IGF CultureWatch

Updated several times since original post; keep scrolling down.

It’s no surprise that the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest LGBT fundraising pac, would endorse Barack Obama’s re-election. There’s no doubt that he’ll be far better on LGBT issues than anyone whom the GOP eventually nominates. But what would an LGBT pac that didn’t function solely as a fundraising arm of the Democratic party (or any party) look like? That is, a pac that sought to move both parties in a vigorously gay-supportive direction, even by setting them against each other where possible (and in some jurisdictions, it is)?

Well, such a pac might still endorse Obama in May for the Democratic nomination, but it might also endorse, say, former two-term New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson for the GOP nomination. And it might take note that Johnson supports recognition of gay civil unions and repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” — in marked distinction to, say, Tim Pawlenty and Mitt Romney.

Will Johnson be the GOP nominee? He’s clearly a very long shot. But a popular former two-term governor isn’t exactly beyond the realm of possibility, either. And at least a GOP primary endorsement would have made a statement that recognizes the achievement of gay equality needs both parties to come onboard, so it becomes the American (and not just the liberal) consensus.

Related. Gay Patriot points out that the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) has awarded its best blog distinction to Joe Jervis, a blogger who likes to compare gay conservatives to Nazi collaborators (e.g., calling GOProud, which broke the barrier against openly gay groups at the Conservative Political Action Conference, “kapo bootlickers”). Nice, eh.

More. Jon Huntsman, former governor of Utah and former U.S. ambassador to China, is weighing a run for the GOP nomination. He also is on record favoring recognition of gay civil unions. The GOP is not all of apiece, and support for those who support us would yield a more gay-friendly party. But that’s not in the interest of Democratic party power-bearers, is it.

Furthermore. Lots of heavy partisanship in the comments, as usual. I think commenter “Another Steve” has an interesting perspective:

what if HRC had remained the nonpartisan organization it was founded to be? In the 80s, it often endorsed GOP congressional candidates and stayed out of the presidential race entirely in order not to be seen as partisan. But after the liberal firestorm following the reelection endorsement for GOP Sen. Al D’Amato (who supported ENDA and letting gays serve in the military) against a liberal Democrat, the funders laid down the law — HRC was to be an adjunct of the DNC, period.

The backlash to the D’Amato endorsement (over Chuck Schumer!) was a factor, but control over the LGBT movement by Democratic party operatives has been a long march.

Still more. From the Washington Blade, a comment from John Aravosis of AmericaBlog:

“While I’m sure HRC will claim they got lots of juicy promises in exchange for the endorsement, everyone else learned a long time ago that the president is unlikely to keep his promises unless you get in his face, and HRC will never get in his face,” Aravosis said. “So the promises are meaningless, and thus the president got HRC’s endorsement for nothing, and now won’t have to do anything for the next two years to truly earn that endorsement. I’m sure it nails down the president for the next HRC dinner, but that really shouldn’t be the goal here.”

Added Log Cabin Republican head R. Clarke Cooper:

By prostrating themselves before Barack Obama eighteen months before the 2012 election, the Human Rights Campaign has effectively told the president that he doesn’t have to do anything more to earn gay and lesbian votes,” Cooper said. “Given his lackluster record in the fight for ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repeal, LGBT Americans were counting on HRC to hold the president’s feet to the fire on his other campaign promises, not to become a branch of his re-election campaign.”

Cooper further criticized HRC by saying the endorsement sends “the wrong message” to potential Republican presidential nominees who may want to reach out to the LGBT community. “There are several possible candidates who deserve to be fairly judged on their own merits, and the dialogue on equality issues for the 2012 campaign has barely begun,” Cooper said. “This decision makes it clear that Joe Solmonese’s greatest priority is an invitation to drinks at a Democratic White House, not securing votes for ENDA, DOMA repeal or tax equity. Such a pre-emptive endorsement is a mistake and will undermine equality efforts.”

I’m generally no fan of the way too smug Jon Stewart and his Daily Show, but this segment about gay life in San Francisco vs. Minneapolis actually hits on a real truth about how most of us live vs. what some still like to promote as gay identity.

The New York Times reports:

As gay rights advocates intensify their campaign to legalize same-sex marriage in New York, the bulk of their money is coming from an unexpected source: a group of conservative financiers and wealthy donors to the Republican Party, most of whom are known for bankrolling right-leaning candidates and causes. . . .

The donations are financing an intensive campaign of television advertisements and grass-roots activism coordinated by New Yorkers United for Marriage, a group of same-sex marriage advocates. . . . The newly recruited donors argue that permitting same-sex marriage is consistent with conservative principles of personal liberty and small government.

More. Apparently, some are too young to get the allusion.

To the casual observer, the American Values Network (AVN) seems like a conservative Christian (some like to say “Christianists”) group. It’s currently involved in a campaign to attack the late novelist Ayn Rand as an “anti-Christian” atheist. That’s notable because, in addition to being an atheist, Rand was a leading proponent of free-market capitalism and limited government, and many of today’s leading conservatives, such as Rep. Paul Ryan, have cited her influence on their thought.

