IGF CultureWatch

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.

Conservative Christians have constitutional rights, too. But not in New Mexico.

A truly appalling, if unanimous, decision by the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled it is illegal for a Taos event photographer to refuse on religious grounds to shoot the commitment ceremony of a same-sex couple.

Elaine Huguenin and her husband, Jonathan, argued they had a free speech and religious right not to shoot the ceremony, which conflicted with their fundamental religious tenets. As the Wall Street Journal‘s Law Blog notes,

The case dates back to 2006 when Vanessa Willock asked the Huguenins to photograph a commitment ceremony that she and her partner were planning to hold in the town of Taos. After getting turned down, the couple accused the company of discrimination in a complaint to the New Mexico Human Rights Commission.

An amicus brief filed on behalf of the Huguenins by the Cato Institute, Prof. Dale Carpenter and Prof. Eugene Volokh had argued that constitutional protections for free speech apply to creative endeavors such as photography, and that:

the taking of wedding photographs, like the writing of a press release or the creation of a dramatic or musical performance, involves many hours of effort and a large range of expressive decisions.

Therefore, requiring a commercial photographer to provide services is different from requiring other services be provided on a nondiscriminatory basis. But to no avail. In New Mexico and increasingly elsewhere, once progressives are empowered, anyone can and will be ordered to dance to their tune.

Back in 2008, I noted of this case:

Aside from the legal merits of violating [Elaine] Huguenin’s liberty, just what do the offended lesbians who brought this action hope to accomplish by forcing Huguenin to work for them? It’s the kind of totalitarian-leaning nastiness in the name of the self-righteous promotion of “equality” that would make Robespierre proud.

I again discussed this case last September, noting George Will’s observation that Vanessa Willock, the lesbian bringing the suit,

could then have said regarding Elane Photography what many same-sex couples have long hoped a tolerant society would say regarding them—“live and let live.” Willock could have hired a photographer with no objections to such events. Instead, Willock and her partner set out to break the Huguenins to the state’s saddle.

I’d now put it this way: Why a gay couple would want to force a photographer to cover their ceremony against his or her will can be explained in one word: animus. Now the bigots will pay!

And thus does a just cause for expanding liberty fall prey to the nasty zealots of forced coercion, smugly congratulating themselves on their triumph.

More. The AP (via NPR’s website) on the “Divide Over Religious Exemptions on Gay Marriage.” Jonathan Rauch is quoted on why moderation should prevail.

Furthermore. I think this comment gets it right. For all those declaring the supremacy of the state over an individual’s religious convictions, and its authority to force behavior that violates religious convictions, shame on you.

And worth repeating. From The Communist Roots of Russian Homophobia:

While it is among the most evil manifestations, Russia’s homophobia is just one symptom of its collectivist and tyrannous history. It acts as a reminder that tolerance does not require secularity so much as a free society where all individuals, regardless of their religion, political beliefs, gender identity or sexual orientation, are allowed to live their lives in peace without state interference.

How many of the LGBT progressives who are (rightly) condemning Putin’s tactics in Russia support, here at home, using the iron fist of the state to force Americans to engage in conduct that violates their religious beliefs?

People who know the workings of conservative intellectual Catholicism tell me it is incredibly significant that Joseph Bottum now supports same-sex marriage. Here’s Bottum’s essay, published online in Commonweal. And here’s the New York Times story.

….By Speaking Truth. Journalist James Kirchick, a friend of this forum, appeared on Russia’s international English-language propaganda channel “RT” and expressed himself about Russia’s anti-gay laws and the Putin government’s violence-promoting crackdown against gay Russians.

And via the Wall Street Journal:

With more and more people speaking out, one wonders what to expect at Sochi. Given the high profile and success of gay activism in the last few years, it’s doubtful the Russians will be able to stage the kind of uplifting spectacle most of us have come to expect from the Olympic games. We may be in for an altogether different kind of fireworks.

More. The Communist Roots of Russian Homophobia:

While it is among the most evil manifestations, Russia’s homophobia is just one symptom of its collectivist and tyrannous history. It acts as a reminder that tolerance does not require secularity so much as a free society where all individuals, regardless of their religion, political beliefs, gender identity or sexual orientation, are allowed to live their lives in peace without state interference.

Furthermore. Sadly, according to many accounts, Putin’s anti-gay campaign has increased his popularity within Russia. Via Hot Air:

[Putin] needed an enemy on which to focus the public’s attention and so he chose gays, partly because he could portray them popularly as a threat to the Russian Orthodox Church and partly because it would allow him to draw a contrast with how gays are treated in the feared and loathed west. Why he didn’t choose Jews as the designated scapegoat instead, as many Russian leaders before him have, I don’t know. Could be that global awareness of anti-semitism as a tool of oppression is now such that no “respectable” fascist outside the Middle East will practice it too overtly. Better to beat on the gays instead, he probably figures, since he can still get international backing from some world leaders on that in public.

A majority of Americans believe taxes and government spending are too high, and a majority now supports marriage equality. Unfortunately, one party tends to favors greater economic but not personal freedom (with exceptions, such as gun-ownership rights), and the other tends to favor greater personal freedom (with exceptions, such as speech deemed to be offensive) but not economic freedom. Is there an opening for libertarianism?

In an answer to this question, David Boaz, the Cato Institute’s executive vice president, engages in a discussion with The Atlantic on “America’s Libertarian Moment.” Among his observations of particular interest to this forum:

I think you’re seeing a growth of self-conscious libertarianism…. [A] majority of Americans think our taxes are too high, a majority of Americans think the federal government spends too much, a majority of Americans think it was a mistake to get into Iraq. A bare majority of Americans now favor gay marriage, a bare majority favor marijuana legalization, a huge majority think there should be a requirement to balance the federal budget….

We would say that the issue of race in college admissions and the issue of equal marriage rights in the DOMA case are both applications of equal protection of the law. We actually had a similar experience 10 years ago, in 2003, when we were the only organization to have filed amicus briefs in support of Lawrence in Lawrence v. Texas [the case that struck down sodomy laws] and Jennifer Gratz in her lawsuit against the University of Michigan [for its affirmative-action policy]. There were a lot of gay-rights and liberal groups on our side in the Lawrence case, and a lot of conservatives on our side with Jennifer Gratz. We felt that we were asking for equal freedom under law for both Gratz and Lawrence….

What should a libertarian candidate be running on? I would say fiscal conservatism and social tolerance. Get the government out of people’s lives. Why do you care who marries someone else? But that’s one thing that Rand Paul can’t run on in a Republican primary. He’s not in favor of marriage equality….

If somebody’s Catholic values inform what they believe, on welfare or marriage or whatever, that’s their business…. And if your best arguments for banning gay marriage are, in fact, religious, then I think you can expect a limited reception in the courts, because the courts want to know what does the Constitution say. They’re not going to care what your religion says….

There will be more libertarian-leaning politicians in Congress, but we’re a long way from being a caucus at this point. What’s more important is what do the Republicans and Democrats who actually get elected want to do. I hope they will recognize that the country wants to move in a more tolerant direction on marriage and marijuana, and that we are overextended financially and need to restrain spending and the entitlement state.

It’s worth reading the whole thing.

More. This benighted Washington Post piece on “libertarian Democrats” reduces libertarianism to opposition toward NSA spying on Americans. No mention of supporting smaller government and lower taxes, or even issues such as school choice. The Post, of course, is the house organ of the Washington establishment, so no wonder our political elite is clueless.