IGF CultureWatch

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.

As the Washington Blade reports, media executive Sarah Kate Ellis will become the next president of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.

She sounds like a savvy media pro, but do we really need GLAAD to remain a “media watchdog”? I’d prefer to see GLAAD return to its long-abandoned roots and actively engage and debate with those who don’t support gay equality. Instead, it either nitpicks at the networks for (still) not having enough LGBT characters, or issues press releases supporting the progressive agenda—denouncing the Supreme Court ruling that timed-out parts of the Voting Rights Act and the Trayvon Martin verdict, etc. To paraphrase snarkily, Give us money so we can keep sending out press releases and holding big fundraisers with our Hollywood celebrity friends.

In contrast, with no budget to speak of, IGF contributing authors John Corvino and Jonathan Rauch, among others, have done far more to actively engage and publicly debate those on the anti-gay right.

We’ll see if Ellis intends to move GLAAD beyond the limited role it has set for itself over the past decade in order to become, once again, a serious organization, like the Anti-Defamation League on which it was modeled. Or if GLAAD instead continues to be just another liberal bandwagon with few actual accomplishments.

More. One of GLAAD’s low points. As I noted earlier this year, Fox News anchors were courted by GLAAD to attend the group’s annual media awards hoop-la, and when they did, GLAAD issued a stinging denunciation of Fox News and its anchors for, among other things, attending the event. If the anchors hadn’t shown up, I suppose GLAAD would have issued a stinging denunciation. Which is all the more pathetic, since the views expressed by Fox News anchors and commentators aren’t monolithic and are becoming better on gay issues. No thanks to GLAAD.

Furthermore. Reader Jared123 comments, perceptively:

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).

Liz Cheney’s opposition to marriage equality as she campaigns in Wyoming for the GOP senate nomination (against incumbent GOP Sen. Mike Enzi) has caused a rupture with her openly gay sister, Mary Cheney, and Mary’s wife Heather Poe. Anti-gay activists have also criticized Liz Cheney for not being more anti-gay (for these groups, you can never be too anti-gay, as Virginia’s failed GOP gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli learned (and here).

Liz would be better off not trying to delegitimize her sister’s wife (her own sister-in-law) and kids. That would be a principled stand that showed some integrity, rather than battling with Enzi to see who can be more intolerant.

More. Dick and Lynne back Liz. As much as I disagree with Liz Cheney, she is less awful than incumbent Mike Enzi, who wants to amend the U.S. Constitution to prohibit states from recognizing same-sex marriages. But she could have help saved the GOP from itself. Now, the betting is the family feud will only solidify Enzi’s substantial lead.

Furthermore. Matt Barnum writes in Politico Magazine, Free Mary Cheney!:

The Republican Party is on a collision course with an electorate that is rapidly shifting on gay rights. … At the same time, the gay rights movement needs the backing of Republicans now more than ever after its string of historic victories in deep blue states. Why? Because it’s the only way to win marriage equality in more conservative parts of the country.

Both sides need to face the same realization: There may not be many of us yet, but Republicans who support gay rights are both the future of the GOP and the future of the LGBT movement.

Via Reason.com (and much of the blogosphere): As he slurs gay men (once again) while justifying himself as pro-LGBT and a friend of GLAAD, Alec Baldwin was called out for his hypocrisy by some conservatives, including those at Breitbart.com. Baldwin responded by slurring libertarians (tweeting, “When did the Breitbart libertarian trash become defenders of gay rights?”). Actually, the late Andrew Breitbart favored gay inclusion in the conservative movement and focusing on fiscal not social issues (although the same can’t be said for everyone now posting at Breitbart.com).

I was going to write a post defending religious exemptions in the Employee Non-Discrimination Act passed by the Senate, and then got waylaid by some truly bizarre stuff regarding religious exemptions in the Hawaii marriage bill.

First, ENDA, where I support religious exemptions for faith-based organizations including hospitals, universities and charities. But Brian Silva, executive director of Marriage Equality USA, and Heather Cronk is co-director of GetEQUAL, blasted such exemptions in their op-ed in the Washington Blade. They wrote:

This version of ENDA, however, creates such broad religious exemptions that even a nurse at a Catholic hospital or a secretary at a Baptist university would be subject to discrimination for no other reason than being LGBT. … The legislative process is always a matter of compromise — but our core values should never be up for negotiation.

