IGF CultureWatch

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.

A busy summer is limiting my blogging. But this “Queers Against NATO” story caught my eye. They certainly have a right to protest, and they give this rationale: “The anti-war movement and the queer movement are allied, according to the queer protestors, because queer people are affected by militarization.” Well, that explains things.

Gays are also affected by higher taxes and excessive regulation, of course. So if we can have Queers Against NATO, why not Gays for the Tea Party? At least that would serve to publicize that gay people aren’t all on the left and might help build support in the long run. Right now, for instance, there’s an effort by anti-gay social conservatives to use the Tea Party as part of their anti-gay agenda, although others are fighting against it and want the Tea Party to remain focused on limited government and liberty. The fight within the Tea Party for a true liberty agenda would seem more important than still more showings of solidarity with the radical left.

Richard Grennell’s Wall Street Journal op-ed, Marriage, Gay Republicans and the Election, is behind a subscriber firewall. But it’s worth noting a few of his points:

Anti-gay extremists not only dismiss a plethora of serious issues confronting America and the world, but they fail to recognize the consistency of living by the conservative ideal of limiting government involvement in our lives.

The claim that gays should be barred from conservative activism is not only bigoted but is a bipartisan view. The intolerant assault comes from the far right, who object to Republicans who are gay, and the far left, who object to gays being Republicans. When the extremists on both sides are the only ones speaking up, the majority suffers. …

Thousands of Republicans privately voiced support for my appointment and were disappointed by the events that led to my resignation earlier this month. Some did so while admitting they disagreed with my support for gay marriage. But they too are passionate about a strong America, personal responsibility and independent religious institutions—issues that should be at the forefront of this year’s presidential election. …

While there are many reasons not to vote to re-elect President Obama, gay marriage is not one of those issues. …

The point is not to convince gay Democrats to vote for Romney—that’s not going to happen, obviously. Left-liberals won’t buy the argument that it’s a bad thing that “Mr. Obama … has demonstrated a willingness to abandon the entrepreneurial spirit that made America great while embracing a new era of government-centered decisions,” and they may even applaud Obama for doing so.

Rather, the point is to reach out to conservative Republicans with the message that being gay, and supporting full legal equality for gay people, isn’t inconsistent with conservative principles. That’s a fight that is vital to make, and gay Democrats shouldn’t put party first by sniping at gay Republicans for making it.

Although you might not know it from within the left-liberal echo chamber, a major fissure is becoming evident in the GOP. It’s between those who see the future and how younger voters, even those who identify as Republican, support the legal equality of gay people, and the old guard social reactionaries of the religious right. Over time, it’s safe to bet on the young and those who see which way the wind is blowing, but it could, as I’ve said, be another decade, and the struggle will intensify before it’s resolved.

To demonstrate, two stories. From the McClatchy newspaper syndicate’s Washington bureau, “Quietly, the Republican Party Is Embracing Gays“:

A quiet transformation is taking place in the Republican Party, which has begun to embrace openly gay candidates … While differences still exist, the party is on the cusp of a generational shift in which the longtime foes of gay rights are replaced by younger party leaders who are more accepting.

“It’s an exponential change from a few years ago,” said former Republican Rep. Jim Kolbe. “It’s happening, and it’s going to continue to happen.”

But then there’s this, via the New York Times, “Gay Prosecutor Is Denied Virginia Judgeship Despite Bipartisan Support:

Virginia’s Republican-controlled House rejected the judicial nomination of a gay Richmond prosecutor early Tuesday morning, plunging the critical swing state into the middle of the national debate about the civil rights of gay Americans.

The prosecutor, Tracy Thorne-Begland, a former fighter pilot and Navy officer, failed to garner the majority of the 100-member House of Delegates that was required to secure the judgeship…. Thorne-Begland’s candidacy had broad bipartisan support from the Courts of Justice Committee, which is charged with vetting judicial appointments, and many lawmakers assumed his appointment would be approved.