According to a press release from AVN:

Rand not only rejected Christ, but she condemned all those who believed in him and said his teachings were evil,” said Eric Sapp, Executive Director, American Values Network. “People of faith need to know what Ayn Rand believed and who her acolytes are in Washington so they can see how her teachings are being applied in government. Ayn Rand’s America is not one that good and decent people would want for their children.”

It notes that a memo from AVN provides:

a collection of Ayn Rand’s own teaching and statements about what the goals and purpose of her morality and thinking were—goals that stand in absolute contrast to Judeo-Christian morality and explicitly condemn the teachings of Christ. It also includes numerous quotes by Republican leaders and conservative pundits praising her, as well as Scripture references for the Bible’s teaching on the various subjects she addresses.

So, an internecine battle on the right? Not exactly. It turns out that the American Values Network is a Democratic front group. The head of AVN is a former Hillary/Pelosi staffer. Its National Advisory Committee includes Kathleen Kennedy Townsend and other Democrats. It’s their attempt to sow dissension “on the right” by setting the GOP’s socially conservative base against the limited government libertarians. And in doing so, they’re taking the side of “Judeo-Christian morality.” Nice work, eh.

A very nice profile of Redondo Beach, Calif., mayor Mike Gin, who is running for Congress, via the Washington Blade. The openly gay Republican would be the first person in a same-sex marriage elected to Congress if he wins:

“Certainly, we all need role models, and being gay and being married is just a part of who I am,” Gin said. “If somehow my election would provide some inspiration or maybe help a young person that’s very conflicted about being gay, then I think that’s a wonderful thing.”

An all-party primary is set for May 17.

Among the bills that Gin said he’ll support: the Uniting American Families Act, which would allow gay Americans to sponsor their foreign partners for residency in the United States, and repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage.

Gin has been endorsed by 10 current or former mayors in the South Bay of California and the Redondo Beach Chamber of Commerce. He is running with the vigorous support of Log Cabin Republicans, but (as I posted earlier), Equality California is trumpeting its support for Gin’s very left-liberal, straight Democratic opponent, naturally. Gin also is seeking support from the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund, which to date (and to its continuing discredit) has failed to endorse him.

The Human Rights Campaign is declaring victory in its campaign to intimidate Washington, DC law firm King & Spalding into withdrawing from its agreement to represent the House GOP leadership in defending the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). King & Spalding partner Paul Clement, the former Solicitor General under George W. Bush, resigned from the firm in order to continue the defense of DOMA he agreed to undertake.

LGBT activists cheered; others warned of a New McCarthyism.

While I think there is great merit in the argument that people and organizations deserve the best representation they can procure even when (or especially when) they are unpopular, I’m not quite sure a law that the executive branch won’t defend is entitled to the same rights.

Nevertheless, there is something deeply disturbing about targeting not just the counsel of the opposition (King & Spalding) but also asking corporate clients to stop doing business with that firm (e.g., Coca Cola), as suggested in this report:

gay rights organizations including the Human Rights Campaign and the group Georgia Equality…planned an aggressive ad campaign, direct communication with the firm’s clients, and a diminution of its Corporate Equality Index ranking—the metric HRC uses to track corporate support for gay rights.

I believe the constitutional case against DOMA (section 3, non-federal recognition of state-authorized same-sex marriages) is sound and will eventually win the day. But strong-arming the opposition’s legal defense team and going after the firm’s clients is deeply disturbing.

Update: From Politico:

Attorney General Eric Holder is coming to the defense of former Solicitor General Paul Clement, after gay rights advocates criticized his decision to take on the defense of the Defense of Marriage Act in court. . . .

“In taking on the representation—representing Congress in connection with DOMA, I think he is doing that which lawyers do when we’re at our best,” Holder said during a roundtable with reporters at the Justice Department. “That criticism, I think, was very misplaced.”

Also on the marriage front… The claim by social conservatives that U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling against California’s Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage, should be thrown out because Walker recently disclosed he is gay and in a relationship is deeply offensive. As the Wall Street Journal reports:

Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California, Irvine School of Law, said that no U.S. court had ever ruled that a judge’s personal identity was sufficient reason for disqualification. “I think it is offensive to say that a judge can’t hear this case because he is gay or lesbian,” he said. “By that reasoning, a black judge couldn’t have heard challenges to segregation law.”

The libertarian Moorfield Storey Blog has an interesting, if long, post on a point that some libertarians don’t seem to get about prejudice when they suggest that if no physical injury is inflicted, bigotry isn’t a big deal. (Note I said “some” libertarians; others feel prejudice is indeed something to vigilantly counter, just not through the blunt instrument of government.)

