IGF CultureWatch

Rick Esenberg, head of the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, offers personal thoughts on not demonizing one’s opponents. For instance:

If you think that your political opponent is evil, you are probably wrong. Most liberals are not fanatical communists or amoral libertines. Most conservatives are not heartless and greedy or censorious prudes. People differ in the priority that they place on often competing, but commonly shared, values—say liberty v. equality—and in their judgments on the way that the world works and what must be done to serve those values. Beware of responding to a cartoon that you have created, as opposed to real people and the arguments that they make.

Are they listening at MSNBC and Fox, Media Matters and the Family Research Council? Not on your life. To be fair, it’s hard when you strongly disagree with the other side’s views to keep the focus on policy arguments rather than disparaging the person, but it’s good to remember we ought to try.

Similarly, David Lampo on “the seemingly innate tendency for some people to react in completely opposite ways based on the party affiliation of the person involved.”

Also, I didn’t want to do another whole post on it, but let’s take note of Liz Cheney’s withdrawal from the Wyoming senate race. The quarrel with her lesbian sister Mary and Mary’ wife, Heather Poe, over Liz’s opposition to same-sex marriage is a harbinger of what more GOP candidates are going to be running into. Alas, the comments posted on the Washington Post article linked to above, and at other media sites reporting this story, are mostly far from civil.

James Kirchick breaks with political correctness and observes:

Two weeks ago, the Ugandan parliament passed a long-debated bill imposing lifetime sentences for gay sex acts, as well as harsh penalties for those who “promote” homosexuality. The latter clause is similar to the notorious law passed unanimously by the Russian Duma in June, which bans “propaganda of non-traditional sexual relationships.” But perhaps the most surprising development occurred in the world’s largest democracy, India, where that country’s Supreme Court overturned an earlier ruling striking down a ban on sodomy as unconstitutional. …

An irony in the whole debate over gay rights in the non-Western world is that anti-gay attitudes are now embraced by self-proclaimed “anti-imperialists” and “anti-colonialists” to differentiate themselves from louche, permissive, depraved Western societies. Whereas the British Empire may have once exported Victorian values a century and a half ago, today, it is the major force for progressive change throughout the Commonwealth—alongside, of course, local LGBT activists fighting their governments’ policies and societies’ ignorance.

Blaming British imperialism is conducive with a progressive anti-Western outlook that is aghast if you suggest that responsibility for reflexive hatefulness lies with many non-Western societies themselves.

More. Also, don’t miss Kirchick’s latest piece in Foreign Policy, “Why Putin’s Defense of ‘Traditional Values’ Is really a War on Freedom“:

Rather than highlight the anti-gay nature of the law, activists in the West would do far better to criticize it first and foremost as a violation of freedom of expression. In this way, they can appeal to the vast majority of Russian citizens who, as polls make clear, are not nearly as approving of homosexuality as Westerners. …

The Kremlin’s anti-gay assault is, in essence, an assault on the open society, and it is on those terms that it must be opposed.

And of course, lest we forget:

Yet there exists, particularly in America, a large number of conservatives extremely wary of Russia in general and Putin in particular. To their credit, they were suspicious of Putin long before the world’s gay activists joined the bandwagon, raising skepticism about the administration’s foolish and failed “reset” policy when many liberals were claiming that America needed to “repair” its relationship with Moscow (as if such a thing could ever be done, on morally acceptable terms, with Putin still in power).

The propaganda law offers one of those rare, bipartisan political opportunities where left and right can come together. Presenting the law as part and parcel of Putin’s broad crackdown on Russian civil society will expand the coalition of voices speaking out against it.

Of all the critiques that might be leveled against the Libertarian Party (and, by extension, libertarians in general, although the two are most certainly not the same), a recent posting at left-leaning Slate denigrating the LP’s support for gay equality is one of the weakest. As Brian Doherty points out in his response over at Reason.com:

Slate‘s piece combines confused thinking with near utter ignorance on its topic. However, it will, if read quickly and carelessly by equally ignorant readers, help make certain people think less of libertarianism, and that’s all that matters.