That’s bad, and the instigator was a rabidly anti-gay Virginia legislator, Bob Marshall, who is running for the GOP U.S. Senate nomination (the primary is later this year). Still, a positive sign is that Virginia’s GOP governor, Bob McDonnell, who hasn’t exactly been supportive of gay rights, felt it necessary to distance himself from the actions of Virginia’s House. According to the same story, he issued:

…a statement that implicitly condemned the vote, saying judicial candidates “must be considered based solely on their merit, record, aptitude and skill.” The statement also said Mr. McDonnell had “long made clear that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is not acceptable in state government.”

Some would dispute that, but it shows the governor, who would like to be Romney’s veep, feels he has to distance himself from the worst elements of his own party.

More. New York Times columnist Frank Bruni makes a similar point:

Within [the GOP’s] uppermost ranks are many champions of small government who squirm at the small-mindedness of the scowling theocrats in an increasingly uneasy coalition. These fiscal conservatives take advantage of the religious right’s political muscle but have reservations about its hectoring piety, and their own views on social issues are often moderate or somewhat liberal. Recall that Republican money played a pivotal role in the successful campaign for same-sex marriage in New York.

It came from donors who don’t want to see Romney take up an anti-gay mantle and who understand that a reputation for intolerance and bigotry imperils the future of the party, which they would like to orient away from stone throwers in glass houses. They’re Rush-fatigued. Palin-weary.

African-American church leaders, the foundation of the black civil rights movement, have been overwhelmingly and stridently opposed to equality for gay people, which has contributed mightily to black opposition to same-sex marriage. The Washington Post reported that in North Carolina last week, many black precincts voted 2-1 for the ballot measure to ban gay marriage and domestic partnerships. Moreover, the paper reports that:

African-Americans have historically been more hostile to gays and lesbians than other racial and ethnic groups. Only 39 percent of African-Americans favor gay marriage, compared with 47 percent of white Americans, according to a Pew poll conducted this April.

So it’s a good thing that Obama’s personal endorsement of marriage equality at least has them discussing the issue as a point to debate, as reports USA Today. Still, it may be a long time until the views of most black pastors evolve.

More. From John McWhorter, “President Obama’s New Role in the Fight Against Black Homophobia.”

An important perspective on the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” by a former aide to Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine). Writes Matthew Gagnon:

I saw up close the White House and its Democratic allies actively trying to stop, for political purposes, the very legislation they are now taking undue credit for. Instead, a lone Republican senator from Maine was the one actually taking a phenomenal personal and political risk and ultimately proved to be the real engine behind the repeal.

It’s a reminder of the importance of achieving at least some GOP support for gay equality.

More. Via Politico, The pro-gay marriage Bush alumni: “…for an administration with a reputation for social conservatism, it’s worth looking at the number of alumni who come out in favor of same-sex marriage — and urged the rest of their party to follow suit.”

There is a very real possiblity that within the decade the GOP could be turned around, if there is a will to make the effort. But too many Democrats are just fine with an anti-gay GOP (as demonstrated by their attacks on Ric Grenell and other gay Republicans working for change within the party), as it serves their partisan interests. And too many LGBT activists have fallen into that trap.

Without doubt, the Washington Post‘s report of the young Mitt Romney as a prep school bully and gay-basher is harrowing:

Romeny … spotted something he thought did not belong at a school where the boys wore ties and carried briefcases. John Lauber, a soft-spoken new student one year behind Romney, was perpetually teased for his nonconformity and presumed homosexuality. Now he was walking around the all-boys school with bleached-blond hair that draped over one eye, and Romney wasn’t having it.

A few days later [found] Romney marching out of his own room ahead of a prep school posse shouting about their plan to cut Lauber’s hair. Friedemann followed them to a nearby room where they came upon Lauber, tackled him and pinned him to the ground. As Lauber, his eyes filling with tears, screamed for help, Romney repeatedly clipped his hair with a pair of scissors.

The incident was recalled similarly by five students, who gave their accounts independently of one another. … “It happened very quickly, and to this day it troubles me,” said Buford, the school’s wrestling champion, who said he joined Romney in restraining Lauber. Buford subsequently apologized to Lauber, who was “terrified,” he said. “What a senseless, stupid, idiotic thing to do.”

