Author Archives: Stephen Henry Miller

Finding a ‘Moderate’ Gay Marriage Position as Goalposts Shift

by on

Jeb Bush, the new GOP presidential front-runner (but at this early stage, don’t bet the ranch), weighed in on gay marriage. What he said marks a welcome shift toward moderation in line with statements by other GOP governors of late (including Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and Utah Gov. Gary Herbert, among others), and is in marked contrast to earlier Bush statements (actually, in contrast to his statements of just a few days earlier).

Republicans who are not creatures of the religious right like Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee are increasingly coming to terms with the fact that a moderate position on gay marriage for most Americans today (as opposed to four or eight years ago) is the freedom to marry.

As reported by the paper of record:

As gay couples began to wed in Florida after a court ruling, Jeb Bush, the state’s former governor and long an opponent of same-sex marriages, struck a conciliatory note on Monday, telling The New York Times that “regardless of our disagreements, we have to respect the rule of law.” …

Mr. Bush’s comments suggested a tepid acceptance of the new legal status, or at least an acknowledgment that there is little he can do to block it.

“We live in a democracy, and regardless of our disagreements, we have to respect the rule of law,” Mr. Bush said in a statement. “I hope that we can show respect for the good people on all sides of the gay and lesbian marriage issue—including couples making lifetime commitments to each other who are seeking greater legal protections and those of us who believe marriage is a sacrament and want to safeguard religious liberty.”

The Times further noted:

His remarks were markedly more sympathetic to same-sex marriage than comments he made to The Miami Herald on Sunday as he left a golf course. “It ought be a local decision—I mean, a state decision,” Mr. Bush told The Herald. “The state decided. The people of the state decided. But it’s been overturned by the courts, I guess.”

Gay rights leaders said they found Mr. Bush’s statement on Monday encouraging. Fred Sainz, a spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign, a group that has pushed for same-sex marriage, said that “most Republican politicians have been adamant in their opposition and provide no room for evolution.” Mr. Bush “at least is expressing his respect for those who support marriage equality,” Mr. Sainz said. “That’s a big change for Republicans.”

And on this point, I must agree with HRC.

According to a look at Bush’s statement and the responses to it by Business Insider, “Jeb Bush Changes His Tune On Gay Marriage“:

Bush was clearly attempting to strike a moderate tone with his statement. The Miami Herald’s Mark Caputo, one of the foremost experts on Sunshine State politics, described it as having a “neither too-hot-nor-cold Goldilocks quality.” However, it was still a marked shift from his past comments on gay marriage.

LGBT Democrats will complain that tepid acceptance is no longer acceptable. Indeed, according to Business Insider:

“Jeb Bush remains as out of touch as ever with Floridians and voters nationwide on the civil rights issue of our time,” the [Florida Democratic Party’s] chair, Allison Tant, said in a statement. “Bush championed these discriminatory policies as governor, and it’s a shame that he remains determined to stand for the forces of bigotry.”

This, of course, ignores that just a few years ago their beloved Clintons were also opposed to same-sex marriage, as for that matter was Barack Obama, but let’s not get sidetracked into the swamp of LGBT Democratic hypocrisy.

We conclude that accepting the inevitable is indeed a sign of progress for the leading presidential contenders from the nation’s conservative party.

More. Chain reaction: Marco Rubio now says about gay marriage: Courts are weighing in and “whatever the law is, we’re going to abide by it and respect it.” He doesn’t want to be out-Bushed!

I should add that I find it increasingly difficult to take N.J. Gov. Chris Christie seriously, but let’s note that his tone about gay marriage is more antagonistic that the latest statements from Bush and even Rubio. Christie is willing to accept the inevitable in New Jersey but calls on the GOP to continue fighting against the freedom to marry nationally. That attempt to court social conservatives who aren’t going to support him anyway shows, again, how out of touch he is.

Furthermore. Mitt Romney, who apparently still supports a federal constitutional amendment to outlaw same-sex marriage nationally, looks likely to challenge Bush for the center right space. So it will be interesting to see how that plays out. The divergence is being noted. The Independent reports:

This week [Bush] also set himself apart from many conservatives (and Mr Romney) on gay marriage. While not fully endorsing same-sex marriage, he said in a statement that rulings by court judges allowing it, as has just happened in Florida, should be respected by everyone. “We live in a democracy,” he said, “and regardless of our disagreements, we have to respect the rule of law.”

