Actress' gay-by-choice claim riles activists

Actress Cynthia Nixon appears on "Live with Kelly" on Jan. 24, 2012. Her head is shaved for her role in the Broadway play "Wit." / ABC

SAN FRANCISCO - Cynthia Nixon learned the hard way this week that when it comes to gay civil rights, the personal is always political. Very political.

The actress best known for portraying fiery lawyer Miranda Hobbes on "Sex and the City" is up to her perfectly arched eyebrows in controversy since The New York Times Magazine published a profile in which she was quoted as saying that for her, being gay was a conscious choice. Nixon is engaged to a woman with whom she has been in a relationship for eight years. Before that, she spent 15 years and had two children with a man.

"I understand that for many people it's not, but for me it's a choice, and you don't get to define my gayness for me," Nixon said while recounting some of the flak gay rights activists previously had given her for treading in similar territory. "A certain section of our community is very concerned that it not be seen as a choice, because if it's a choice, then we could opt out. I say it doesn't matter if we flew here or we swam here, it matters that we are here and we are one group and let us stop trying to make a litmus test for who is considered gay and who is not."

Cynthia Nixon says she's gay by choice

To say that a certain segment of the gay community "is very concerned that it not be seen as a choice" is an understatement. Gay rights activists have worked hard to combat the idea that people decide to be physically attracted to same-sex partners any more than they choose to be attracted to opposite-sex ones because the question, so far unanswered by science, is often used by religious conservatives, including GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum and former candidate Michelle Bachman, to argue that homosexuality is immoral behavior, not an inherent trait.

Among the activists most horrified by Nixon's comments was Truth Wins Out founder Wayne Besen, whose organization monitors and tries to debunk programs that claim to cure people of same-sex attractions with therapy. Besen said he found the actress' analysis irresponsible and flippant, despite her ample caveats.

"Cynthia did not put adequate thought into the ramifications of her words, and it is going to be used when some kid comes out and their parents force them into some ex-gay camp while she's off drinking cocktails at fancy parties," Besen said. "When people say it's a choice, they are green-lighting an enormous amount of abuse because if it's a choice, people will try to influence and guide young people to what they perceive as the right choice."

Nixon's publicist did not respond to an e-mail asking if the actress wished to comment on the criticism.

While the broader gay rights movement recognizes that human sexuality exists on a spectrum, and has found common cause with transgender and bisexual people, Nixon may have unwittingly given aid and comfort to those who want to deny same-sex couples the right to marry, adopt children and secure equal spousal benefits, said Jennifer Pizer, legal director of the Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation and the Law, a pro-gay think tank based at the University of California, Los Angeles.

One of the factors courts consider in determining if a law is unconstitutional is whether members of the minority group it targets share an unchangeable or "immutable" trait, Pizer noted. Although the definition of how fixed a characteristic has to be to qualify as immutable still is evolving — religious affiliation, for example, is recognized as grounds for equal protection — the U.S. Supreme Court still has not included sexual orientation among the traits "so integral to personhood it's not something the government should require people to change," she said.

"If gay people in this country had more confidence that their individual freedom was going to be respected, then the temperature would lower a bit on the immutability question because the idea of it being a choice wouldn't seem to stack the deck against their rights," Pizer said.

Nixon stirred the identity politics pot further when she explained in a follow-up interview with The Daily Beast this week that she purposefully rejected identifying herself as bisexual even though her history suggested it was an accurate term.

"I don't pull out the "bisexual" word because nobody likes the bisexuals. Everybody likes to dump on the bisexuals," she said. "But I do completely feel that when I was in relationships with men, I was in love and in lust with those men. And then I met (her fiancDe) Christine and I fell in love and lust with her. I am completely the same person and I was not walking around in some kind of fog. I just responded to the people in front of me the way I truly felt."

Although science has not identified either a purely biological or sociological basis for sexual orientation, University of California, Davis psychologist Gregory Herek, an expert on anti-gay prejudice, said Nixon's experience is consistent with research showing that women have an easier time moving between opposite and same-sex partners.

A survey Herek conducted of gay men, lesbians and bisexuals of both genders bore this out. Sixteen percent of the lesbians surveyed reported they felt they had had a fair amount of choice in their sexual orientations, while only five percent of the gay men did. Among bisexuals, the figures were 40 percent for men and 45 percent for women.

What remains to be teased out, Herek said, is how a representative national sample of heterosexuals would answer the same question, and what people mean when their sexual orientation was a choice or not. Are they talking about their sexual desires? Acting on those desires? Or simply the identity they choose to show to the world?

"The nature vs. nurture debate really is passDe," he said. "The debate is not really an either/or debate in the vast majority of cases, but how much of each. We don't know how big a role biology plays and how big a role culture plays. A possibility not often discussed is it's not the same for everybody."

