IGF CultureWatch

The Boy Scouts of America recently affirmed that the organization will continuing banning gay scouts and staff, which includes the ousting of a lesbian den mother. In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the organization could ban gays whose conduct, the Boy Scouts argued, violated its values.

In other news, the president of Chick-Fil-A, the fast food chain which has reportedly donated millions to anti-gay organizations, stated that the company supports “the biblical definition of the family unit.”

On a much smaller scale, the Advocate reported that a Denver cake shop refused to make a gay couple’s wedding cake.

An iconic national youth organization, a major U.S. corporation, and a local small business each expressed their opposition to gay legal equality. The solution remains the same: to publicize and respond to their positions so that Americans can make informed choices. In the case of the scouts, this has meant keeping sons out of the group. As Rabbi Paul Menitoff wrote in 2000:

our response to the exclusionary policy of the Boy Scouts of America must be unequivocal; we must condemn it publicly, resign from the organization, refuse to sponsor or house Cub Scout or Boy Scout groups in our congregations, and ask groups (e.g. the United Way) that contribute to the Boy Scouts financially to withdraw their support. To do less is to condone discrimination and to contribute to an environment in our country that is already far too accepting of prejudice and violence against gays and lesbians.

Anti-gay groups are also free to voice their views and promote boycotts of businesses that support legal equality, as the American Family Association does. In time, however, the light will expand as darkness recedes, and ignorance, prejudice and discrimination give way as they become unacceptable.

More. The Boy Scout’s ability to deny gay members and staff was famously upheld by the Supreme Court, and no one doubts that Chick-Fil-A can give money to anti-gay groups. Regarding the Denver bakery, the owners say they serve everyone gay or straight, but they won’t make anyone a same-sex wedding cake. Whether this is disingenuous or not, I believe they have the right to produce the products they wish to produce. Others disagree. The comments to the Advocate article reflect two viewpoints, statist and libertarian: “It appears that Denver has a Human Rights Ordinance that bans anti-gay discrimination…. File a complaint with the city” vs. “They have the right not to make the cake. But we have the right to spread the word, and boycott the business.” Liberty is best served by the latter approach.

updated July 16, 2012

Young Conservatives for the Freedom to Marry is a new campaign to highlight and build support for the freedom to marry among young conservatives. According to its website, the campaign is reaching out to “the rapidly growing numbers of young conservatives across the country that agree all Americans should be able to share in the freedom to marry. The freedom to marry is not a partisan value and is consistent with basic conservative values of responsibility and community, limited government and individual freedom.” Moreover:

Last year’s Public Religion Research Institute Survey found that nearly half (49%) of Republican Millennials favor the freedom to marry, while 19% of Republican seniors and 31% of all Republican said the same. Clearly, the next generation of conservatives is driving these tectonic shifts in their party, and their thoughtful voices and willingness to depart from the perspectives shared by their older party members should be applauded and supported.

Our friend David Lampo has written a new book that fits in nicely with this effort, A Fundamental Freedom: Why Republicans, Conservatives, and Libertarians Should Support Gay Rights. He explains why “an anti-gay agenda succinctly exposes the hypocrisy of those who talk of limited government and individual rights but ignore both when it comes to gay rights and other personal freedom issues.”

More. Coverage at the Huffington Post, where David Lampo is quoted observing, “The religious right has ruined our brand. Hopefully they haven’t ruined it permanently.”

Furthermore. Rick Sincere covered the event for the Washington Examiner, taking note of featured speaker Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Florida) who remarked: “It’s bad enough that we have to deal with the overregulation of our economy. No one should have to deal with government red tape when it comes to committing themselves to those whom they love.”

More still. Here’s a link to Lampo’s July 16 op-ed in the Los Angeles Times. He writes:

Leading religious organizations and their spokesmen argue that gay rights are simply incompatible with conservative principles and policies. Yet an examination of polling data shows that most rank-and-file Republicans view gay rights issues — including the repeal of state sodomy laws, equal access to the same legal rights and privileges as heterosexuals, and the right to serve in the armed forces — as compatible with core Republican principles of individual liberty, limited government and free enterprise.

Eventually, the party’s leadership will catch-up to the rank and file.

From my viewpoint, Obamacare’s requirements that employers with 50 or more workers must provide high-level health benefits (which many employers can’t afford) or pay a penalty/tax of $2,000 or more per worker (which many employers can’t afford) will drive many relatively small or marginally profitable business out of business, or to reduce their hiring. Others may disagree. But according to the Washington Blade‘s coverage, the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force believes Obamacare, and in particular its Medicaid expansion, “is particularly important for LGBT people because they disproportionately live below the poverty level.” Moreover, according to a Task Force spokesperson:

“The Medicaid expansions are going to end up being hugely important for LGBT people because it expands coverage to low-income people, and LGBT people are disproportionately low-income … We know this because of rampant employment discrimination and housing discrimination.”