That objection seems reasonable, if you think it’s reasonable for the state to use force to coerce employers to violate their religious beliefs because you think those beliefs are in error. ENDA is sweeping enough (as I’ve said, I believe it would be better to limit anti-discrimination measures to government and government contractors. Race-based discrimination is an exception, given the systemic nature of anti-black hiring discrimination in the U.S. prior to the civil rights movement, often supported by state governments’ Jim Crow laws).

ENDA probably will never see the light of day in the House, but if it should come up, broad religious exemptions would be politically necessary for its passage. Trying to force traditional faith-based organizations to hire and promote openly gay people and transsexuals is the wrong way to go.

Another Blade op-ed, by businessman Mike Lee, makes a number of points I agree with. He writes:

Will there be more paperwork to complete and required cover-your-behind steps in hiring or firing? Will there be new human resource litigation-inoculation training to undergo? Will costly unfounded retaliatory claims by falsely aggrieved employees and applicants be instigated against employers honestly exercising the right to make employment decisions absent prejudice or violation of the law? Will pink-slip-chasing attorneys be beneficiaries? Yes, of course. …

Changing attitudes and behavior through coercion, whether concerning big things or small matters and no matter how soothing a salve to the pain of history, is the easy and empty act. We need to remember that.

But then, I find myself, along with many others, appalled by the fact that an openly lesbian state representative in Hawaii voted against their marriage equality bill because it has insufficient religious exemptions. As the Blade reports:

The Hawaii House of Representatives on Friday gave its final approval to a bill that would extend marriage rights to same-sex couples in the Aloha State.

But wait:

Lesbian state Rep. Jo Jordan is among those who voted against SB1. “I had come to the decision that SB1 needed to [be] amended,” the lawmaker told Honolulu Magazine. “It wasn’t protective enough for everybody.”

In the Honolulu Magazine piece, the reporter tells Jordan, “People are calling you the first openly gay legislator to vote against same-sex marriage,” and she responds, rather confusingly:

I really am not happy with the [religious] exemptions. Too narrow. … I haven’t figured out why I felt so compelled to fight for the religious exemptions … My religion is the mountain, the aina and spiritual. I’m still trying to figure out. I’ve always followed paths. I don’t find the path. The path finds me. This, obviously, is a path I’m supposed to go. You’re not supposed to question. Just ‘OK.’

Jordan added she was moved by the spectacle of those brought in by religious and conservative groups to testify against marriage equality, saying:

“when you’re outside the room and seeing people waiting three, four days to stand up there for two minutes. That spoke volumes to me. People coming back day after day, waiting for their chance when they got missed.”

Yes, they are very dedicated to making sure other people don’t receive equal legal rights. Jordan doesn’t get that.

The distinction is that ENDA is not about equal legal rights; it’s about limiting the rights of business, including faith-affiliated employers. But marriage is about equal rights under the law.

The Hawaii marriage bill has reasonable exemptions so that no denomination is forced to marry anybody. But civil servants should treat gay people equally, despite their religious beliefs, because the government should be neutral.

Beyond that, forcing private citizens and businesses to recognized legally married same-sex couples has more to do with anti-discrimination law (again!) than marriage law, which is where we get the bakers and photographers being sued to provide services to same-sex weddings and commitment ceremonies, which they believe is coerced behavior that violates their religious beliefs. Fault the anti-discrimination laws for not providing a sufficient religious exemption in those cases, not equal access to marriage under the law.

More. The Elane Photography case (in which a lesbian couple tried to force Elaine Huguenin, a conservative Christian, to photograph their commitment ceremony in Taos, New Mexico) could be heading to the U.S. Supreme Court. Is this really where we want to use our legal capital before the court, to force religious conservatives to bend knee to us? “Progressives” apparently think so. How truly sad and misguided.

Furthermore. Via Cato’s Walter Olson, “Why Is the ACLU on the Wrong Side of the Wedding Photographer Case?” and Reason magazine’s Jacob Sullum, “The Constitutional Right to Conscript a Wedding Photographer.”

