Читаем Right-wing Women полностью

sexual; it seems to include sexual assault by men, beating, maiming, and murder. The mixed mob indicates the breakdown of male class power in the same w ay that the assault on the male visitors

does: the rules that keep men exercising power as a class over

women as a sexually and socially subject group have broken down

absolutely; that is the destruction of the city. The destruction of

Sodom is certainly not for breaking a sexual prohibition on homosexuality. The daughters who get their father drunk to have intercourse with him and bear his children also break laws: yet they are blessed. The lesson is not that the inferred homosexual assault is

worse than the accomplished incest because one is homosexual and

the other is heterosexual. Laws against incest come first in Lcvit-

icus and are repeated or invoked in other parts of the Old Testament. The lesson is that when men are not safe from other men— a safety that can only be achieved by keeping women segregated and

for sex— the city w ill be wiped out. The daughters, in committing

incest, broke the law in order to perpetuate patriarchal power: as a

result of what they did, peoples, tribes, cities, were created. W hatever furthers male dominance, even when forbidden, will not destroy the city but build it. Sin, in the Old Testament, is first of all political. Law in the Old Testament is the regulation of society for

the purposes of power, not morality. The Old Testament is a

handbook on sexual politics: the rights of patriarchs and how to

uphold them.

David perhaps also breaks a sexual prohibition. His love for

Jonathan is indisputable, probably carnal, and goes beyond the

abomination of lying with mankind as with womankind: “I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of

women” (II Samuel 1: 26). David makes this declaration of love on

learning of Jonathan’s death in battle. Jonathan’s father, Saul, also

died, and he is remembered in the most heterosexual of frameworks: “Ye daughters of Israel, weep over Saul, who clothed you in scarlet, with other delights, who put ornaments of gold upon

your apparel” (II Samuel 1: 24). The passage on Jonathan follows

the passage on Saul, so the contrast is very marked. And then there

was a lot more war and David became king and time passed; but

still, David’s concern was with Jonathan: “Is there yet any that is

left of the house of Saul, that I may shew him kindness for

Jonathan’s sake? ” (II Samuel 9 : 1). David found that Jonathan had a

son who was lame and serving another family. David restored all

Saul’s land to this son “for Jonathan thy father’s sake” (II Samuel

9: 7) and claimed Jonathan’s son as his own: “he shall eat at my

table, as one of the king’s sons” (II Samuel 9 : 11). There is no sin,

no condemnation, no wrath of God. Like the incest of Lot and his

daughters, this union made Israel stronger, not weaker. The homosexual bond extended the loyalty and protection of King David to Jonathan’s son, the grandson of Israel’s first king, Saul. David,

through his love of Jonathan, a love “passing the love of women, ”

having survived Jonathan, might be seen as Saul’s logical heir.

Hebrew society had become more complex than in the early tribal

days; Saul and David led armies; in a martial society, homosexuality is often seen to contribute to social cohesion among men. At least in this period, the Hebrews seem to have viewed it that way;

with David and Jonathan in particular it worked that w ay; and

Israel, its patriarchy intact (unlike that of Sodom), thrived. The

God of the Jew s may not have been tolerant, but he was practical.

There is nothing in the Old Testament to justify the vilification

of homosexuals or homosexuality that began with Paul and still

manifests virulently in the fundamentalist Right in Amerika. It

takes the magical claim that the New Testament is “concealed” in

the Old to sustain the illusion of divine sanction for this special

hatred of homosexuality. It is more than concealed; it is not there.

Paul saw the power of the father in decline. The power of the son

was taking its place. The Jew s were confused and divided, and

patriarchal power was not effectively being maintained by Jew ish

law. Paul worshiped male power; therefore Paul worshiped the

son, was converted to the son’s side when he saw the potential of