62 Comments

‘Manspreading’ and the Frequent Pettiness of Grievance Activism

by on

A New York Times exposé is getting a lot of internet buzz. The topic is “manspreading,” the practice of men spreading their legs while sitting on public transportation. The articles begins by describing the issue as one of men taking up space beyond the confines of a single seat. But before long, we get to the heart of the matter: manspreading is described by aggrieved women as sexual harassment.

Here is a photo from the Times piece showing this insidious practice. Trigger warning, beware of the microaggressions you might experience from viewing this.

Many readers taking exception to the Times piece (Gawker reposted a range of comments) pointed out the obvious: men have testicles and it can be uncomfortable to sit with legs together.

The counter-response by some feminists has been, essentially, “too bad” (I’m putting it politely). Like Victorian prudes, propriety demands that legs only be crossed at the ankles.

The libertarian-minded writer Cathy Young puts things into perspective:

[F]eminist activists and commentators have tended to… promote women-as-victims, men-as-bad-guys narratives. … Trivial pursuit is not the path to equity. Feminism is now battling the alleged scourge of men who take up too much space on public transit by spreading their legs? Not only is this selective male-shaming (social media users quickly noted that female riders are guilty of different-but-equal sins), it is also a comically petty grievance that could suggests the aggrieved have no real issues. Half of successful advocacy is knowing to pick one’s battles.

Women, minorities, gay people, all people…there are plenty of real problems, yet our culture of grievance is obsessed with manufacturing offenses and then forcing others to repent these secular sins. it’s often about nothing more than who’s got the power to make others placate their wounded egos.

More. Craig123 comments: “The objections to ‘manspreading’ are part of the wider feminist critique of masculine ‘swagger,’ which has all to do with a hatred of masculinity and masculine expression. Gay progressives, these are your left-coalition allies. Enjoy your neuterdom.”

Furthermore. No, this isn’t some obscure point raised by fringe feminists. Via the local CBS affiliate, in Bill de Blasio’s New York MTA To Launch Campaign Aimed At Curbing ‘Manspreading’ on Public Transit.

Still more. And let us not invisibilize those other manifestations of patriarchy that have appeared in in the feminist lexicon of late, among these manslamming (“the sidewalk M.O. of men who remain apparently oblivious to the personal space of those around them”) and mansplaining (“explaining without regard to the fact that the explainee knows more than the explainer, often done by a man to a woman”).

22 Comments

Marriage and the State, Revisited

by on

Last November I posted about traditionalist Christian ministers proposing a separation between religious and civil marriage—meaning that legal marriage would be performed and recognized by the state, but couples also could partake of a religious ceremony, if they chose to do so. Clergy, however, would not be licensed by the state to perform marriages. Proponents of this are asking conservative clergy to pledge not to sign government marriage licenses.

As the New York Times has just run an article about this debate within conservative Christian circles, let me reiterate. Clearly, these traditionalist (or, anti-gay-equality, if you prefer) clergy are motivated by their theological opposition to same-sex marriage. So be it, I still think it’s a good idea. I’ll repeat what I said before: religion is better off the less encumbered it is by the state and its dictates. And individual liberty is better served when the state does not intrude into matters of religious conscience. As the Times article notes as it concludes:

Dr. Radner, the pledge’s other author, is on sabbatical in France, which has long separated religious marriage from civil marriage. Seeing the separation up close has only made him more of a fan.

“Just living here made me realize that the church can function rather well,” he said, “and also avoid some of the conflict that we seem to get all embroiled in in the U.S. over sexuality matters, by being somewhat disentangled, practically, from the civil marriage system.”

10 Comments

Campus Left Targets Israel, Where Gays Are Free

by on

Those on the left who believe the Western/capitalist world is the source of all evil often target Israel as the one country so vile that not only should it be boycotted, but institutions must be pressured to divest from Israeli investments. This is, sadly, a view that’s all the rage on American and European campuses these days (here’s a look at Wellesley). Which is why it’s good to see ads such as this one: Hamas, ISIS and Iran kill gays like me.

More. Milo Yiannopoulos writes:

As a gay man I would be killed in at least ten Islamic countries for being who I am. … Feminists and left-wingers need to stop inventing fictitious complaints about “manspreading” and “manslamming” and tackle genuine oppression in the Middle East. So far they have been shamefully and inexcusably cowardly about speaking truth to real power.

