’ve studied every President and read a t least one, usually more than one, biography of every one up through Reagan. None of them mention similar statements.,
Three logical reasons for this:
Generational: Reagan (and every President before him) and Obama were not from the same generations.
Sex Taboo: I suspect previous generations did not speak so explicitly about sexual encounters in general.
Homosexual taboo: Obama’s generation likely stigmatized homosexuality much less.
It would be more fair to compare him to Clinton (if it is EVER fair to compare someone to THAT deviant).
I would not rule out what Gully is saying. It is no big surprise that Obama had identity issues (white American mother, black (absent) foreign national father). He could just be talking out of his ass because it makes him look open-minded and “hip.”
Tangent: one thing I do NOT like about this story is that it implicitly supports the attack that Michelle is actually a man.
-Jut
All true. But its rarity in presidential history also makes it intrinsically noteworthy.
Well, Obama was an unlikely President.
Not as unlikely as Trump, probably, and we have all been exposed to HIS sexual divulgences.
-Jut
Exactly Gully. There’s no reason to believe that he was being completely honest and vulnerable.
He could have been having sex with men, while still telling her that it was just a “fantasy”.
“ If he had constantly fantasized about having sex with beagles or little girls and boys, would pondering that be similarly “nonsense” in your view?”
Is it illegal to have sex with the same sex?
-Kate
I regard this technique as sealioning and trolling, Kate, knock it off. The point is that having fantasies about sex with anyone and anything suggests a state of mind, and that state of mind might be regarded as troubling to some, many, or all. Legality is irrelevant to the issue at hand.
“I regard this technique as sealioning and trolling”
Took the words right oughta my mouth…
Gully was pointing out that someone having normal sexual fantasies as a 21 year old isn’t noteworthy in any way. There’s no “state of mind” worth caring about here, nor is it troubling.
You then decided to compare normal sexual fantasies with beastiality and pedofilia.
Kate Novak,
That is not what Gully said.
Gully said, “Concluding anything based on such writings is utter nonsense. We are all fools at 21, especially fools in love. Obama may have been writing out of a desire to please someone, or trying on an identity for one reason or another, or any other flight of experimentation and/or fantasy that happens in youth.”
Gully was saying that, just because Obama says “X,” does not mean X is true.
Gully gave a number of possible reasons for Obama to say X even if X was false
Gully characterized it as nonsense to believe Obama fantasized about men just because he said so.
While I think “nonsense,” is a bit strong, I don’t find it unfair to question whether someone is speaking honestly.
Jack’s point was to emphasize that it is fair to take people at their word, particularly if they say something that might expose them to ridicule. In the law, that is often called a statement against interest; people don’t say things against their own interests unless if it is untrue.
-Jut
I know…I was responding to him asking if Gully would claim that fantasizing about sex with animals or children would be labeled as nonsense.
-Kate
Kate Novak wrote, “… someone having normal sexual fantasies as a 21 year old isn’t noteworthy in any way.” Bold mine.
“Normal sexual fantasies”? In my opinion, that’s a signature significant statement in this context.
You just opened up a can of worms.
What’s Considered Normal?
No Kate, this is not “normal” to have those kinds of fantasies. Get your head out of that woke fog and come back to reality.
As I’m sure you noticed, those were narratives the right enjoyed bandying about during Obama’s elections and presidency, hence my labelling them as such. As for what one would tell one’s college girlfriend, I would suggest it could be anything the man thought she might like to hear. “Sure, I dabbled in bisexuality” isn’t far from “Oh, I love the Impressionists too,” or “I was holding this beer for a friend, I too prefer Chablis.”
Deciding that I have some agenda for “protesting too much” is exactly the sort of hasty conclusion of which I’m speaking.
It’s not hasty at all. The post clearly and specifically didn’t “conclude” that Obama was gay (apparently doesn’t mean “definitely”) , and was about what significance, if any, it had if he were. My own beliefs are based on educated observations of him over many years, as well as what we know about his background and history. There was nothing in the post to get indignant over, and no, I was not aware of any right wing narrative about Obama’s sexuality other than references to his own writings, which the MSM went to great lengths to never mention. Is it a right wing plot to consider information that the left-wing media tries to suppress? I’d call it “journalism.”
