IGF CultureWatch

Via the Washington Post: “Former President George H.W. Bush and his wife Barbara served as an official witnesses Saturday at the Maine wedding of Bonnie Clement and Helen Thorgalsen, co-owners of a Kennebunk general store.”

At times, both LGBT progressive activists and religious conservative activists seem to uphold the above sentiment. It puts both groups of zealots at odds with the majority of Americans—including those of traditional faith and gay Americans, who would find better ways to accommodate with one another, if the activists would let them.

Consider the Marriage and Religious Freedom Act (MRFA), a House bill introduced last week by Republicans that, the conservative Washington Times reports, “seeks to protect the religious freedom of individuals, institutions and businesses that are increasingly being punished or harassed for their beliefs on marriage.” MRFA is intended to “prohibit discrimination through the federal tax code” against citizens and institutions who think marriage is the union of one man and one woman, said Rep. Raul R. Labrador, Idaho Republican.

The paper notes that the bill would not have affected, for example, recent state actions against the New Mexico photographer or the Oregon bakery that each refused to provide services for gay marriages, based on the small business providers’ religious faith.

However, the push for the bill nevertheless is clearly a response to such actions. What the bill would do is “ensure that individuals who want to donate to a church that holds to the traditional teaching on marriage would not see their donations challenged” by the IRS. Religious conservatives fear that such moves are being pondered against Catholic and other religiously affiliated schools that won’t hire openly gay or lesbian faculty, for instance (there is currently a push in California to revoke the Boy Scouts’ state tax-exempt status over the group’s refusal to hire openly gay scoutmasters).

MFRA also would shield companies and nonprofits from “adverse actions” by the federal government, such as denying federal grants, contacts, certifications and employment based on opposition to gay marriage.

MFRA is bad legislation, but another bad idea would be limiting the moderate religious exemption in the proposed Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which if passed would outlaw workplace discrimination against LGBT people. The Washington Blade reports that Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry, which spearheads marriage equality campaigns, said he:

shares the “grave concerns” expressed by the American Civil Liberties Union over the religious exemption—which he said would “carve coverage by certain kinds of entities for LGBT people.”

Those “entities” being religiously affiliated institutions, including private schools. In their zeal to force faith-based organizations and small business owners who hold traditional religious beliefs about marriage to hire gay people or provide services (including those of an artistic nature) to lesbian or gay weddings, LGBT zealots are firing up a backlash that might come back to haunt all of us. Even worse, they are seeking to use the power of state coercion to force others to engage in actions that violate their religious beliefs, an ugly thread that runs throughout too much of human history.

An op-ed in the Wall Street Journal favoring religious freedom recently noted that:

Some 97.6% of religious adherents in the U.S.—more than half the population—belong to religious bodies that affirm the traditional definition of marriage, according to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. For those Americans, tolerance isn’t turning out to be a two-way street.

The author, Mollie Ziegler Hemingway, a “committed Lutheran” and contributor to Christianity Today, doesn’t aid her case when she goes beyond defending the rights of small business owners, arguing that government employees such as dissenting county clerks should be exempt from providing services to marrying gay couples. The state is different from civil society (or what’s left of it), something that progressive activists won’t acknowledge, either. In this misconceived view of state supremacy, religious conservatives and progressive activists are beholden to the same misconception.

More. Some activists have responded with, “well, that’s the law; they have to abide by the law.” What mendacity! As if these activists didn’t spend much of their time otherwise opposing bad laws. Moreover, the civil rights laws were enacted to remedy systemic employment discrimination against African-Americans, who often couldn’t find decent and equal employment anywhere (and often because of state “Jim Crow” laws). To apply the same government power to punish a tiny number of independent service providers with sincere religious objections to same-sex marriage is not only petty and cruel, but speaks to a lack of comprehension about the nature of religious conscience and why government should safeguard it, not coercively force individuals to violate their religious beliefs. But if you don’t take religious conviction seriously (hey, “it’s the law” and “they’re bigots; they should be forced to photograph the wedding; serves ’em right”), then you really are slouching toward totalitarianism.