[st00p1d]

So, we suppress courage, honesty and individualism to protect or further the aims of a subjective proposition?
Seriously??...that's ok with you!?
No!, don't even start with that...this isn't about gay or straight, or discouraging the insane practice of curing homosexuality. That is entirely a different discussion.
THIS, is about whether we are willing to ignore, disregard, mask one fact, to combat the ignorance of a few.
I am not willing.
If this Woman chooses an alternate lifestyle, do we criticize or dismiss that choice or the declaration of it because it does not fit the confines of an accepted, more mainstream ideal?
Read that again...then, tell me how it is not EXACTLY what you are supposedly trying to resist?!?
We combat ignorance with education, NOT censorship.
Would gagging her change that her own brand of sexuality is of choice? Would gagging her somehow promote the obvious conclusion that the majority do not choose? She said it best...YOU don't get to define her gayness.
If you think so, I submit that you are as ignorant as those that would subject a loved one to "curing" or even the suggestion of it.
Even so...I'd not suggest you keep your opinion to yourself.
How else would I determine what an fascist hypocrite you are?

[feetxxxl]

the gay community does not have a problem with issues of sexual identity, or the ability to chose.

what they have a problem with is the premise that being gay is wrong or less than being heterosexual and someone's being able to chose validates this and therefore it needs to be expunged from the human race thru therapy, whether based on religion or whatever.

[pammmmmm]

Oh my gosh it is a choice, so what if she acknowledges that...this makes the news? Gheesh!

[MaryWaterton]

Truth be told, all homosexuals are homosexual by choice. Bi-sexuality is living, breathing, undeniable proof of that. But don't let the truth get in the way of a good lie, especially when you have an agenda that you want rammed through the courts and the government and into the public schools.

[fredbiskal]

That would make you bisexual. Well, I'm not, Mary. At 58 years old, I have always recognized the female shape to be no more sexually appealing than a coffee table. As for sex, try picturing a cooked noodle standing up to make its way into the eye of a darning needle. Santorum and Gingrich making out would be more believable. "Equal rights" sounds like a pretty good agenda to strive for and if courts need to take over where weak bigoted politicians have shortcomings in the truth and courage department, so be it! Public school is where hate words, bullying and homophobia already flourish. Education needs to start earlier. If one is old enough to use the words, one is old enough to know what they mean.

[shameonbush]

If gays are born that way, then why is there so many more now than years ago? Is it because the closet door no longer has to stay shut or is it because it's so acceptable now that it has provoked people to think about having a gay relationship, therefore, some go for it. I guess in this case it's the latter. Do gays think that by admitting that many people have chosen to be gay that this somehow wrecks their excuse? Looks that way.

[rocketjl]

What the heck is the problem? Move on and find something that is your business.

[rennin1]

Gay rights proponents say that homosexuality is not a choice, rather it is genetic. If that is so, then there must be a gay gene that is recessive and that gets passed down from one generation to the next through carriers of this gay gene having sex with opposite sex people. A gay rights proponent who sincerely believes that homosexuality is genetic should be the last person to favor gay marriage. This is because by attempting to remove the stigma associated with gays getting married to each other they are making it less likely that gays will marry and have children with opposite sex people. This means that it will become even less likely that gays will pass their gay gene onto the next generation. The result is inescapable; legalizing gay marriage will reduce the number of gay children born each year and those who favor gay marriage are doing more to eliminate gays from society than anything that opponents of gay marriage could possibly do.

[feetxxxl]

innate or choice is a rabbit hole that leads to no where.

what is important is the spirit in the lives of those who are either gay or straight. the marriages and lives of both are about mutual love, devotion, affection, respect amd trust to themselves as well as others.

for believers: both gay and straight equally live the fullness of christ love in their lives and marriages. this spiritual equality makes them absolutely equal to each other.

[feetxxxl]

i find it so interesting the heterosexual response. when did heterosexuals ever choose to be heterosexual.

" since i didnt chose to be heterosexual, you also must not have chosen to be heterosexual, thus must have chosen to be gay" what hypocrisy!!!! " my reality must be your reality"


why must it continue to be repeated. INNATE OR CHOICE is RABBIT HOLE THAT LEADS TO NO WHERE. what is important is the spirit in the lives of those who are either gay or straight. the marriages and lives of both are about mutual love, devotion, affection, respect amd trust to themselves as well as others.

for believers: both gay and straight equally live the fullness of christ love in their lives and marriages. this spiritual equality makes them absolutely equal to each other.

[feetxxxl]

goofer-buddy

you are still not getting it. homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality.........ergo it doesnt matter which orientation one is of. those who can choose their orientation will choose it, those who have no choice will live out what ever orientation that is innate.
in essence,neither one will lack anything in their lives compared to the other.

[fredbiskal]

Goofer-buddy is the kind that never REALLY wants to know about truth, fact, and one's reality (if you're gay). All my young life I grew up exposed to only open heterosexuals, yet I am 100% homosexual and knew this long before I could put a word to it. That was 53 years ago at age 5, and NO, I WAS NEVER MOLESTED!! Those scenarios are convenient "opinions" thrown about by those not wishing education on themselves or anyone else.

[democracy8]

She's bisexual, but she has issues with the word. When she has a relationship with a man in the future, she'll say that she chose to be heterosexual. She's bisexual, choosing at different times to either be with men or with women.