03/14/2007
Garrison Keillor: A Bigot's Home Companion
Garrison Keillor longs for the good old days in this essay on what children need in Salon. You know, the days when the world wasn't bothered by all these non-monogamous, flamboyant homosexuals that want to raise children.
"I grew up the child of a mixed-gender marriage that lasted until death parted them, and I could tell you about how good that is for children, and you could pay me whatever you think it's worth."
This is from a man who has been married three times, and has two children with two different wives.
"Under the old monogamous system, we didn't have the problem of apportioning Thanksgiving and Christmas among your mother and stepdad, your dad and his third wife, your mother-in-law and her boyfriend Hal, and your father-in-law and his boyfriend Chuck. Today, serial monogamy has stretched the extended family to the breaking point."
This is from a man known for dumping a Prairie Home Companion producer who had been his longtime lover in order to marry his second wife. That marriage failed when he was discovered to be having an affair with his Danish language teacher.
And last, but not least:
"The country has come to accept stereotypical gay men -- sardonic fellows with fussy hair who live in over-decorated apartments with a striped sofa and a small weird dog and who worship campy performers and go in for flamboyance now and then themselves. If they want to be accepted as couples and daddies, however, the flamboyance may have to be brought under control. Parents are supposed to stand in back and not wear chartreuse pants and black polka-dot shirts. That's for the kids. It's their show."
It's not the first time he's gone off on gay marriage.
ADDENDUM: More from Dan Savage.
Stating the Obvious [salon
Posted 8:59 AM EST by Andy Towle in Garrison Keillor, Gay Marriage, Minnesota, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Oh DAN, I do not want research here. Is this where you get your news ?
Posted by: M | Mar 14, 2007 11:29:40 AM
If nobody spoke up about anything we'd still be in the dark ages.
For someone who came to this piece without any knowledge of cretin Keillor's "dry wit" - and I'm not talking about Andy here - this essay reads like a piece of ignorant, bigoted sludge.
Continue speaking up.
Posted by: jimbo | Mar 14, 2007 11:33:37 AM
Ask the subject himself if the stereotypical bigotted comments were meant in any other way.
Here is the link to contact him:
http://www.publicradio.org/applications/formbuilder/user/form_display.php?form_code=0512cbfda6df
Posted by: RJP3 | Mar 14, 2007 11:39:55 AM
Wit? What wit?
Posted by: just sayin' | Mar 14, 2007 11:40:46 AM
I have listened to "PHC" for years and never once picked up anything other than wonderfully sardonic wit on everything conservative and liberal. It has never been used as a fulcrum to deliver a political messages or speak to deep morals.
If he has these deep moral convictions, then he has done them right; they remain his own (with the exception of the occasional personal interview).
I will continue to support Garrison Kellior and PHC.
Rad
Posted by: Rad | Mar 14, 2007 11:41:10 AM
"You have to listen to his show and read his writings to get it"
God, please no. I have managed to enjoy NPR by avoiding him and his pretentious dry wit ... I'm not one who wants to "get it."
Posted by: mark m | Mar 14, 2007 11:41:54 AM
Ask the subject himself if the stereotypical bigotted comments were meant in any other way.
Here is the link to contact him:
http://www.publicradio.org/columns/prairiehome/posthost/index.php
Posted by: RJP3 | Mar 14, 2007 11:41:55 AM
Jimbo, if we all spoke up about issues about which we only had a shallow, surface familiarity, we'd often make fools of ourselves, and others would stop taking us as seriously. Speaking up is fine. But knowing what you're talking about is better.
Posted by: PJ | Mar 14, 2007 11:42:25 AM
It didn't sound to me like he was dissing gay families, it sounded to me like he was dissing the Carson Kressley types who hog the spotlight from their kids. I mean, it reads that way because that's what it said. And I agree with him. Once you have kids, your life is about them for the next 18+ years. Your life of fabulousness is pretty much over. Sorry. And that's true for ALL parents.
Posted by: Tim in SF | Mar 14, 2007 11:45:08 AM
I have to say 'consider the source.' Placed within the context of all of his work, it would be obvious that this is a component of GKeillor's satire. Out of context, perhaps it doesn't appear as such.
I agree that if one doesn't know GK's schtick, it would come across as offensive. But to post about him without the benefit of that perspective doesn't ring true to me. I'd join those who consider this post a mis-step.
Posted by: Dean | Mar 14, 2007 11:46:49 AM
Garrison is, above almost anything else, kind and gentle to a fault.
Yes, if you parse his musings for political leanings you can hear in his nostalgia an homage to what most of *us* now see as a straight-jacketed, white-bread repressive suburbian world of the '50s. For him it still has rosy hues.
But anti-gay? Anti-modernism? Not really. He's criticizing *himself* as much as anyone with all those comments about plain, simple families, and he does so ruefully and consciously.
