Unless you happen to be a right wing religious fundamentalist, the fact that gay rights are still being argued in 2013 is a strange anomaly You would expect every sector of society to have moved beyond the idea of being obsessed with what two people choose to do in the bedroom and the insane idea that in some way people choose to be gay. It is not a stretch by any means to assume that by the 24th century, homophobia and general weirdness about homosexuality will be an oddity of the past; so it is totally understandable to expect a modern science fiction show like Star Trek to reflect that. However, Star Trek might be set in the future but the decisions about what made it onto the screen are firmly stuck in the 80s and 90s. When a studio invests financially in a TV show, they want the largest return possible on their investment. That means the show needs to be a hit and avoid alienating large sections of the TV audience. In the same way the Original Series had issues with the interracial kiss between Kirk and Uhura and complaints from some southern states, the idea of an openly gay character was too much of a hot topic for CBS and Paramount during the run of The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine. They ran the risk of horrifying some viewers and destroying the label that Star Trek was a family friendly show. Star Trek producer Brannon Braga had this to say about why there were no gay charracters in the show;
It was a shame for a lot of us that Im talking about the Next Generation, Deep Space Nine and there was a constant back and forth about well how do we portray the spectrum of sexuality. There were people who felt very strongly that we should be showing casually, you know, just two guys together in the background in Ten Forward. At the time the decision was made not to do that and I think those same people would make a different decision now because I think, you know, that was 1989, well yeah about 89, 90, 91. I have no doubt that those same creative players wouldn't feel so hesitant to have, you know, have been squeamish about a decision like that.
By that you can take it that those higher up in the echelons of power prevented the producers from having gay characters on the show, but it is good to see that they had the right idea to treat gay relationships casually. Why should they be any different from any other relationship in the 24th relationship? In defence of Deep Space Nine, in 1995 they did have a lesbian kiss between Dax and a character called Lenara. The episode did receive a bit of attention but mostly from Dax fans who took a certain amount of pleasure from watching her get-off with another women. The paranoid expectation that soccer-moms would demand a boycott of the show didn't happen. If The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine were victims of 80s and 90s studio mentality, what about Star Trek Enterprise and the new reboot from JJ Abrams? The idea of gay characters is no longer shocking and therefore, these later incarnations of Star Trek dont have any excuse for not presenting a more realistic reflection of what modern society looks like. This is what JJ Abrams had to say about it;
I just wouldnt want the agenda to be whether its a heterosexual relationship or a homosexual relationship, to tell a story that was, that felt distracting from the purpose of the story. So Im completely open-minded, you knowIm interested in finding a way to do that but its almost like its a tricky thing. Because its the right thing to do but do it in a way that doesn't feel like youre doing it in order to make that point. Because then its almost a disservice. Because then it feels like, Oh that stupid distracting subplot about you know, you know, that minority. Or those people. So the question is how do you do it where it doesn't feel like, Why am I getting into that kind of detail about the characters life if not just to make a point of it? So the answer is, I think it should be done and Id love to be able to do itonce we get through the bigger issues of certain structural things that are really the key to the show or the movie being done well.
It is a bit irritating that Abrams sees it as a tricky thing. It was clear that presenting a heterosexual relationship wasnt tricky for him and it didn't add a whole subplot to the movie so why would a gay relationship be any different? No one is asking him to suddenly make Kirk and Bones start having sex in Sickbay, but no one would blink an eye if two people of the same gender were holding hands. The non-inclusion of a gay character in Star Trek is a huge missed opportunity, especially in Star Trek: Enterprise and the new rebooted timeline. A number of Star Trek actors did argue that it was bizarre that the show ignored homosexuality but it made no difference. When Kate Mulgrew who played Captain Kathryn Janeway on Star Trek: Voyager raised the issue with producer Rick Berman, she was told that there would be a gay character in time. As we now know, that time never came. But with the nonsensical furore over gay marriage in 2013, you can see why studios are wary of alienating a large section of conservative America; it doesnt make financial sense to do so. In any case the issue remains an anomaly in Star Trek and a huge missed opportunity. It also might seem strange that Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry admitted to changing his attitude towards gay people as he got older. It could be argued that it was the 1960s but for a man that was so focused on breaking racial grounds with Star Trek; it is a little bizarre that he held a little prejudice when it came to homosexuality. But he did change; its unfortunate more people havent;
My attitude toward homosexuality has changed. I came to the conclusion that I was wrong. I was never someone who hunted down 'fags' as we used to call them on the street. I would, sometimes, say something anti-homosexual off the top of my head because it was thought, in those days, to be funny. I never really deeply believed those comments, but I gave the impression of being thoughtless in these areas. I have, over many years, changed my attitude about gay men and women.