First published June 10, 2003, in FrontPage Magazine.com. This is a substantially revised version.
Curiouser and curiouser. Take the charge hurled by gay activists that the Bush administration is irredeemably "anti-gay" and compare it with accusations by religious conservatives that the administration has been "pandering to the homosexual lobby" and it can leave you feeling like you've taken a tumble through Alice's mirror. It's verdict first, trial later, and let's all enjoy the tea party as long as we're sure to only talk amongst ourselves.
"I believe marriage is between man and woman, and I think we ought to codify that one way or another" President Bush said on July 30. No surprise there, say gay activists. He's an anti-gay conservative.
But someone forgot to tell the anti-gay conservatives! They don't see Bush as being on their side at all. In fact, they view the marriage amendment as his last chance to redeem himself.
Rich Lowry, editor of the conservative National Review, recently wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post titled "The President Keeps His Distance," complaining that George W. is missing in action on the culture war front - especially in not being more vigilant in opposing gay marriage. As Lowry writes:
When Bush was asked about gay marriage, you got the feeling he would have preferred not to be asked at all. … This is a loss for those of us who are conservatives. It means that, on important issues, a crucial player isn't fully engaged.
Lowry and his conservative kind wish Bush would be more like anti-gay big-mouth Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania. The gay left refuses to see any distinction between the two. Maybe they should start reading the rightwing press.
After all, it's fair enough to criticize the president for, like Bill Clinton, supporting efforts to outlaw government recognition of gay marriage. But the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force missed the boat with its press release. "It is unbecoming of the President of the United States to characterize same-sex couples as 'sinners,'" said Matt Foreman, the Task Force's new executive director. But what Bush actually said was this:
"Yes, I am mindful that we're all sinners. And I caution those who may try to take the speck out of the neighbor's eye when they've got a log in their own. I think it's important for our society to respect each individual, to welcome those with good hearts, to be a welcoming country. On the other hand, that does not mean that somebody like me needs to compromise on the issue of marriage."
So Bush said we're ALL sinners, and then castigates critics of gays for not focusing on their own sinfulness and for their lack of respect toward others. A Bush spokesman later added, when asked if Bush considers homosexuality a sin, that someone's sexual orientation is "personal business in the president's view."
Foreman was overwrought when he concluded Bush is "obviously desperate to keep the country's focus off the war in Iraq and the dismal state of the economy, and he's willing to do it on the backs of gay men and lesbians, even if it means proposing legislation that already exists as law." Foreman's antipathy toward the president is so strong he couldn't hear the criticism of the religious right in Bush's remarks.
Is Everything Bush Does Anti-Gay?
How distorted can the views of both the gay left and the social right be? Let's take a look at some the recent rhetoric of "progressive" gay activists. Gay-negative actions by the Bush administration have been said to include the faith-based initiatives, which are "a threat to gay people" according (again) to the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force. The NGLTF also views welfare reform reauthorization as anti-gay, since "the Republican bill provides funds for 'healthy marriage promotion activities' and 'fatherhood programs.' … We need a bill that is sensitive to the needs of GLBT [gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender] people."
Here's another typical view from the gay left, from Gay City News:
The Bush administration and some Republican members of Congress are signaling that they will advance legislation which could override existing state and local laws that ban discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
"It's exactly what we've been afraid of," said Lorri L. Jean [who was then NGLTF's executive director]. "The Bush administration now thinks it has carte blanche to run roughshod over the GLBT community and others."
Or Is Bush Pandering to Gays?
So is the Bush gang an anti-gay clique? Far from it, claim religious conservatives, who first made clear their displeasure with the administration's openly gay appointees, including career-diplomat Michael Guest to serve as ambassador to Romania. But the most impassioned round of infighting started over the now-notorious remarks by Sen. Santorum, which gay activists saw as revealing latent fascism in the GOP, while religious conservatives viewed the president's defense of Santorum as unacceptably tepid.
Santorum's comments supporting so-called "sodomy laws" that criminalized adult, consensual homosexual relations and his prediction that that if the Supreme Court were to overturn such laws (as they soon would do), then there would be no legal basis for states to outlaw incest, bestiality, adultery, and polygamy provoked a firestorm of criticism from gay activists and liberals. Yet here's what White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer had to say, providing the official response:
"The president has confidence in Senator Santorum, both as a senator and as a member of the Senate leadership."
Asked about the president's views on homosexuality, Fleischer said a person's sexuality is "not a matter that the president concerns himself with" and that he judges people on how they act as a whole. Bush subsequently praised Santorum as "an inclusive man," without elaborating.
The dog that didn't bark here was any hint of support for Santorum's views favoring sodomy laws and his belief that consulting adults are not entitled to sexual privacy in their bedrooms. So it's not surprising that religious conservatives were upset. In the words of the Family Research Council:
Beyond a few tepid statements of personal support for Sen. Santorum, no prominent national GOP leader seems willing or able to mount a spirited, principled defense of marriage and family.
The question naturally arises: Have Republican leaders been so intimidated by the smear tactics of the homosexual lobby and its Democratic attack dogs that they are cowering in silence?
And, ominously:
If Republican leaders cannot mount a vigorous defense of marriage, then pro-family voters perhaps should begin to reconsider their loyalty to the party.