I suppose there is some poll that the Task Force could cite to support this (the article refers to the group’s own report, for what that’s worth), but much independent research indicates that gay people are not suffering from severe economic disadvantages, and advocates have been hard press to provide real evidence of “rampant employment discrimination and housing discrimination.” Isolated incidents, yes. More than that, no. (As the article goes on to note, the economic status of transgendered people is more likely to be marginal.)

And even if this all were true, further burdening the Medicaid system that’s already overextended and heading toward bankruptcy with a requirement to cover those who earn 133% above the federal poverty level, to be funded by still-more federal and state deficit spending (and, in part, with higher taxes on “the wealthy,” which also depresses economic growth and investment), isn’t likely to improve things in the long run—quite the opposite. But if you’re an LGBT progressive activist organization, you’re going to back big government spending solutions on the grounds that they’re good for gays (er, LGBTs), I suppose.

Happy Independence Day, a time to celebrate liberty and freedom (from government injustice and tyranny).

Next year, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to hear and rule on one aspect of the odious, anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act—the provision that forbids the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages and legal partnerships that are valid under state law. I’m hopeful this will topple, with libertarian-leaning Justice Kennedy joining the court’s liberals. I’m less convinced that Chief Justice Roberts will do the right thing, despite (or maybe because of) his support for government overreach in casting the deciding vote to uphold the Democrats’ liberty curtailing (and small business strangling, jobs crushing) health care “reform.”

Over at the Huffington Post, James Peron takes issue with Brendan O’Neill, former editor of Living Marxism, who argues that gay marriage is “a tool of the elite” used to disparage the working classes, to whom we should all look for correct political guidance. O’Neill writes:

gay marriage has become so central to modern political debate in America and Britain, despite there being almost no societal drive or urge behind it—because it lends itself brilliantly to expressions of a very elitist sensibility.

Counters Peron, “In the years that I’ve followed assaults on LGBT people, the attackers were almost universally from the class Marxists told me were my allies. Sorry, but I’m not going to get gay bashed for anyone’s revolution.” (Hat tip: Rick Sincere)

Finally, Deroy Murdock forwarded a link to his defense of Ronald Reagan, a fighter against totalitarian tyranny who has been a favorite target of the gay left’s wrath.

There may actually be a valid point in trans activist Ashley Love’s Washington Blade commentary, that point being “The medical condition transsexualism is neither equivalent nor subservient to gay, lesbian or bisexual sexual orientations….” But it’s pretty much lost in all the politically correct leftwing blather about:

This complicated matter of conflation, colonization and censorship of transsexual issues … In theory, the coalition known as LGBTTIQQ is different communities aligning themselves to accomplish a common goal. But what happens when that coalition’s top priority ranks the needs of a particular, more privileged group over the more discriminated against groups? An uprising is what happens. The “Transsexual Spring,” the widespread and growing resistance against misrepresentation, calls for major reform in education concerning our birth challenge.

Which all end ups calling for a boycott of GLAAD for insufficient deference to transsexual sensitivities.

Interestingly, as another commentary in the same Blade issue, by Dana Beyer, points out, two months ago a landmark EEOC decision expanded the definition of “sex discrimination” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to include transgender and gender non-conforming individuals. As a result, the proposed Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), Beyer argues:

“is essential for the gender-conforming gay community, who are not yet protected under Title VII. But while it may be a political necessity, it is not a legal necessity to protect transgender Americans, who are covered as described above.”

But how would that fit into the narrative of gays colonizing and censoring transsexuals?

More. From the comments, “Andy” writes: “Funny how the trans activists who demand there by no ENDA without trans inclusion did NOT insist there be no EEOC ruling expanding Title VII to include transgendered people without also including gays and lesbians. Looks like solidarity is a one-way street…”

Mary Cheney, daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, has married her longtime partner, Heather Poe. Fox News reported that:

In a statement, Cheney and his wife, Lynne, said the couple got married in Washington on Friday. The Cheneys said the two had been in a committed relationship for many years and they were delighted that they could take advantage of the “opportunity to have the relationship recognized.”

A good news story that also helps extend support for marriage equality outside the left-liberal “progressive” echo chamber. Alas, that echo chamber’s denizens seem intent on alienating any potential avenue of support that isn’t part of the left-progressive scene. Example: The big gay news ricocheting around conservative media and blogs isn’t the Cheney marriage, but of gay rights activists, guests of President Obama, making obscene gestures at the portrait of President Reagan during a gay pride reception at the White House. Juvenile in the extreme. As Gay Patriot’s B. Daniel Blatt remarks, “What would the media reaction be if social conservatives had photographed themselves flipping off pictures of Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter while visiting the White House?”

More. Along somewhat similar lines, at Powerlineblog.com.

There’s an important essay defending gay marriage in, of all places, The American Conservative. And its placement there, making the conservative case in conservative terms, is significant.

Noah Millman critiques in “Gay Marriage and the Limits of Consequentialism” the “consequentialist” case against marriage equality, “a case which says, basically, that since you don’t know what the outcome will be you should move very slowly and incrementally in implementing any change.”