The Moorfield Storey blogger addresses a typical libertarian, whom he terms “Calvin:

For a libertarian Calvin, it is pretty simple and easy. He sees a minority upset by the use of bigoted words and he laughs it off with remarks about “sticks and stones” and how they don’t break your bones. Gay kids across America were subjected to those words and killed themselves when they couldn’t take it anymore. Not Calvin; he was unlikely to be targeted merely because of who he was.

I imagine the impetus for this post was basketball superstar Kobe Bryant being fined $100,000 by the NBA last week for calling a referee the “f” word (and then some). Graying rocker Ted Nugent, now a right-wing (not a libertarian) columnist in the Washington Times, penned a defense of Bryant that declared, “Mr. Bryant committed this egregious verbal foul because he used a word demeaning to homosexuals, the most protected class of people in America.”

As the Moorfield Storey Blog states:

What makes the situation worse for the libertarian Calvin, is there are conservative Calvins who sound just like him. The libertarian Calvin (LC) may not be bigoted against minorities, while the conservative Calvin (CC) may be. Unfortunately when they speak they speak the language…minorities listening to the LC can’t tell how he differs from the CC. Individuals victimized because of who they are, hear the same comments coming out of both groups. And thus the libertarian stereotype, that we are just conservatives, but “more so” lives on, perpetrated by our own actions.

Which is an unwelcome outcome that some of our fellow libertarians, in making the case for limited government, may want to ponder.

More. And then there are government actions that chill the blood of many libertarians, like this Canadian prosecution for insensitivity: “Lesbian Insult Gets Comic Fined.”

Added. Man Arrested in UK for Singing “Kung Fu Fighting”.

Still more. Not now, but someday? The Wall Street Journal reports:

Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson…is jumping into the 2012 Republican presidential race, adding variety to what already promises to be a crowded field. The two-term governor, who left office nine years ago after proudly vetoing 750 pieces of legislation, promises to run a long-shot campaign heavy on libertarian themes of limited government and personal freedom. …

A Johnson campaign will differ sharply in content and tone from that of other Republican contenders. He opposes U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, but favors work visas for the 11 million illegal workers now in the U.S. He supports gay marriage and abortion rights, while advocating a balanced budget and a sharp reduction in government regulation, taxes and spending.

Conservative (and not very gay friendly) columnist Thomas Sowell nevertheless scores some sharp observations about the current campaign against school bullying. While not mentioning gay youth (prime victims of harassment, intimidation and violence), he is otherwise correct in noting:

The courts have created a legal climate where any swift and decisive action against bullies can lead to lawsuits. The net results are indecision, half-hearted gestures and pious public pronouncements by school officials, none of which is going to stop bullies.

When judges create new “rights” for bullies out of thin air, just as they do for criminals, and prescribe “due process” for school discipline, just as if schools were little courtrooms, then nothing is likely to happen promptly or decisively.

If there is anything worse than doing nothing, it is doing nothing spiced with empty rhetoric about what behavior is “unacceptable”—while in fact accepting it.

If public schools aren’t allowed to enforce discipline and to actually punish bullies, then much of the anti-bullying rhetoric is just hypocritical posturing. And legislative mandates that schools “teach tolerance,” when they can’t teach kids to read and write, don’t inspire confidence. (School choice and private school vouchers, providing an actual incentive for public schools to get their act together as they compete for students, just might. At least victims, like Kurt on “Glee,” could flee their tormentors.)

The Human Rights Campaign’s castigating the House leadership for spending $500,000 (and probably much more) to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court cases where its constitutionality is being challenged strikes me as proper. But the group’s criticism of the law firm of King & Spalding for taking the House’s case to defend the constitutionality of DOMA is somewhat grayer. While I don’t know that I would want to hire the firm that’s fighting against my rights, all sides deserve an advocate and I don’t fear a strongly argued case that makes clear what the constitutional issues are.

Update: King & Spalding feels the pressure and withdraws. Firm Partner Paul Clement, a former Solicitor General, resigned in order to continue the defense of DOMA he agreed to undertake. LGBT activists cheered; others warned of a New McCarthyism.

I wish the House wasn’t pandering to social conservatives in holding hearings on the legality of President Obama’s decision not to have the Justice Department support DOMA in court. But I question how constructive HRC’s attack on the hearings (“fixated on beating up on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans”) will be. Democrats are able to call witnesses, too, if they so choose, I believe, so wouldn’t it be more productive to show up and make the best possible case?

More. In an earlier post I praised the administration’s decision to belatedly, after two years, stop defending DOMA in court. As I asked then:

Will the LGBT Obama partisans…who for the past two years have assured us that Obama had no choice but to defend DOMA against legal challenges, that he was legally obligated to order his Justice Department to do so, and who maintained that position by dismissing those of us who pointed to contrary precedents, now admit they were wrong?

Needless to say, the view that many of Obama’s supporters took then sounds eerily similar to the position that the House GOP is now taking—and that the pro-Obama folks are excoriating.