Interesting that everything Obama wrote in his books was treated as true as divine revelation while the letter is immediately discounted as misdirection or posing for effect. It’s just another example of what an annoying phenomenon Obama has been.
Saying “apparently Obama is gay” isn’t saying Obama is gay?
– Kate
Nope. The Cambridge Dictionary states that the word is “used to say you have read or been told something although you are not certain it is true.” That’s exactly what I mean when I use “apparently,” It is synomous with “its appears that….”
Hi, Kate. Welcome to Ethics Alarms. I hope you find the blog informative. Commenters are usually very well’versed in argumentation and rhetoric. Gotcha questions are neither informative or interesting. Please do better. Feel free to disagree all day long but please avoid my Legal Writing professor’s cardinal rule: Don’t be boring.
jvb
Ha.
Sorry, you also said “The letter is strong evidence if not conclusive proof that Barack Obama is gay”
I’m confused if you’re saying your post doesn’t conclude Obama is gay.
-Kate
Then you don’t know the difference between evidence and proof. Look it up. There’s also the English language. “The letter is strong evidence if not conclusive proof that Barack Obama is gay” states that it is NOT conclusive proof, ergo there is no conclusion to the effect stated. Later I write, “If the letter indicates what I think it does…” “If” also per se makes it clear that there is no definite conclusion. “What I think it does” means I have an opinion, but by the very nature of how I present it, I am indicating that I do not consider said opinion conclusive.
Why did you say it was a fact that Obama was gay in Point 3 of your post?
Should the fact that Obama was a gay man in a committed heterosexual relationship have adversely influenced voters?
-Kate
Should it have?
Maybe, maybe not. Depends on whether he was hiding it (as that may be relevant to his honesty).
Would it have?
Possibly. It would not affected my vote and the votes of people who opposed him anyway.
It might have affected the votes of gay people who thought he married a “beard.”
Would it have affected his vote in the black community, as well.
Again, possibly.
-Jut
Last warning: this is trolling Kate. I made my position clear. Next time, you get banned.
Obama’s sexuality doesn’t interest me. No one’s sexuality interests me. My interest or lack thereof is not really relevant to whether or not lying about one’s sexuality is ethical or not, which I’m guessing it isn’t. But seriously, who cares? Can we please, as a society, stop spending so much time focusing on who wants to put what where and with whom?
That would be nice, wouldn’t it?
N.P., I don’t buy the “who cares who someone sleeps with” ruse. Call me a bigot, but being a homosexual or a lesbian is a reliable, but by no means fool-proof, predictor of a fair number of things. Gay and lesbian people almost invariably want to overturn society’s heteronormativity. As a result, they are low grade to high octane revolutionaries in outlook. Gays and lesbians are nearly invariably compulsive, knee-jerk Democrats and or progressives. So, knowing someone is gay or lesbian is a good warning they are going to be radicals on any number of issues. On hearing someone is gay or lesbian, I’d say, “Interesting. Good to know,” is my reaction. It creates a rebuttable presumption. Is this a big deal? No. Is it of no consequence. No.
I’d also say the fact a guy sleeps with women is informative.
I don’t need to know what someone’s sexuality is to know they are radical, though. It was obvious from the get go that Obama was a radical. Most of the left is radical, these days. I know they are radical the second they open up their mouths and radical political ideology starts pouring out. I don’t need to make assumptions based on irrelevant factors, they are quite happy to tell me and everyone else they want to remake society into a dystopian hellscape.
I’m a recreational student of the piano. Famous line from Vladimir Horowitz: “There are three kinds of pianists; Jewish pianists, homosexual pianists, and bad pianists.” I’ve had three teachers over the last over twenty years, one lesbian, one gay, one straight (who, unprovoked, volunteered Trump is a NAZI). Whenever I go to any musical or social event with other students or friends of my teachers, I know damn well to keep my mouth shut. Being involved in classical music is much like being involved in the theater; forewarned is forearmed.