The fact that arch social conservative Ken Cuccinelli’s loss of the Virginia governor’s race to Democratic crony capitalist Terry McAuliffe was narrower than expected just makes clearer how social-issues extremism cost the GOP a winnable election. Political columnist Bart Hinkle explains why:

Early in his term as attorney general [Cuccinelli] told state universities they had no authority to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and he has defended with Ahab-like mania a state sodomy law doomed by the Supreme Court a decade ago….

To conservatives, economic freedom is paramount, the rest no big deal. But to libertarians, personal and civil liberties are no less vital: Big government has no place in either the boardroom or the bedroom. If Cuccinelli shared that view, then he would have a better chance of participating in the gubernatorial inauguration Jan. 8 — rather than merely watching it.

Although I haven’t shied away from criticizing N.J. Gov. Chris Christie’s opposition to marriage equality, which came to the Garden State anyway with legislative and judicial support, Christie is nevertheless widely viewed as a social-issues moderate, and his large (as expected) reelection win in a solidly Democratic state is being viewed as another defeat for GOP social extremism.

Finally, the passage of marriage equality in Illinois makes it the 15th state to come onboard. Republican state Rep. Tom Cross, who stepped down from his position as House minority leader earlier this year, voted for the bill, stating, “For me, supporting marriage equality is not only the right decision, but also consistent with my belief in individual freedom, equality and limited government.” Meanwhile, the African American Clergy Coalition praised those who voted against the gay-marriage measure.

Yes, Democrats mostly supported the same-sex marriage bill and Republicans overwhelmingly opposed it, but the lines are not perfectly stark, and that presents an opportunity to expand support beyond the Democratic party, if that’s what’s actually wanted. A bad night for the GOP’s anti-gay “moral” crusaders could make that more likely.

Jon Stewart’s Daily Show finds Mississippi and Alabama are changing with the rest of the country. Without overstating things, I believe at least some of the bright red states that passed anti-gay-marriage amendments just a few years ago probably would not do so today.

Jonathan Rauch makes The Case for Hate Speech:

Our great blessing was to live in a society that understands where knowledge comes from: not from political authority or personal revelation, but from a public process of open-ended debate and discussion, in which every day millions of people venture and test billions of hypotheses. All but a few of those theories are found wanting, but some survive and flourish over time, and those comprise our knowledge. …

History shows that the more open the intellectual environment, the better minorities will do. … To make social learning possible, we need to criticize our adversaries, of course. But no less do we need them to criticize us.

Dale Carpenter shares why he agrees:

As a matter of history, Rauch is certainly right that gay-rights advocates and opponents have met repeatedly on the battlefield of ideas, and that the former have consistently bested the latter. Rauch’s case directly and powerfully supports the view that government should not ban hate speech.

All in all, a timely rebuke to the politically correct silencing of offensive ideas.

A new lobbying effort to move the GOP to the middle on gay rights. Good luck. However, many gay libertarians don’t think the Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) should be a litmus test, but rather equality under the law. And beware those unintended consequences (such as passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act being correlated with a lower percentage of handicapped Americans being hired).

Another sign of the times: Evangelical Leader Preaches Pullback From Politics, Culture Wars. No change in the Southern Baptists’ opposition to marriage equality but plans to soft-pedal it a bit, as we’ve seen from the Mormons and from Pope Francis.

More. Long-time readers know that I am, and remain, equivocal about ENDA. Yes, other minorities subject to various degrees of employment discrimination are protected by federal statute, and thus so should gays, is an understandable argument. Also, it would send a strong message that the federal government views anti-gay discrimination in the workplace as unacceptable. I get that. On the other hand, we’ve seen over the past decades a huge rise in frivolous lawsuits charging minority or gender-based discrimination with little or no reasonable evidence, which are nonetheless typically settled by employers because of the cost of litigation and “you never know what a jury might rule.”

In the case of those with disabilities (who, like gay and transgender employees would be under ENDA, are not subject to hiring and promotion preferences based on statistical analysis), the risk of opening the door to an employee’s discrimination suit is correlated with a drop in hiring, the opposite of the anticipated result. Also, there is scant evidence that discrimination against gays in the workplace is widespread.

I’d welcome an executive order or law saying government contractors must not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. And I wouldn’t lobby against ENDA; but I don’t see it as the priority activists have made it, either.