He concludes:

The case for gay marriage–the Burkean case, you might say–is simply that what amount to common-law gay marriages already exist. Numerous gay couples settle down for long-term, even life-long relationships of mutual support. They jointly own property. They bear, adopt, and rear children. These are already existing realities, not hypotheticals. They are not the product of state diktats; they are the product of organic cultural change which, in turn, has shaped changes in the law.

And that:

The question before the people is whether to recognize these realities, and, if so, as what. “As marriage” is one answer–the answer favored by those who want to secure those already-existing arrangements, for families already in them and for future generations who might want to form similar arrangements. And it’s the answer that seems to be getting intuitively more persuasive to more and more people as they look at these couples and at straight marriages and don’t see any fundamental differences that the law should be cognizant of.

It won’t sway the religious right. Still, there are a lot of conservatives who are not religious fundamentalists but who look at the unintended consequences of well-meant liberal social initiatives, including the role of economic redistribution in promoting government dependency and family breakdown, and say “Enough!” Those are the conservatives who can be, and must be, reached, using arguments and language that resonates with their deeply held convictions.

The New York Times reports that hedge fund manager Paul E. Singer is

providing $1 million to start a new “super PAC” with several Republican compatriots. Named American Unity PAC, its sole mission will be to encourage Republican candidates to support same-sex marriage, in part by helping them to feel financially shielded from any blowback from well-funded groups that oppose it. …

In an interview [Singer said] he’s confident that in Congressional races, which would most likely be the super PAC’s initial focus, there are more than a few Republicans “who could be on the verge of support” or are “harboring and hiding their views.”

In politics, money talks. Change won’t come quickly, but over time promoting pro-gay Republicans, which remains anathema to certain LGBT Democratic operatives, is essential to changing the dynamics for gay legal equality.

Last month, North Carolinians voted 61-39 percent to amend their state constitution to ban same-sex marriages and civil unions. That’s led to debate over whether the campaign against the amendment used effective messages in TV ads and other media. As the Washington Blade reports, some have expressed concerns that:

messages in TV ads [stressed] the harms the amendment would have on straight unmarried couples. … Campaign officials said they believe the ad was effective in showing how the amendment would have serious consequences for unmarried couples, gay or straight, and it likely persuaded some voters to oppose the amendment. …

Leaders of the Coalition to Protect All North Carolina Families said they chose [a] message focused on how Amendment One goes far beyond banning same-sex marriage and, among other things, would ban civil unions for gay and straight couples. It could also lead to a wide range of harmful effects on all unmarried couples, gay and straight, and their children, the group stressed in its “messaging” campaign.

Monday-morning quarterbacking tends to be easy, but given the degree of the campaign’s failure it’s a necessary exercise. And it seems kind of obvious that focusing on the harm that banning civil unions would have on heterosexuals who choose not to marry is the sort of message that resonates well within the progressive echo chamber, but which in conservative, highly religious North Carolina was likely to play into the hands of those arguing that gays are attacking marriage and must be stopped.

More. Reader “pauly” makes a point in his comment that I should have noted. He writes:

The campaign was both too “politically correct” and, at the same time, too “de-gayed” — the worst of both worlds, in my opinion.

Too politically correct because a segment of the left has long advocated that civil unions and domestic partner benefits be granted not only to same-sex couples as a stop-gap until we have marriage equality, but to all couples, gay or straight, because marriage should not be necessary to get spousal benefits from government or employers. Gay “conservatives” have tended to argue that civil unions and partner benefits should be restricted to same-sex couples, and should go away once we get the right to marry.

As for too “de-gayed,” that seems obvious and was reported on in the Blade article.

Years ago, I wrote about the problem of including heterosexuals who choose not to marry under domestic partnerships, here: “…linking benefits for gay partners who are not allowed to be married with benefits for heterosexuals who don’t want to make a commitment… plays directly into the hands of the religious right…”

But ideologues won’t learn from past mistakes; they just double down on failed strategies (another trillion dollars in “stimulus,” anyone?).

A federal appeals court in Boston decided that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional. The court didn’t rule that any state must change its definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, but said if a state allows same-sex marriage then the federal government should recognize those unions—a traditional federalist view.

I believe this is the correct approach. A popular backlash would follow any Supreme Court ruling that tried to force conservative states that voted overwhelmingly to ban gay marriage to now recognize them, and an anti-gay-marriage Constitutional amendment remains possible. Just about half of the populace favors marriage equality, meaning we are still a long way from the national consensus against banning interracial marriages that was achieved prior to the Supreme Court’s overturning state laws that forbid those unions.

It’s worth noting that this case was decided by a three-judge panel, and that two of the judges were appointed by Republican presidents. Judge Michael Boudin, who wrote the unanimous decision, was appointed by President George H.W. Bush and Judge Juan R. Torruella was appointed by Ronald Reagan. That’s no guarantee that Romney-appointed judges won’t be hard-core social conservatives, but it points to the value of a pursuing a bipartisan approach to achieving legal equality.