Gays and lesbians are nearly invariably compulsive
Is this from personal experience?
I said, “nearly invariably compulsive knee jerk Democrats or progressives,” didn’t I?
Then I guess my son must be in the 1% or something? (I don’t know if there is a 1%, I’m just going off of “nearly invariably.”). I’m surprised by this statement from you, Other Bill. Are there other people that you lump together as “nearly invariably?” Fwiw, I follow a number of conservative (some very conservative) gay and lesbian social media peeps. There are more out there, and they are quite vocal, than one might think.
Actually it was “…nearly invariably compulsive, knee jerk Democrats and/or progressives.” The comma between compulsive and knee jerk in the original made it plausible that that you were treating ‘compulsive’ as a separate item on a list and didn’t use an oxford comma. I read it the way you intended, but I can see how it could be interpreted as “compulsive, knee jerk democrats, and/or progressives.”
Doesn’t “the gay community” usually shame people who stay in the closet? Aren’t people “outed” anymore? I can’t believe “the gay community” wouldn’t feel betrayed by finding out Obama is gay. Except for the fact he’s been sainted. Typical lefty hypocrisy.
No wonder Michelle is so damned grumpy all the time and was advised not to marry him. Who knows, she may play for the other team. Not unusual for gay guys who are uncomfortable with their situation to align with lesbians.
Case in point: Kevin Spacey. But Obama is King of Double Standards.
Do you think the media should have investigated rumors that he was secretly gay?
– Kate
Do you think the media would have investigated rumors that he was secretly gay if he had been a Republican? That’s one of the standard attacks made upon conservative politicians, they’re closeted gay guys consumed by self-hate.
“Whether he was gay or not makes no difference at all to how I regard him as a President and as a public figure.”
No, he’s just as terrible any way you look at it. The “Divider in Chief” then and, I suspect, now as well.
Jack wrote, <i”Obama should be judged based on what he did and said, not on what he may have felt or been thinking. Whether he was gay or not makes no difference at all to how I regard him as a President and as a public figure”
I completely agree and it really doesn’t surprise me in the least and that’s probably because it makes no difference to me. It’s completely fair for people to gain a bit of new perspective on why President Obama might have made certain decisions but personally this it doesn’t change any of the consequences of his choices whether it’s perceived that they’re good or bad.
Speaking of gaining a possible new perspective; how about applying a new perspective to this Presidential candidate Obama quote from 2008, “Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we’ve been waiting for. We are the change that we seek.”. I’ll leave it to you to contemplate that possible new perspective.
FYI, I met someone that made the kind of choice Obama made when he was a young twenty-something years ago. He is now in a heterosexual marriage and had a number of children. Their family is very open about this and their choices have had some repercussions in their immediate family with a young child that wanted to change genders and was allowed to do so before entering first grade – yes switching genders at around 6 years old.
It’s a comfort looking back at the USA that he was elected not because he was gay. For perspective: maybe Mayor (South Bend sinecure) Pete’s proclivities qualified him to run for president. What other qualification, what other feature of Buttigieg’s or, say, Rachel Levine’s curriculum vitae secured their responsible positions?
Khyber Rifle,
What purpose does your comment have other than deflecting?
It’s not surprising that Obama would express such views (and confusion) as he’s yet another boy raised by uber progressive woman/mommy (often white), with (physically or effectively) absent father. I know it’s not always the case, but it’s almost always the case.
As for whether this matter, it does. I have no issue with gays and would vote for a gay or lesbian if I think he/she is a good candidate. I do have issue with those who lie, and obviously Obama lied, and this showed that he cannot and should not have been trusted.
That’s a tough conclusion, Ron. To my mind, being homosexual is inherently problematic. I think people should be free to deal with their being so as they see fit, and we should respect their choice. Do I think living a double life is a good idea for anyone involved? No, doing so is far less than ideal, but I guess that’s life.