Furthermore. Walter Olson replies to Mollie Ziegler Hemingway:

Many of the conscience cases she cites involving private businesses arose in jurisdictions that don’t recognize gay marriage, and most would reach the same legal result so long as local antidiscrimination laws remain in place, whether or not the law on marriage has changed. Libertarians have consistently worried about the tendency of anti-discrimination laws to erode individual rights of association. Modern progressives have consistently sought to dismiss or minimize such worries. Many conservatives from outside the libertarian tradition, such as Ms. Hemingway, do not seem to have given much attention to the issue until it gored their particular ox.

And from a posted comment at the Wall Street Journal site to Walter’s letter:

The florist in question did not “refuse to serve” gay clients. No one was turned away from her shop or denied service. Rather, she declined a solicitation to provide flowers to an event, namely a gay wedding… It’s the same thing as if a black florist sells flowers to KKK members who come into the shop, but refuses to supply flowers to a KKK function.

How many of the progressives who favor forcing small businessmen and women to bend knee to them would approve of forcing the black florist to decorate a Klan rally? [Added: Not so far-fetched, which is why a recent parody rings true.]

Finding “a new balance” between its obsession with gays and contraception and everything else would be better than not. But at some point (and it’s way, way past due), the Roman Church is going to have reform its dogma or risk increasing irrelevancy outside of the most hidebound jurisdictions. If the Latter-Day Saints can change course on formerly racist doctrine, then the Roman Church should be able to do so on its unchristian, non-Gospel-centered anti-gay doctrine, as it (mostly) has done on its past, 2,000 year history of virulent and bloody anti-Semitism. But will it?

More. A related controversy involving occasional IGF contributing author John Corvino: Catholic College Rescinds Invitation to Speaker Defending Same-Sex Marriage. John’s response is posted on his website, here.

Dale Carpenter blogs at the Volokh Conspiracy that federal recognition of same-sex marriages could put the kibosh on civil unions and domestic partnerships:

There is also, it should be noted, an effect for unmarried gay couples currently getting benefits from private employers who have recognized domestic partnerships…. Since federal benefits will now be available to same-sex spouses wherever they live, many companies across the country will likely end their domestic-partnership programs. Three decades of experimentation with alternative family statuses like civil unions and domestic partnerships is coming to an end.

That sounds reasonable, except that Wal-mart, the largest retail employer in the U.S., just announced it’s launching domestic partner benefits for employees and their (unmarried) same-sex and opposite-sex partners.

Given the decline in straight marriage, particularly among those with lower incomes, there may yet be a future for partner status, confirmed by employers if not by the state.

Eforts by Equal Marriage Arizona—a coalition of Log Cabin Arizona, local libertarians, and their allies seeking a 2014 referendum to overturn that state’s constitutional prohibition on same-sex marriage—have been scuttled by opposition from LGBT Democratic-party aligned activists. I can’t say for certain that the progressive LGBTers are wrong (they claim it’s not the right time), but I can attest, from personal experience, that they can be rejectionists about efforts that they themselves don’t initiate and control.

More from the co-chair of Equal Marriage Arizona:

We honestly thought that an effort initiated and led by Republicans and libertarians was the right choice for a heavily red state like Arizona, and I am still convinced of that. In fact, I think we knocked some of the Conservative opposition on their heels, and several Conservative commentators publicly stated that ours was a dangerously (for them) effective approach. In addition, a number of prominent Republicans took me aside and thanked me— they felt that getting this passed would help save the party from its worst impulses.

But how would that have served the one, true, Democratic Party?

Michael Barone makes some sensible observations about Obama’s fumbling foreign policy over Syria, which began with ill-conceived bombast and would-be military adventurism, and ends by making Russia’s Putin more powerful than ever:

It can be argued that Obama’s decision to hold off on air strikes and negotiate with the Russians is better for the United States in the short run than the other two alternatives on offer—ineffective air strikes or a landslide repudiation of the commander-in-chief by Congress. But in the long run it’s a terrible setback for America.

Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger muscled the Soviet Union out of Middle East diplomacy back in 1973. In the 40 years since, American presidents have kept the Russians out. Now they’re back in. A nation with a declining population, a weakened military and an economy propped up only by oil and gas exports has suddenly made itself the key interlocutor in the region. Obama has allowed this even though it’s obvious that effective disarmament is impossible in a nation riven by civil war and ruled by a regime with every incentive and inclination to lie and conceal.