10 Comments

Freedom Ascendant, and Under Siege

by on

No doubt 2014 is the year the tide was turned on marriage equality and there is no going back (take a look at Freedom to Marry’s map of the states at year-end). Up next is 2015, when the assumption is the Supreme Court will rule in favor of a nationwide constitutional right for gay people to marry.

As the Washington Blade reported this week in noting that the Supreme Court declined a request by Florida’s attorney general to stay marriage equality there, after a district court ruled in favor of it:

The refusal from the Supreme Court to stay same-sex marriages in Florida is noteworthy because although justices have denied similar requests to halt same-sex marriages in Alaska, Idaho, South Carolina and Kansas, they’ve never done so before in a state where a federal appeals court has yet to rule on the issue. The decision with regard to Florida could be a sign the Supreme Court is ready to rule in favor of nationwide marriage equality no matter what the federal appeals courts decide in the interim.

Expectations can be disappointed and hopes delayed, or dashed, but the signs look good.

This being IGF Culturewatch, let us again note that there is an authoritarian shadow that’s attached itself to the fight for the freedom to marry, and that is the desire by some to force conservative Christians to provide services to same-sex weddings, which they feel is a violation of their freedom not to be forced by the state to engage in activity that violates their religious beliefs. This is part of a wider, uglier spirit of the age, described in Politico by Flemming Rose:

…the grievance lobby has succeeded in shifting the fulcrum of the human rights debate from freedom of speech to the necessity of countering hate speech; from the individual pursuing individual liberties to the individual being aggrieved by the liberties taken by others. That shift becomes counterintuitive, the logic increasingly absurd. Those aggrieved by free speech are defended, while others whose speech is perceived as offensive to such a degree that they are exposed to death threats, physical assault, and sometimes even murder are deemed to have been asking for it: “What did they expect offending people like that?”

Freedom to marry is a culture-shifting advance forward, but it is not the only freedom that matters. For a sense of this, here’s a look by the Mercatus Center at California that’s not quite up-to-date but you get the gist (the status of freedom in the other states can also be viewed).

Here’s to a new year that will advance liberty for all.

20 Comments

The Victory Fund’s Spurious ‘Bipartisanship’

by on

Chuck Wolfe, outgoing president of the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund, in an interview with Metro Weekkly, has some decent things to say about the need to support LGBT candidates in both parties, such as “if I have an opportunity to put an openly gay person or an out lesbian in the Republican caucus who can speak up inside that caucus meeting I’m going to do it.” But then he reaffirms the Victory Fund’s litmus test to only endorse candidates who are thoroughly pro-choice on abortion, which has eliminated a good many gay Republicans from receiving Victory Fund support.

And, of course, the Victory Fund bent knee to LGBT left and union activists by refusing to support San Diego’s Carl DeMaio this year in his race for Congress, which he narrowly lost after LGBT Democrats unleashed a slew of last-minute dirty tricks.

No surprise there, since former George W. Bush press secretary Dana Perino revealed that in DeMaio’s 2008 race for San Diego mayor, “The Victory Fund not only declined to endorse DeMaio, it’s common knowledge in San Diego that it then gave his confidential campaign information to the Democrats and bragged about it.”

Sorry, Chuck, but bipartisanship doesn’t mean soliciting money from gay Republicans as well as Democrats. Either you’re bipartisan in offering support to qualified candidates who can win, or you’re not, and Victory Fund isn’t.

15 Comments

No, This Issue Is Not Going Away

by on

The New York Times takes a look at the simmering issue of local authorities forcing small business owners to sell their services on behalf of gay weddings, or else. And the hurt feelings of high-minded LGBT customers who can’t abide allowing service providers not to be forced to bend knee to them. As David Boaz tweeted:

The conservative Christian site Shoebat.com, in turn,

decided to call some 13 prominent pro-gay bakers in a row. Each one denied us the right to have “Gay Marriage Is Wrong” on a cake and even used deviant insults and obscenities against us. One baker even said all sorts of profanities against Christians…

The libertarians at Reason.com put this in perspective:

Shoebat is kind of his own worst enemy in trying to perform this experiment. … But while it would have been better for a more articulate person to have performed this experiment, it’s instructive nevertheless. If bakers are a “public accommodation” as is argued, there’s no reason for them to refuse to make these cakes or cookies or what have you. The bakeries would not be saying “Gay marriage is wrong.” They’re just selling a cake to somebody who believes that. Just as making a gay wedding cake is not an endorsement of gay marriage. It’s just fulfilling a customer’s orders.