More. There is a wide range of opinion that could be called libertarian, and as commenter acer123 points out, some prominent libertarians are supportive of judicial action to ensure marriage equality. For instance, Walter Olson summarizes the libertarian Cato Institute’s brief before the Supreme Court in the Prop.8/DOMA case here:

In its active amicus program Cato has long taken a broad view of Equal Protection Clause protections, and in this case joined with the Constitutional Accountability Center to file briefs in Perry and Windsor urging that marriage be made available without distinction of sex on Equal Protection grounds.

Other prominent libertarians, however, hold a “it should just be privatized” approach to marriage that many find unrealistic, at least for the near term.

Glenn Beck, a bête noire of the progressive left, has what could be termed a conservative-libertarian bent. Take, for instance, his live/let live perspective on same-sex marriage. When previously asked by Fox’s Bill O’Reilly whether gay marriage would harm the country, Beck replied: “I believe that Thomas Jefferson said: ‘If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket what difference is it to me?’”

Also, as commenter Lori Heine takes note of, Beck recently said he would stand with GLAAD against Russia’s anti-gay laws:

Do you know what happened last week in Russia? One of their biggest stars on television said that homosexuals should be put into the ovens alive. … I said on the air this week, I will stand with GLAAD. I will stand with anybody who will stand up and say that’s crazy. That’s dangerous. That’s hetero-fascism. That’s what that is. And we’re talking about Duck Dynasty. Really? Really?

Really.

Furthermore. Stephen Richer posts a response to the Slate piece at The Daily Caller.

A federal district judge in Utah opened the door for marriage equality in the Mormon homeland. His decision could be stayed next week as Utah’s attorney general announced the state will appeal, but for now marriage licenses were being issued. [Update: immediate stay denied by the 10th Circuit.]

As Reason.com reports (I’ve inserted the case they meant to reference):

Some may be amused to note that [Judge Robert J. Shelby] actually quotes Justice Antonin Scalia’s warning from his dissent in [Windsor v. United States, which overturned the Defense of Marriage Act] that the majority opinion opened to door for this very ruling. He says that Scalia was absolutely correct.

From Judge Shelby’s opinion:

Honorable Antonin Scalia recognizes that this result was the legal outcome of the Court’s ruling in Windsor:

In my opinion, however, the view that this Court will take a state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today’s opinion… As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion…is that DOMA is motivated by “bare…desire to harm” couples in same-sex marriages. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status.

…The court agrees with Justice Scalia ‘s interpretation of Windsor and finds that the important federalism concerns at issue here are nevertheless insufficient to save a state law prohibition that denies the Plaintiffs their rights to due process and equal protection under the law.

Should this case be joined with those that are heading toward the U.S. Supreme Court, it will be fun to see Scalia dance around his words.

Utah is the 9th state in 2013 to recognize marriage equality. All together, 18 states—CA, CT, DE, HI, IA, IL, ME, MD, MA, MN, NH, NJ, NM, NY, RI, VT, UT, and WA—plus Washington, D.C. now have freedom to marry for same-sex couples.

Update. Same-sex marriage in Utah has now been stayed by the U.S. Supreme Court until the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals hears and rules on the state’s appeal. Eventually, this one may end up being adjudicated in full before the Supreme Court.

(Update: If you read to the “final update” at the end, A&E announces Phil Robertson is back and filming will resume as normal. GLAAD’s strong-arming proved not just ineffective, but has made the LGBT community look authoritarian and censorious. Just as with GLAAD’s anti-Chick-Fil-A campaign. Please, let’s pull the plug on this organization!)

Phil Robertson, the patriarch of the redneck “Duck Dynasty” unleashed a torrent of benighted views about gay people in an interview with GQ, not on the family’s megahit A&E reality show.

In response, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation issued a statement with a thinly veiled call for sponsors to boycott the show. Said GLAAD spokesperson Wilson Cruz: “Phil’s decision to push vile and extreme stereotypes is a stain on A&E and his sponsors who now need to reexamine their ties to someone with such public disdain for LGBT people and families.”