You're really reaching, Andy, when you point out his past as if *he* isn't aware of the contradictions of his own life.
He knows where the world is headed, and is *not* saying we're all going to hell in a gay handbag. Like most writers whose success is based on gentle nostalia and whimsey, he's simply sitting in his rocker, pinin' for the fjords.
Posted by: adamblast | Mar 14, 2007 11:49:09 AM
I'm not a big fan of Mr. Keillor, but I do know his sense of "wit". This is not an article denigrating gay men, it's an article demonstrating how society moves, progresses, but things always get back to simple, basic experiences.
I don't think he's a homophone. Nothing sounds like Keillor.
Posted by: JT | Mar 14, 2007 11:53:51 AM
as a gay man raising a child with my ex-wife, i don't love the stereotyping and comments. but after reading the above posts, i calmed down and put it in perspective.
he's a white, middle aged man (like myself) who's straight (this is where we differ) and is nostalgic for a 'simpler', more defined life (something else we don't share).
i guess i'll refer to the expression 'choose your battles.' meanwhile, today at the pentagon, gen. pace...
Posted by: designer | Mar 14, 2007 11:58:18 AM
Wow, for someone who runs a (normally) good blog, Andy seems to have just not gotten it this time.
Drink some coffee and then revist this post, Towle. You seem to have been a little hasty in your reading of Keillor's comments.
Besides, he's right about one thing: it IS the kids' show and parents SHOULD stand in the back. Unfort, most gay men can't stand to give up the spotlight....
Posted by: Max | Mar 14, 2007 12:00:10 PM
Oh my god. I really can't believe that I'm reading an attack on Garrison Keillor in this column after a supposed Ryan Seacrest outing.
Is it that slow of a news day that we're taking a man known for his dry wit and a TV spat between two massive egos on American Idol? Give us some real news!
Posted by: BearyNYC | Mar 14, 2007 12:00:14 PM
I don't particularly think that Garrison Keillor is witty, funny, or anything close to it, but I think that Andy is overreacting here. I agree with other commenters that what Keillor says in the context of what's probably a satirical column (albeit a lame attempt at satire) is much less important than what General Pace said the other day about homosexuals being "immoral."
Posted by: FML | Mar 14, 2007 12:15:07 PM
G.K.'s formula is so tired. Although he satirizes, he also glorifies. He makes his audience comfortable with, even nostolgic for, outmoded, backwards stereotypes...its okay to believe and say these things, because, after all, we're all in on the joke. This gentle prodding may benefit my great-grandchildren, but who has the time?
He hasn't changed his shtick in decades. There's no progress there. That's why his comments about gay men and gay marriage come off as 1970s sterotypes and prejudice. That's what they are!
Posted by: John | Mar 14, 2007 12:24:23 PM
if he's such a good satirist then he should be good enough to communicate to his audience gets what he's saying. You don't get a pass for being unclear. And mean. That's as absurd as a town where all the kids are above average.
I've heard him many times and i can't recall him ever being so "subtle." In fact it goes beyond anything that could be called subtle and into the territory of "unfunny frat-like prank" or "hoax" or the rantings of an old coot. I don't get Ann Coulter's sense of humor and i don't get Garrison Keillor's, and they should save their unfunny humor at the expense of me and my friends and direct it at their own kind.
Maybe later, after we've had a laugh or two that aren't at my expense might it be cool for the all-in-good-fun homo Roast to begin. (And they better get Sarah Silverman to host. She's funny and arch and has the talent to make her intentions clear in the most sensitive of subjects.)
The only thing more unattractive is the gay guys in this thread who are so freaked out that someone might see that they feel effeminate inside so they have to attack others who are just trying to live their lives honestly. Why then do the work for the other side?
Posted by: phill | Mar 14, 2007 12:43:28 PM
As evidenced by the many posts above emanating from Prairie Home Companion listeners, it's clear that Keilor's passage is, at absolute worst, somewhat confusing in intent.
His long-time listeners know what he meant. It's unfortunate his points went over your head, Towlie. You should retract this post before you further malign a longtime ally of the gay community.
Posted by: Tim in SF | Mar 14, 2007 1:17:01 PM
I'm reminded of a story a colleague who taught with Keillor told me recently: At a course on comedy writing he recently taught to undergraduates at the University of Minnesota, Keillor gently chastised a student who wrote a sketch that poked fun at a minority group. He reminded the student that satirical humor should always target the powerful rather than the powerless. It seems he might do well to take his own advice to heart.
Posted by: Danny | Mar 14, 2007 1:23:23 PM
Do I expect hard news from towleroad? Of course not. But I'd like to think he's a little better than perezhilton et al. Running around screaming "homophobe!" w/o doing some minimal background research seems very irresponsible to me.
Posted by: Dan | Mar 14, 2007 1:38:48 PM
"Unfort, most gay men can't stand to give up the spotlight...."
Most? Really? ... Most.