A few points:
1. If one’s sexual orientation means nothing to you, to NP, to me, presumably to most readers, then how is not reporting on it “suppression”? Isn’t it a legitimate journalistic decision? (This is a different question than whether David Garrow should publish the story… assuming it’s accurate and not just an attempt to sell more books.)
2. Even if that letter meant what you’re suggesting, that is no indication that it means anything about Obama later in life. I can think of four former students off the top of my head whom I first met as gay or lesbian post-adolescents and who now, in their their late 20s or 30s, have been in apparently successful heterosexual marriages for several years. Sexual orientation often evolves in various directions. The fact that yours (I presume) or mine haven’t doesn’t mean other peoples’ don’t.
3. Assuming Obama was gay (or bi-) in the early ’80s, it’s reasonable that he’d not want to publicize that fact. It would be another couple of decades before anyone even at the center, let alone the right, of the political spectrum, could even conceivably be quoted as saying they didn’t care about his orientation. It wasn’t just political expediency. One of my best friends in high school and another in college in the mid- to late ’70s were gay; I didn’t know that (or in one case even suspect it) for over a decade; there were those who were out, but many more who remained closeted, even to friends. My gaydar is much more sophisticated now than it was then, but still isn’t foolproof in either direction.
4. There have been a couple of rounds of rumors about Obama going back many years, but as far as I know they never got picked up by even the right-leaning press (Forbes, Wall Street Journal, etc.) as opposed to the wackadoodle right or the sensationalist press. I therefore treated them as noise. Perhaps I shouldn’t have, but the fact that I didn’t care if they were true probably factored in, too.
5. Did anyone else have an “Ew.” reaction to the ex-girlfriend’s keeping the letter at all? Letters from exes are at the top of the “Don’t just throw this away; burn it!” list.
6. Lying to an ex may not be the national pastime, but it definitely happens.
Agreed, Curmie.
Frankly, I am more by the poor writing quality than I am about Obama’s sexual orientation. I find hiscwriting pompous and trite. If his writing got him into Ivy League schools, then this Ivy Leagues need a bit of hedge trimming.
jvb
Obama was, and is today a moralist. (How many times did we hear, “That’s not who we are.”?) Such virtue when expressed necessarily involves pomposity and is always intellectually trite. Mix in a measure of political gamesmanship and you got a potent mix . . . Musn’t be too hard on him though, poor writing skills is a mark of his generation’s academic demise.
Curmie 3. YMMV, i suppose. I had (in the very early 70’s, in the south) a fraternity brother who was gay and nobody cared, but it probably would have been made an issue for others if he had gone into politics.
He had a great collection of shoes, though.
“ I was surprised that it never became an issue: the rumors were out there. Mark this down as one more example of the mainstream media protecting O and not doing its job.”
What should the media have done differently in your opinion?
– Kate
Investigated? Like, find out everything out there was out there to find about a presidential candidate before the public had to vote? That kind of thing?
Right. So you think the media should have investigated rumors that Obama was secretly gay?
How do you know they didn’t?
They should have been aware of the letter. If the historian could track it down, an investigative journalist should have. If they found it, then it should have been reported, If they didn’t, they weren’t looking hard enough—as in due diligence. Recall that Obama’s biographical musings about, for example, eating dog mysteriously only surfaced after his election.
So you believe they didn’t look hard enough for evidence of Obama being gay?
And if they were actually looking, they would have found this letter?
Why didn’t the right wing media find it then?
They were looking.
Kate Novak can’t be fixed.
That JM is as patient as he appears is news . . .
No, I believe they didn’t vet Obama at all, for the most part. His sexual proclivities were just a minor issue at most. Meanwhile, there are about 50 left-biased reporters for every one with a conservative tilt. The issue is journalism doing its job, it’s not a team competition.
No. They should havevinvestigated whether he is/was/has been a committed Marxist. That would have been informative. His sexual proclivities are irrelevant.
jvb
It’s not too late for Barry to identify as a woman.