Aside from addressing Robertson as “Phil” (are they buddies?), Cruz’s suggestion that sponsors reexamine their ad buys isn’t likely to garner much traction. So why call for it, except as an auto-reflex meant to gin up donors? In particular, given that Robertson’s views were not expressed on the A&E show (but in a sophisticated men’s style magazine, where no doubt the editors expected they would be met with derision), the best response would have been to rationally counter his arguments publicly, rather than engage in an impotent attempt to drive his brood off the air.

Update 1: A&E has suspended Phil Robertson indefinitely from filming “Duck Dynasty.” [Added: But will air a “Duck Dynasty” marathon that prominently features him.] I maintain my position that debate is preferable to silencing the opposition.

Update 2: I’m not the only one who had this response. Brandon Ambrosino writes, “Why is our go-to political strategy for beating our opponents to silence them? Why do we dismiss, rather than engage them?”

Update 3: Sponsor responds, “It’s a free country and Phil has a right to his opinions.”

When your first impulse toward somebody who says something anti-gay is to try to get them fired, something is very wrong. And let’s not forgot the hypocrisy factor. Progressives never tire of telling us that those who cooperated with the Hollywood blacklist were terrible, horrible, unforgivable people for pressuring the movie studios to fire those well-meaning liberals in a hurry who joined the Communist party and supported Stalin.

Let me clarify for those who seem determined to willfully misconstrue, the issue is not whether A&E has a right to fire Robertson for not being the sort of person it wants to be associated with—of course it does. The issue is whether GLAAD’s immediate response should have been to try to pressure A&E, through its sponsors, to fire Robertson.

Not so very long ago, before the proverbial worm turned, religious conservatives would routinely target sponsors of TV shows with gay characters. This could be effective, leading to script changes that prevented open displays of affection between same-sex couples, for instance. Now, those campaigns have lost their teeth, as shown by the failed attempt to intimidate Penny’s after the retailer hired Ellen Degeneres as a TV pitchwoman. And now that the power has shifted, gay activists are deploying the same tactics against religious conservatives. You’d think that would make them at least queasy, but it doesn’t. Again and again, yesterday’s victim becomes tomorrow’s inquisitor.

Update 4: Cultural critic and open lesbian Camille Paglia weighs in:

“To express yourself in a magazine in an interview — this is the level of punitive PC, utterly fascist, utterly Stalinist, OK, that my liberal colleagues in the Democratic Party and on college campuses have supported and promoted over the last several decades,” Paglia said. “This is the whole legacy of free speech 1960’s that have been lost by my own party.”

“I speak with authority here, because I was openly gay before the ‘Stonewall rebellion,’ when it cost you something to be so. And I personally feel as a libertarian that people have the right to free thought and free speech.”

And yes, Ted Cruz and other conservatives are making hay out of this. If you open the door for them (as was also done with the misguided Chick-fil-A fiasco), don’t be surprised if they walk in.

Update 5: Log Cabin Republicans suggest mediating this dispute with a “Moonshine Summit.” There was a time when those on the left also thought changing hearts and minds was important. Now it’s about power and punishment.

Update 6: A broad overview of the controversy from Da Tech Guy:

“Apparently A&E didn’t realize that the ‘Duck Dynasty’ customer base were not the same audience as Will & Grace. … Nor did the cultural elites figure out that the advertisers know who is actually buying their products.”

GLAAD will only succeed in getting “Duck Dynasty” merchandise off the shelves in liberal jurisdictions, while customers in areas GLAAD views as benighted are flocking to purchase said merchandise in a show of support for the Robertsons. But then, it’s always been about fundraising and appealing to the base.

Update 7. Via James Kirchick, writing in New York’s Daily News:

All of the comments in question were uttered in forums other than the TV show, rendering the accusation that A&E or its corporate sponsors somehow endorse Robertson’s views even more preposterous.

Nevertheless, the remarks set off an avalanche of righteous outrage from gay rights organizations. You’d think that with India rebanning sodomy, Uganda reinstituting lifetime prison sentences for gays and Vladimir Putin leading a crusade against homosexuality, that America’s relatively comfortable gay establishment would have bigger homophobic ducks to fry.