On the heels of the Santorum blowup another brouhaha erupted when then GOP National Committee Chairman Marc Racicot, who went on to head the 2004 Bush-Cheney re-election effort, met with the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay political lobby. A subsequent meeting was held between lower-level administration officials and the gay Log Cabin Republicans. Again, in the words of the Family Research Council:
Despite repeated assurances, both public and private, that the party has no intention of abandoning its commitment to the sanctity of marriage and the family, the White House and the GOP continue to court radical homosexual groups that agitate for policies that would destroy both of these indispensable social institutions. ... This incessant pandering to the homosexual lobby is deeply troubling.
Racicot later met with a group of social conservatives opposed to gay rights legislation who were enraged over his earlier get-together. One high-level social conservative attendee, Paul Weyrich, posted a missive on the Free Congress Foundation's website under the title "A Fatal Flirtation: The GOP and the Homosexual Movement." Reported Weyrich:
In many different ways the group stressed that if the Republican Party drifts toward the homosexual agenda, it will alienate the millions in the religious right while gaining very few from the homosexual community. ...
Chairman Racicot defended his meeting with the Human Rights Campaign by saying "I meet with anyone and everyone." Gary Bauer said that certainly was not true because surely he would not meet with the Ku Klux Klan. Rev. Wildmon asked if he would meet with NAMBLA (The North American Man Boy Love Association). The chairman was not familiar with this group, which advocates sex between men and young boys. The chairman said he would not meet with such an "aberrant" group. He was also asked about GLSEN, the group that is pushing pro-homosexual and pro-transgender education programs in the schools, including elementary schools. Again, the chairman professed ignorance.
This couldn't have been a fun meeting for Racicot, who has good relations with the Log Cabiners. So why did he do it? For one thing, while Americans do not support gay marriage, most polls over the past few years - including a 2003 Gallup poll - suggest that a welcoming attitude toward gays can be a winning strategy. For instance, almost 9 out of 10 Americans agree that homosexuals should have equal rights in terms of job opportunities.
Also, exit polls showed 4% of voters in 2000 self-identified as gay or lesbian (and nearly 75% voted for the Democratic Gore-Lieberman ticket). Exit polling in congressional elections have showed a gay electorate of more than 5%. That's a larger demographic than the Jewish vote. Even shaving just a small slice away from Democrats could prove pivotal to cementing the GOP's status as the majority party. Moreover, many independents are turned off by anti-gay rhetoric, negatively viewing it as a broader barometer of intolerance.
Yet the FRC spent a week recently using its website to expose the Bush administration's ties to the "homosexual agenda." One online installment was "Homosexual Lobby: Follow the Money" - which, apparently, leads to Republican coffers. What better example of how the religious right's paranoia mirrors the gay left's dementia?
Whose Got the Bloc?
Here's one final, revealing example of the administration's ongoing balancing act. In June 2003, the administration tried to make a symbolic move to appease its Christian-right critics: the Department of Justice decided not to allow DOJ Pride, an association of gay employees, to hold its annual "pride month" event on Justice Department property. The year before, Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson spoke briefly at the event - outraging religious conservatives.
But the apparent move against DOJ Pride produced an outcry from gay activists and the publicity made the Bush administration appear intolerant, and so a partial reversal followed. But gays were unhappy about the lack of official sponsorship, while anti-gays were angry the event wasn't banned outright. So what's new?
Not so widely reported is that during his 2001 confirmation hearings, Attorney General John Ashcroft told the Senate Judiciary Committee he would allow DOJ Pride to use the agency's facilities on the same basis as its other employee groups. This followed nominee Ashcroft's meeting with the Log Cabin Republicans, who - to the chagrin of gay Democrats, then supported Ashcroft's confirmation.
But politics is more about who can deliver the most for you today than it is about honoring promises. And GOP administrations will only make real gestures of inclusion toward gays and lesbians when more gays and lesbians support Republicans - and thus are able as a bloc to counter the threats of religious right activists to tell their brethren to stay home on election day. On the other hand, more gays and lesbians will support the GOP only when the party stops being so clearly identified with its religious right constituency's hostility toward gays - an unfortunate paradox.
Clearly, the GOP is not going to win over the hearts and minds of gay leftists, but that's not who they're aiming to attract. Rather, it's the growing constituency of gay (and gay-friendly) moderates, conservatives and libertarians who favor lower taxes, economic growth, a strong military, safe streets, and limited government interference in their private lives. Can religious conservatives learn to live with that?
Next Up: The Big "M"
It remains to be seen if the White House can continue to reach out to gays, however tepidly, without making the religious right even angrier. And while, as noted, Bush has stated his view that marriage ought to be only between a man and a woman, he's to date held off on an outright endorsement of the proposed anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which would ban same-sex marriage. Passage of the FMA is now the chief priority of many religious right "pro family" groups.
Same-sex marriage may finally force Bush off the fence. Or it may not, since on the fence is exactly where Bush prefers to be. In the meantime, the Bush administration's balancing act goes on, to the chagrin of gay activists and their opposites in the religious right - both sides convinced the President has sold his soul to the other.
Curiouser and curiouser, indeed!