The incident reportedly haunted Lauber, who died of liver cancer several years ago. It troubled the other perpetrators as well, the Post reports, but Romney—the instigator and scissor-wielder—claims no memory of the attack, which begs credulity, although he apologized for unspecified “pranks” that went too far. Romney also claimed that homosexuality “wasn’t something we all discussed or considered. So that’s simply just not accurate.” Which also rings false.

The account is reverberating around the Huffington Post and the left-liberal blogosphere, got picked up by a few other news outlets but hasn’t broken out more widely. It comes on the heels Romney’s failure to stand by his openly gay foreign policy spokesman, Ric Grenell, who resigned under attack by the religious right (not helped by parallel attacks on Grenell by the “progressive” left, let me add), and Romney’s reiterating his support for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in every state. Whether this has any traction beyond those already in the Democrats’ camp will be telling.

More. The truth, the truth, what is the truth? Breitbart has a round up of conservative blogosphere responses charging media distortion and double standards. The latter I believe.

Still more. Obama mocked and shoved a plump girl as his friends yelled taunts. [Added] But at least Obama remembers, and tells it, himself. And a big difference, as our commenters note, is that he regrets it.

Further thoughts. My guess is that the reports of this incident won’t change anyone’s mind. Those opposed to Romney will have fresh reason to reject him; those in his camp will dimiss the story as overblown and distorted. But I’m fairly certain that Romney will receive a far smaller portion of the gay vote that did John McCain (who strongly opposed the federal marriage amendemnt and, at that time, said he was open to ending ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’). Not that I think Romney’s campaign cares very much about getting the 27% of the self-identified gay vote that McCain garnered according to CNN (the total self-identified gay vote was just 4 percent of all votes cast).

Good. David Boaz takes a look at Obama’s evolution, devolution and re-evolution and concludes “Nevertheless, he’s in the right place now.” For politicians, let us not forget, it’s all politics. Sorry, but it is.

Having an equivocal position on marriage equality from the leader of the party gay people fund and devote thousands of volunteer hours to support is not acceptable in 2012. Obama has finally come to terms with that.

Now, onward the fight. It will take both parties supporting legal equality for gay citizens in order to ensure our rights are respected and protected. It’s often pointed out that GOP candidates backed by Tea Party groups combine fiscal conservatism with an anti-gay social agenda, including support for a constitutional amendment that would federalize marriage and impose one definition from Washington on the states. But there is no inherent, immutable reason why those favoring constitutional restraints on government in all other areas should support government intrusion into the most intimate of personal relationships. Many Western European conservative leaders have come to realize this. In the U.S., libertarians have long supported personal liberty that encompasses freedom from government with regard to confiscatory taxation and over-regulation, along with expanded civil liberties and equal rights under the law without discrimination.

The fact that today’s Republican party staunchly opposes gay equality should signal that this is where our efforts should be focused.

Log Cabin Republican David Lampo writes in the Washington Post:

The resignation of Richard Grenell, the recently appointed and openly gay foreign policy spokesman for Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign, was as sudden as it was shocking. It was also yet another disturbing sign that the Romney campaign is still in pander mode when it comes to the anti-gay right. …

…the Romney campaign seems to have caved in to [the American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer] and his followers. Though Grenell was not fired, and after his departure Romney and campaign staffers have spoken highly of him, there was no strong public defense while he was under attack. This fits in well with Romney’s history of pandering to the religious right. …

On May 12, Romney is set to deliver the commencement address at Liberty University, the religious-right stronghold founded by the late Jerry Falwell. He can either continue to pander to those whose primary goal is to construct an American theocracy, or he can use the address to fashion his own Sister Souljah moment and make clear the distinction between private religious values and the time-honored principle of separation of church and state.

Don’t bet the ranch that Romney will show any spine.

More. No surprise here. Via the New York Times: “Mitt Romney used his address Liberty University on Saturday to offer a forceful defense of faith, family and shared Judeo-Christian values, and strongly reaffirmed his stance that marriage should be between only a man and a woman.”

Furthermore. No spine whatsoever.