But in the minds of many of America’s leading gay activists, the barely literate comments of a Louisiana yokel rise to the level of national crisis.

Indeed!

Final update? A&E announces “Duck Dynasty” will resume filming in the new year—with Phil Robertson. GLAAD bet it all on having enough muscle to strong-arm A&E by threatening to pressure sponsors, and lost. What a foolish, impotent, and counter-productive effort. Shame on GLAAD and (let’s take a page from the GLAAD playbook), those who support it. Let’s boycott ’em.

Also worth noting:

Before joining GLAAD [Wilson] Cruz worked for The National Gay & Lesbian Task Force. This same NGLTF honored Raul Castro’s daughter Mariela at the New York Public Library in May 2012 with a forum to spout her regime’s anti-American propaganda. Needless to add, Raul Castro’s daughter–an official of the only regime in the history of the Western hemisphere to herd gay men and boys at Soviet bayonet-point into forced labor camps and torture chambers–received a standing ovation at the event sponsored by this gay rights organization.

In brief, according to Wilson Cruz, Phil Robertson simply cannot be allowed to express his views (which happen to coincide with a majority of Americans’) in a free-market venue. This amounts to “pushing lies.” But Mariela Castro must be allowed to spew Stalinist propaganda at New York taxpayer’s expense. Apparently this amounts to spreading the enlightenment as reckoned by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

Any questions why so many flyover Americans question the agenda of outfits like GLAAD and The National Gay & Lesbian Task Force?

As I shared from commenter Jared123 in my November 2013 post “GLAAD Needs a Mission Update“:

Groups like GLAAD attract LGBT progressives who want to work to advance a partisan left-liberal agenda. Unfortunately, when your message to conservatives isn’t “we think you should support civil equality and social inclusion of gay people,” but rather, “we think you’re wrong about everything and should become liberals,” you’re not going to accomplish much, although your fellow progressives will invite you to their parties and tell you that it’s wonderful you’re advancing the cause (of progressivism).

COMMENTS CLOSED. THIS PAGE IS AT ITS LIMIT AND ADDING ADDITIONAL COMMENTS WILL CAUSE EXISTING COMMENTS TO DISAPPEAR FROM VIEW.

The New York Times presents a debate on polygamy that includes IGF friend John Corvino, who says:

Polygamy raises a number of public-policy concerns that same-sex marriage does not. … While I’m skeptical about extending state recognition to plural marriages, a free society has no more business outlawing “cohabitation” — as the Utah law did—than it has outlawing consensual romantic relationships. Instead of fearmongering, it’s time we debate polygamy on the merits.

I would agree. There are strong arguments against extending marriage recognition to polygamy, but also major differences between fundamentalist religious polygamy, in which women have few if any rights, and what might be termed contemporary polyamory, in which long-term trios, for instance, see themselves as real families that deserve the rights of families. Without question, the topic will continue to be used by social conservatives to discredit same-sex marriage equality as a “slippery slope.” But the issue should nevertheless be addressed and debated.

Pennsylvania state representative Mike Fleck came out last year but said the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund advised him to stay in the closet, even after winning re-election, reports the Washington Blade, in a story first reported by the Philadelphia Gay News. According to the Blade:

Fleck’s comments to PGN prompted lesbian commentator Faith Elmes to write a column for the Pennsylvania blog Keystone Student Voice questioning the Victory Fund’s motives…. Elmes accused the Victory Fund of pushing for Fleck to stay in the closet long enough so that gay activist and attorney Brian Sims, a Democrat, would emerge as the state’s first openly gay member of the Pennsylvania House.

The Victory Fund and the Human Rights Campaign are closely aligned with—and many would say controlled by—the Democratic party, and their leadership typically consists of Democratic party activists. As I’ve often said and firmly believe, many “progressive” LGBT activists’ worst nightmare is a Republican party with more openly gay and gay supportive office holders.

