Queer love and the long shame, the long emergence

Same-sex love existed long before the category homosexual was invented in the late nineteenth century. Greek and Roman writers described it without scandal in certain configurations. Medieval monasteries and convents contained relationships whose intensity strains heterosexual interpretation. Renaissance Florence prosecuted sodomy so often that the prosecution itself became a kind of demographic record. Pre-colonial cultures across the Americas, Africa, the Pacific, and Asia recognized roles, the two-spirit, the hijra, the bakla, the muxe, that the European category system collapsed under translation. The point is not that queer love is universal in any simple sense, but that the modern category, with its sharp binary and its shame, is a specific product of nineteenth-century European sexology, and the people the category named have a much older lineage than the name itself.

Eve Sedgwick described the closet as an epistemology, a structure of knowing and not knowing. It is also a literal architecture. People who could not be openly queer arranged their homes, their social calendars, their wardrobes, their letters. They had separate apartments that were really one apartment. They had unmarried sisters and lifelong friends. They had professions, theater, military, clergy, that quietly accommodated what could not be named. The closet was a survival technology. It worked. It also cost, every day, in the form of vigilance, deception, and the slow erosion of the self that does not get to be seen by the people whose seeing matters most.

Before there was Pride there were bars. Chauncey's history of pre-war New York documents a queer urban world that was more visible and more vital than the postwar suppression made it appear in retrospect. The bars were imperfect: mafia-owned, frequently raided, racially segregated, hostile to gender nonconformity, expensive. They were also where queer people learned that they were a population, not a scattered set of individual aberrations. The bar was where the political consciousness that erupted at Stonewall had been incubating for decades. When a population has nowhere else to gather, the place it gathers becomes sacred whether or not it wishes to.

The HIV/AIDS epidemic of the 1980s killed tens of thousands of gay men in the United States and hundreds of thousands more globally, and the political response was a deliberate slowness that amounted to a death sentence for an entire cohort. The community that survived buried its lovers, its mentors, its artists, its institutional memory. It also built, in the same years, networks of care, hospice, advocacy, and direct action that became the template for queer political organizing for the next generation. The grief is not metaphorical. It is biographical for everyone who lived through it, and it is inherited by everyone who has come after. The pre-epidemic generation is largely absent. The gap shapes the community to this day.

The history of queer love is not symmetric across genders. Lesbian relationships were less often criminalized in many jurisdictions because the law was written by men who could not imagine women as sexual agents, but the same invisibility that spared the prosecution erased the population. Lesbian communities built different institutions, the women's bookstore, the land movement, the music festival, often in deliberate separation from gay male spaces, and faced different pressures, economic precarity, the question of children, the relationship to feminism. Faderman's histories trace this distinct lineage and recover names that the broader queer narrative has often dropped.

The trans population was present at Stonewall, at Compton's Cafeteria in 1966, in every wave of queer political organizing, and was often pushed aside when respectability politics demanded a more palatable face for the broader movement. The 2020s have seen a sharp backlash specifically against trans people, particularly trans youth, in the form of legislation restricting medical care, sports participation, and public accommodation. The pattern echoes earlier moral panics, and the medical and psychological literature has been weaponized in ways the original researchers did not intend. The front that the broader queer community thought had moved past medical pathologization has been re-opened on the bodies of children.

The major religious traditions have responded to queer love along a wide spectrum. Some, certain Quaker meetings, reform and reconstructionist Judaism, the United Church of Christ, the Metropolitan Community Church, have moved to full affirmation. Others, including the Catholic Church and most Orthodox Christian, Orthodox Jewish, and Muslim authorities, have not. The split has produced ruptures within families, within denominations, and within the souls of queer believers who have had to choose between their tradition and themselves, or to do the harder work of staying and changing the tradition from inside. The work of staying is often unrecognized by both sides.

When biological family rejects, queer communities have built chosen family, networks of mutual care that include former lovers, friends, mentors, godchildren, and households whose ties are not legible to the legal system. Chosen family does not replace biological family for everyone, and the loss of biological family is rarely fully compensated, but the practice of chosen family has been a major contribution of queer culture to the broader culture's vocabulary of kinship. The pandemic of 2020 demonstrated, in many cities, that chosen family was the unit that actually showed up, with food, with medication, with company, when the system designed for nuclear families failed.

The achievement of marriage equality in the United States in 2015 was a legal earthquake and also an internal controversy. Some queer thinkers, drawing on a radical tradition that had always been skeptical of the institution, argued that the movement had pursued assimilation into a flawed structure rather than the transformation of structures of care. Others argued that the legal protections, hospital visitation, immigration, inheritance, tax, were too important to forgo on theoretical grounds. The argument did not end with the ruling; it shifted to questions of whose lives the movement had centered and whose had been left behind once the marriage victory was banked.

The coming-out narrative as a single dramatic event is partly an artifact of the memoir and the after-school special. In practice, coming out is a serial practice repeated in each new context, the new job, the new doctor, the new neighbor, the new in-law. Each instance carries small risk and small cost. The accumulation across a lifetime is significant. Younger queer people in tolerant settings sometimes describe a different relationship to coming out, more matter-of-fact, less ceremonial, but the serial practice continues, and in less tolerant settings it remains as charged as it ever was.

Queer life in San Francisco, Berlin, Mexico City, or Cape Town is not queer life in a small town in Mississippi, in rural Poland, in Uganda, in Iran. The legal regime, the cultural climate, the availability of community, the safety of disclosure, vary enormously. The geographic inequality means that the queer population as a global whole is living in vastly different eras simultaneously. The activist in a hostile jurisdiction is fighting battles that her counterpart in a tolerant city already considers won. The mutual recognition across these contexts is part of what makes the queer movement transnational and also part of what makes its internal politics difficult.

The progress narrative, that conditions for queer love improve steadily over time, is too clean. Conditions improve, then regress, then improve in different ways. The Weimar Berlin of the 1920s had a queer cultural flourishing that was annihilated by the Nazi regime within a decade. The post-Stonewall liberation of the 1970s was followed by the conservative backlash and the epidemic of the 1980s. The marriage-equality moment of the 2010s has been followed by the trans-rights rollback of the 2020s. The long emergence proceeds, but in zigzags, and the zigzag is itself the shape, not a deviation from the shape. Knowing this prevents both complacency in good seasons and despair in bad ones.

1. D'Emilio, John. Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities: The Making of a Homosexual Minority in the United States, 1940-1970. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998. 2. Chauncey, George. Gay New York: Gender, Urban Culture, and the Making of the Gay Male World, 1890-1940. New York: Basic Books, 1994. 3. Faderman, Lillian. The Gay Revolution: The Story of the Struggle. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2015. 4. Faderman, Lillian. Surpassing the Love of Men: Romantic Friendship and Love Between Women from the Renaissance to the Present. New York: William Morrow, 1981. 5. Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky. Epistemology of the Closet. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990. 6. Halperin, David M. One Hundred Years of Homosexuality: And Other Essays on Greek Love. New York: Routledge, 1990. 7. Stryker, Susan. Transgender History: The Roots of Today's Revolution. 2nd ed. New York: Seal Press, 2017. 8. Shilts, Randy. And the Band Played On: Politics, People, and the AIDS Epidemic. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1987. 9. Foucault, Michel. The History of Sexuality, Volume 1: An Introduction. Translated by Robert Hurley. New York: Pantheon, 1978. 10. Boswell, John. Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980. 11. Warner, Michael. The Trouble with Normal: Sex, Politics, and the Ethics of Queer Life. New York: Free Press, 1999. 12. Duberman, Martin. Stonewall. New York: Dutton, 1993.