Welcome to “Steve Miller’s Culture Watch,” the new web log (i.e., “blog”) from the Independent Gay Forum. Steve Miller would be me (or, according to my formal byline, “Stephen H. Miller). I’ve been writing about gay politics and culture for a number of years, with a column that’s appeared off and on in several gay publications. Now IGF is giving me a chance to host their blog and to present not only my thoughts about the latest developments, but to pass along those of other IGFers as well — with the hope of getting more of you into the habit of surfing over here more often.
Briefly, I’d like to thank Mike Airhart for doing a tremendous job of redesigning the homepage to accommodate the blog, Jon Rauch for proposing the idea and moving it forward, IGF’s webmaster Walter Olson and editor Paul Varnell for their constructive suggestions, and the many others who”ve provided feedback. And David Boaz, for his ongoing support. Official disclaimer: The views and opinions to be expressed herein should not be taken as representing the “official” IGF party line. Actually, IGF wouldn’t know what to do with a party line; we’re not “party” animals, and instead prefer to question the received orthodoxy of the moment. So here goes:
Frightening stuff: The AP reported on Feb. 15 that, in awarding custody of three teen-agers to their father over their lesbian mother, the chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court wrote that homosexuality is “an inherent evil” and shouldn’t be tolerated. The case involved a Birmingham man and his ex-wife, who now lives with her same-sex partner in southern California.
Just to be sure he was making himself clear, Chief Justice Roy Moore wrote that the mother’s relationship made her an unfit parent and that homosexuality is “abhorrent, immoral, detestable, a crime against nature, and a violation of the laws of nature.”
You may recall, this is the same Judge Roy Moore who’s now the target of two federal lawsuits over his installation of a 4-foot monument of the Ten Commandments in the rotunda of the state judicial building in Montgomery, and who defends his actions by proclaiming “This is a Christian nation.”
The AP quotes David White, state coordinator for the Gay and Lesbian Alliance of Alabama, who observed “It’s unfortunate Alabama is going to be embarrassed once again by a religious fanatic in a position of power.” Clearly. John Giles, state president of the Christian Coalition, had to defend this bilge, telling the AP that Moore’s decision protected the institution of marriage and strengthened the traditional family.
Forcing the anti-gay right to support unmitigated, out-of-control, foaming-at-the-mouth homophobia is actually a good thing; no “We’re just opposed to special rights” dissembling here. Naked prejudice may still play well in a few backwaters, but it’s a huge turnoff to a growing majority. Too often, gay activists accuse the right of “hate-mongering.” But when the shoe fits.
Update: On the Feb. 20 edition of his top-rated Fox News show, Bill O’Reilly grilled the Christian Coalition’s John Giles, who was there to defend Moore’s vitriol (“a good, Christian family man” is the good Judge, after all, according to Giles). O’Reilly, no friend of the politically correct left, to be sure, declared that he was “appalled” by Judge Moore’s rant, and observed that a gay person couldn’t expect to be treated fairly in his court. O’Reilly has taken on gay activists, so it was excellent to see that he can distinguish between gay people — who can and do face real discrimination — from those who would declare themselves to be our leaders, often with their own political agendas. Conservative commentators, of course, have no problem separating women, say, from professional feminists, but too often they’ve treated the loudest — and most radical — of the “progressive gay vanguard” as representative of your average Joe Gay Guy and Jill Lesbian. Good to see that this is no longer automatically true.
The other BIG news story making the wires: As first reported in the Sacramento Bee, UC Berkeley has suspended a male sexuality class. Among the allegations, it seems a group of students chose as their final project a trip to a gay strip club, where “students watched instructors strip and have sex.” To be fair, the course was offered under the university’s “democratic education” or “de-cal” program. As such, it was sponsored but not funded by the university, and run by “student instructors” (but could still be taken for credit toward graduation). So, is it another sign of academic decadence plus Left Coast debauchery, or much ado about a little class excursion that got out of hand? Probably there’s a lot less here then the lurid headlines suggest, but it will still be fodder for the religious rights fundraising efforts.
An interesting article on Feb. 12 in the New York Times about Connecticut lawmakers debating two “gay family” bills — the first to legalize same-sex marriages (call it the “full monty” version) and the second to recognize civil unions between same-sex partners (the “Vermont compromise,” as it were). I hadn’t realized it, but the Nutmeg State has an impressively gay supportive track record. It was the third in the nation to adopt a gay rights law in 1991, and in 2000 the Co-Parent Adoption Law was passed, extending adoption rights to the same-sex partner of a child’s legal parent or guardian. Naturally, those opposed to the measures argued that the result would be to — divorced marriage from morality.” In the words of Bishop Peter Rosazza (who spoke on behalf of the Connecticut Catholic Conference), same-sex unions had not passed the test of time to be deemed successful. Moreover, “The change shouldn’t only benefit individuals, but society,” he opined.
But by that line of reasoning nothing new could ever be tried, since it would by definition not have been time tested. It’s an argument for stasis. And the good bishop’s observation that changes must benefit “society” rather than “individuals” is downright collectivistic. He manages to veer both left and right in opposing the measures — and still gets it wrong on all counts.