Added: The Victory Fund has supported gay Republicans over the years who met its stringent pro-choice on abortion criteria, but excluded openly gay Republicans who have not. Let’s hope publicity over the above incident serves to deter a further HRC-type decline into rank partisanship.

There was grim news from India this week, when the nation’s highest court reinstated a draconian law outlawing sexual relations between consenting same-sex adults (the law, which imposes long prison sentences on violators, was struck down by a lower court in 2009).

India remains a deeply socially reactionary country, in large part due to fundamentalist Hinduism, Islam and, to a lesser extent, Christianity. Despite being officially outlawed, the caste system, deeply rooted in Hinduism, remains a major determinant of success and social standing (and who socializes with whom). And with its ties to “honor killings” and other murderous violence often given sanction by a corrupt judicial system, caste discrimination makes contemporary American racism look benign. In a sense, caste legitimizes a culture of discrimination. (All those American and European hipsters who trekked to India beginning in the 60s to get enlightened from authoritarian Hindu gurus hadn’t a clue about this, or much of anything else, it seems.)

Fortunately, in the wake of international outrage, there are signs the Indian government could seek to get rid of the anti-gay law.

We are not accustomed to perceiving India in the same disparaging way we view Russia or Uganda; but if the law remains it will be necessary to do so and to engage in the full range of boycotts and other actions that express international outrage.

It’s not surprising that a GOP House member (in this case, Rep. Randy Forbes of Virginia), would call on his party to withhold support for openly gay Republicans running for Congress (that would be former San Diego city councilman Carl DeMaio and, in Massachusetts, Richard Tisei, who narrowly lost to Democratic Rep. John Tierney in 2012.)

What is surprising is that the House leadership would make it eminently clear it will support gay Republicans who secure their party’s nomination in congressional races, as Politico reports:

When asked if his party should support gay candidates, Boehner simply said, “I do.”

Why Republicans matter. From pollster Charlie Cook:

The Democratic numbers from the generic-ballot test dropped from 45 percent to 37 percent, and Republicans moved up to 40 percent. This 10-point net shift from a Democratic advantage of 7 points to a GOP edge of 3 points in just over a month is breathtaking…

That won’t dissuade the one-party-is-all-we-need crowd, nor should anyone expect the once-nonpartisan Human Rights Campaign to begin endorsing openly gay Republicans (they opposed Tisei in his last run for Congress). Gay activists is San Diego also worked against DeMaio when he ran, and narrowly lost, the San Diego mayoral race to a Democrat who has since resigned due to serial sexual harassment charges.

Another sad story of the perversion of the struggle for gay civil equality and social inclusion into something draconian and ugly, this time from Britain.

Of course, there are real cases of outright anti-gay intolerance, and some of them aren’t even faked. That doesn’t justify this kind of persecution against people of faith — and please, spare us all the comments about how their faith is wrong so this is perfectly ok and anyway, serves ’em right. Or that fealty to the state must trump personal religious conscience, as if that were the American way instead of its opposite.

My hope is that the U.S. Supreme Court does not make the same appalling decision when it hears a similar case.

More. As the case of a Colorado cakeshop owner Jack Phillips, who refused to prepare a wedding cake for a gay couple, heads to court in Denver, the Washington Times reports that:

Denver talk-show host Peter Boyles of KNUS-AM is championing Mr. Phillips‘ cause…even though Mr. Boyles says he’s in favor of same-sex marriage.

“I’m a huge supporter of gay rights, gay weddings, gay marriage, adoption rights, but these guys are wrong and the Masterpiece Cakeshop is right,” said Mr. Boyles on Monday’s broadcast.

Mr. Phillips “doesn’t say, ‘You can’t come in here and buy’; he says, ‘I’m not going to make you a cake of two men getting married,’” said Mr. Boyles. “As much as I support two men getting married, I support his right to say no.”

There are issues on which libertarians and left-liberal progressives are allied—such as support for marriage equality on the part of the state—and issues on which advocates of liberty and advocates of statism are firmly opposed. Forcing self-employed individuals to engage in expressive activities that violate their religious beliefs is one of the latter.