At a time when Putin’s fascistic “managed democracy,” complete with anti-gay laws and thuggish street violence, should render him an international pariah, Obama has managed to make Putin the big political kahuna over the hide-saving fig leaf that Syria is going to turn over its chemical weapons (which even now it’s scattering and hiding) thanks to Putin’s benevolent intercession. Ah well, at least the Obama-Putin pact is sure to give us peace in our time.

More. How the world now sees Putin.

In New York City’s Democratic primary, Public Advocate Bill de Blasio easily bested City Council Speaker Christine Quinn. What’s worth noting is that exit polls show de Blasio, the most left-leaning candidate in the Democratic field, won handily over Quinn, who is openly lesbian and a long-time advocate for LGBT rights, among self-identified LGB voters (no polling of Ts), 47% to 34%, the New York Times notes. Among African-Americans, de Blasio—who is married to an African-American and featured his Afro-bearing black son in campaign commercials—tied former city comptroller William C. Thompson Jr., who is African American.

Perhaps gay New Yorkers no longer feel the need to vote for one of their own, or maybe “identity politics” is still the rule, but most LGB New Yorkers (or at least the Democrats) see their main identifier as being “progressives.”

Australia’s [now ex] prime minister, Kevin Rudd, provides as good a Christian response to the corrupters of the gospel as you’re likely to hear.

He follows up here.

Update. Tony Abbott’s Liberal-National Party coalition (that is, the political conservatives) has just scored a decisive win over Labour’s Rudd in Saturday’s Australian general election. Abbott is an opponent of marriage equality.

Alas, it’s the same old story: In terms of policy, Rudd is a big tax, big spending, big government (put pro gay marriage) guy; Abbott is much more fiscally responsible but bad on equality for gay Australians.

As it has done in Britain (and, to some extent, Canada), the fight for gay legal equality has got to break free of the left and find a home within conservatism. The U.S. and Australia lag far behind in this regard. And yes, to a large extent this is because of the strength of anti-gay religious rightists in America and Down Under; but it’s also a fact that the LGBT activist movement here is run by those whose self-identity is innately bound up with being on the left and supporting the expansion of the regulatory state.

Mary Cheney has quite rightly blasted her sister Liz (who is challenging incumbent Wyoming Sen. Mike Enzi in a GOP primary) for attacking same-sex marriages, such as Mary’s.

Liz declared “I am not pro-gay marriage,” and that even same-sex marriage approved by state legislatures would not be valid in her eyes. Only if voters approve marriage equality by referendum would she concede that a state could recognize the marriages of gay couples (which she would still oppose).

Liz’s stance would invalidate the marriage of her sister Mary, who was wed in the District of Columbia (where same-sex marriage was passed by the city council and signed into law by the mayor), and make illegitimate the two children of Mary and her wife, Heather Poe. Which makes Liz a very bad aunt.

This sort of bigotry is increasingly going to be hard for GOP candidates to defend. But that won’t stop them from trying. And LGBT activists will continue to oppose those Republicans who do support same-marriage, as I’ve frequently pointed out (because it’s important to note their hypocrisy as well).

On a positive note, libertarian-minded Republican Joe Lhota sounds like he would make an excellent mayor of New York. Via the New York Post:

Joe Lhota calls himself a “new brand of Republican” — in favor of “fiscal discipline” but progressive on social issues: He’s pro-choice on abortion, is fine with same-sex marriage, and is in favor of legalizing marijuana.

Asked when he last smoked pot, he said, “It’s been 40 years. It’s so long ago I can’t remember. I probably had a full head of hair.” But Lhota does recall holding libertarian views when he was just 10 years old. “In 1964, I tried to convince my grandfather, who was active in the New York City firefighters union, to vote for Barry Goldwater over Lyndon Johnson because at the time I thought his approach to limited government was right on,” he recalled.

Lhota is not anti-government—after all, he served as a deputy mayor and also ran the MTA. But, he says, “it’s not the role of government to tell us what to do and what not to do. There’s nothing more offensive to Americans—or New Yorkers in particular.”

He’s the kind of Republican many of us hoped Chris Christie would be, but isn’t.

Lhota is now the GOP frontrunner in the upcoming primaries. It increasingly looks like the Democrats will nominated the most left-leaning candidate in their “colorful” field, Public Advocate Bill de Blasio. The candidacy of openly lesbian City Council Speaker Christine Quinn seems to be fading.

More. Speaking of New Jersey and bad Republicans, GOP Senate candidate Steve Lonegan hits a new low.