Max, if you are gay, then you need to consider that gay men you meet out at the martini bar or who go clubbing in your gay ghetto are not representative of MOST gay men. If you are gay and you live in a small town where there is a small and quiet gay population, they are also NOT indicative of MOST gay men.
And if you are not gay, what the hell are you doing on a gay blog trying to tell us what MOST gay men are incapable of?
Jeeez.
Posted by: mark m | Mar 14, 2007 1:41:12 PM
Horse pucky, Danny. I hardly find myself powerless and Keillor, while pointing out another inconvenient, or more precisely, uncomfortable truth, AND ONLY BRIEFLY, I believe his statement was more about the role of ANY parent, not just gay ones. And who the hell elected Carson Kressley my representative of my gay ass anyway?
Get out your comprehensive reading skillset, kiddies, because here's the WHOLE ARTICLE:
March 14, 2007 | I see in the paper that the U.S. Department of Education laid out $750,000 for a study that shows that going to art museums and looking at art is good for schoolchildren, which I would have been happy to tell them for, say, $500 and a nice lunch. I also have some thoughts about the defecatory habits of bears, if the Forestry Service is interested. If the government is paying large sums of money to have the obvious pointed out, then I am your man. Ask me about this war and I'll tell you for free.
I grew up the child of a mixed-gender marriage that lasted until death parted them, and I could tell you about how good that is for children, and you could pay me whatever you think it's worth.
Back in the day, that was the standard arrangement. Everyone had a yard, a garage, a female mom, a male dad, and a refrigerator with leftover boiled potatoes in plastic dishes with snap-on lids. This was before caller ID, before credit cards, before pizza, for crying out loud. You could put me in a glass case at the history center and schoolchildren could press a button and ask me questions.
Monogamy put the parents in the background where they belong and we children were able to hold center stage. We didn't have to contend with troubled, angry parents demanding that life be richer and more rewarding for them. We blossomed and agonized and fussed over our outfits and learned how to go on a date and order pizza and do the twist and neck in the front seat of a car back before bucket seats when you could slide close together, and we started down the path toward begetting children while Mom and Dad stood like smiling, helpless mannequins in the background.
Nature is about continuation of the species -- in other words, children. Nature does not care about the emotional well-being of older people.
Under the old monogamous system, we didn't have the problem of apportioning Thanksgiving and Christmas among your mother and stepdad, your dad and his third wife, your mother-in-law and her boyfriend Hal, and your father-in-law and his boyfriend Chuck. Today, serial monogamy has stretched the extended family to the breaking point. A child can now grow up with eight or nine or 10 grandparents -- Gampa, Gammy, Goopa, Gumby, Papa, Poopsy, Goofy, Gaga and Chuck -- and need a program to keep track of the actors.
And now gay marriage will produce a whole new string of hyphenated relatives. In addition to the ex-stepson and ex-in-laws and your wife's first husband's second wife, there now will be Bruce and Kevin's in-laws and Bruce's ex, Mark, and Mark's current partner, and I suppose we'll get used to it.
The country has come to accept stereotypical gay men -- sardonic fellows with fussy hair who live in over-decorated apartments with a striped sofa and a small weird dog and who worship campy performers and go in for flamboyance now and then themselves. If they want to be accepted as couples and daddies, however, the flamboyance may have to be brought under control. Parents are supposed to stand in back and not wear chartreuse pants and black polka-dot shirts. That's for the kids. It's their show.
Last week I visited a grade school not far from where I grew up, and I strolled into a second-grade classroom and, good Lord, those lovely faces -- Somali, Ethiopian, Hmong, Hispanic. Only about six kids looked anything like the kids I went to school with, and of those, three were Croatian. Fifteen different languages and dialects spoken in the school, a teacher told me. In my lifetime, the potato fields had been developed into tract housing for World War II vets and now a landing site for immigrants and their second-graders, most of whom ventured into English only a year ago.
It was I Love Reading Week, and I was there as an Author. So I told them a story about how, back in the day, we were cowboys and rode horses across those flat spaces, rounding up our cattle, even in blizzards. For proof, I sang a cowboy song with a big whoopi-ti-yi-yo at the end of each verse and I got them all to do clip-clops and whinnies.
They seemed to understand it all, at least the clip-clop part, and they are better children for having met me. Pay me a quarter-million dollars and I'll do a study that proves it.
Save your venom for someone more appropriate. This article isn't about YOU, it's about kids. And appropriately titled, "Stating the Obvious" seems to have become an unacceptable practice.
Posted by: FizziekruntNT | Mar 14, 2007 1:46:19 PM
Hmmm... all things considered? Benefit of the doubt! (and other dulcet tones...)
Posted by: GIOVANNI | Mar 14, 2007 1:54:16 PM
This is quite funny. The thing about gay fathers hogging the limelight from their kids is a riot.
Posted by: Jack! | Mar 14, 2007 2:02:09 PM