To which I’ll add, progressive authoritarians who think this issue is settled, and that those who are appalled by what’s happening should just let it go, because when progressives are giving the orders people should do as they are told, will see that this is very far from over. Worse, that it will continue to besmirch the right, proper and still ongoing effort to secure the freedom to marry.

11 Comments

Marriage: A 2016 Non-Issue?

by on

Don’t look for culture war arguments in Campaign 2016, says Michael Barone:

I don’t think you’ll hear much about it in the 2016 campaign. The reason is that opinion on it cuts across party lines. More than any other issue I can remember, it splits Americans along lines of age. Elderly voters tend to oppose it, though by significantly smaller margins than in the past. Young voters tend to favor it by increasingly large majorities.

Most Democratic politicians favor same-sex marriage. But they don’t want to risk losing the support of elderly and many churchgoing black voters who oppose it but would otherwise support them. Most Republican politicians oppose it. But they want the votes of many Millennial generation voters who consider it a no-brainer. These splits affect primary as well as general election electorates.

So both parties are in the position of the legendary old-time politician who said, “Some of my friends are for the bill and some of my friend are against the bill, and I’m always with my friends.”

While obviously liberal Democrats have been readier to support marriage equality than conservative Republicans, few would have predicted the general silence from the mainstream GOP on this issue as of late.

20 Comments

Payback Time, Again

by on

Equality Virginia, the commonwealth state’s marriage equality lobby, can claim a role in bringing the freedom to marry to all Virginians. Kudos all round. But now, what will they do? I know! Force bakers and photographers to accept gigs that they would rather turn down. That’ll show ‘em.

This week, the group sent out a fundraising letter stating:

While we celebrate marriage, opponents of equality are doubling down on intolerance—doing their best to push Virginia backward, and trying to…use the upcoming General Assembly session to ensure that “the rights and freedoms of those who disagree with the redefinition of marriage are treated equally and not discriminated against in their religious practice, education, business, or employments.”

“The situation is urgent,” the letter declares.

Along the same lines, the Washington Post “Civilities” advice column recently ran a letter about New York state innkeepers who were fined $13,000 by the state:

I am writing about the New York state couple who refused to allow a lesbian couple to use their farm for their wedding. As a gay man who recently married, I’m troubled by this situation because I find that too many gay people who say they are being discriminated against are not willing to see that others have different beliefs and values, especially when it comes to marriage rights. In planning my own wedding, I had only one bad experience when a vendor said it would not cater to my husband and me; I took my business elsewhere. As bad as this sounds, I believe that business owners should have the freedom to choose whom they serve…

Post columnist Steven Petrow responded, indignantly: “Of course, it’s a shame that not everyone in your shoes gets to celebrate with their second-choice of vendors.” He continued:

Frankly, I wasn’t surprised to see some columnists’ blowback against the lesbian couple or New York’s $13,000 penalty against the innkeepers…. I was surprised, though, by the large number of my LGBT Facebook followers who seemed to share that view. One gay man posted: “Why ruin someone else’s livelihood, when you still found another venue, still got married, and are still just as happy?” And this from a lesbian reader: “Let us not start becoming bullies after everything we fought for….

Clearly my sympathies lie with the McCarthys [the lesbian couple], not the farm owners. I can only imagine the hurt and humiliation the couple felt when they were turned away, and I applaud them for not taking the insult quietly.

To which the Cato Institute’s David Boaz tweeted, “Let’s go around fining everyone $13,000 to show the need for tolerance.”

As I’ve said before, whether you think government should force small businesspeople to provide services for religious ceremonies they feel violate their religious beliefs has all to do with your concept of individual liberties, and whether these are fundamental rights of individuals or are gifts for the state to bestow as progressive elites decide is fit, and holding that the right not to act is no right at all. For those in the latter camp, there is just no convincing them that this is all so very wrong.

More. Making A Conservative Case for Gay Marriage. It isn’t helped when the secondary message is that we have no tolerance for religious dissension.

Furthermore. Welcome, Huffington Post readers and viewers from other links. Also check out our most recent postings.

67 Comments