IGF CultureWatch

In this video, MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell gives a long ode to the value of Ron Paul as the most important voice for marriage equality because he speaks to Republicans and conservatives (he chooses to take a positive view of Paul’s somewhat confusing language).

Also, from Politico: Newly declared GOP presidential candidate Jon Huntsman’s fundraising is targeting gay Republicans, based on his support for civil unions.

Yes, it’s still likely the GOP ticket will be Romney/Bachmann in 2012, but those who say there is no hope for changing the GOP are defeatists helping to perpetuate the status quo.

What’s going on in the New York marriage struggle shows why winning over Republicans (even just a few!) matters greatly. But those who run our leading LGBT political lobbies still seems to be firmly committed to a one-party strategy. Their identity politics is all bound up in being Democrats.

More. Lady Gaga isn’t helping.

George Will swoons over Texas Senate candidate Ted Cruz, a strong supporter of the Tenth Amendment (i.e., powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution are reserved, respectively, to the states or the people). Except, Will neglects to mention, when it comes to state marriage laws, where Cruz loses his federalist principles and (at the very least) vigorously supports the Defense of Marriage Act, barring federal recognition of state-sanctioned marriages.

Last night’s Republican debate had a long exchange on same-sex marriage and the “don’t ask, don’t tell” ban on gays serving openly in the military. The short of it: only Rep. Ron Paul and businessman Herman Cain said that they do not support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in all states, and that they would not reinstate “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Conservative Rep. Michelle Backmann seemed at first to say states should handle marriage issues but then backtracked and voiced support for the amendment – joining Romney, Pawlenty Gingrich and the others in violating the federalist, limited government principles they claim to uphold.

Let’s note that CNN didn’t invite former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson to the debate, and that likely candidate Jon Huntsman, the former governor of Utah and former U.S. ambassador to China, has not yet declared and so was absent. Both oppose the constitutional amendment and wouldn’t reinstate DADT.

The GOP candidates last night made a number of strong points on the catastrophic deficit growth led by President Obama and congressional Democrats, and the perils of the Democrats’ blocking efforts at (and demagogic scare-mongering over) entitlement reform. But, with the exceptions noted, their fealty to using the government to enforce anti-gay discrimination makes them unacceptable. Here’s hoping Huntsman declares soon.

More. From Politico: Huntsman’s fundraising is targeting gay Republicans, based on his support for civil unions.

…an excuse to talk about you know who and his you know what. From the Wall Street Journal‘s James Taranto:

“Unlike homosexuality, heterosexuality is amenable to therapeutic remedies—or so Anthony Weiner and his fellow House Democrats would like us to believe.”

Read it here.

Comedian Tracy Morgan reportedly jokes, during a homophobic rant, that “if his son was gay…he would pull out a knife and stab that little [N word] to death.” His 30 Rock co-star, Tina Fey, defended him, saying it doesn’t “line up with the Tracy Morgan I know.” We’ll, you never know.

Morgan did apologize—after the anti-gay routine (reportedly not his first) triggered a backlash of bad publicity. GLAAD has invited him to meet families who have lost children to anti-gay violence, noting ”while we all love humor, this is no laughing matter.” True enough. But would a white comic not starring in a Republican-bashing sitcom beloved by liberals have gotten off this easily?

More. John McWhorter (who is black) writes on black homophobia:

Wise people like to point to the racism lying always “just underneath” our thin American skins. Well, an equally wise observation is that a certain especially acrid brand of homophobia lies “just underneath” in too many of America’s black men. …

Will there ever be no homophobia among black Americans? No—just like there will always be some among others. But no more black, wealthy comedians, suave actor-philanthropists, and megastar athletes tossing around epithets and remarks about gay people of the sort which, when aimed at black people, are considered demonstrations of backwardness and evil.

Richmond Times-Dispatch columnist A. Barton Hinkle opines:

Although the positions look hypocritical, they have a certain convenient logic: Gay-rights groups will support whatever they deem good for the cause of gay rights, and religious conservatives will oppose the same, and each will take whatever position on any other issue best serves that end at any given moment. There’s a lot of that going around.

Not sure his analogy quite works in this instance, but it’s true that double standards are frequently evident among many activists groups, on both sides of the spectrum. Just one example: feminist groups that sue all-male associations but have no problem with women-only entities (including health clubs, for instance).

Just because it’s June, a classic from the Onion: Gay-Pride Parade Sets Mainstream Acceptance of Gays Back 50 Years.

Yes, much gay activism has advanced our right to equality—and much activism has been corrupted by mindless leftwing dogmatism, ‘diversity’ authoritarianism, antinomian sexual exhibitionism, or hijacked by partisan subservience. I’m just saying…

Maybe the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation needs to focus more. From recent press releases:

On the AT&T/T-Mobile Merger:

This morning reports ran regarding GLAAD’s position on a merger between AT&T and T-Mobile and put forth false accusations that GLAAD is unable to effectively work with media entities that we also receive corporate sponsorships from. It was also wrongly reported that GLAAD endorses AT&T’s position on net neutrality. GLAAD does not endorse AT&T’s position. GLAAD believes that equal, fair and universal access to the internet is vital to our community and to our national dialogue. . . .Groups as diverse as the AFL-CIO, the American Federation of Teachers, LULAC, the National Council for Negro Women and the National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce have spoken out in support of the AT&T/T-Mobile merger. . .

AT&T, Time Warner cable Pull Advertising from
‘José Luis Sin Censura’

GLAAD and NHMC first filed an FCC complaint against “José Luis Sin Censura,” distributed by Liberman Broadcasting, earlier this year. … The program frequently feature blatant nudity and female guests have been shown in violent fights.

Ok, this particular show also, per GLAAD, features anti-gay language and incitements. But an FCC complaint seeking government action rather than public pressure?

More. GLAAD writes to the FCC: “We salute President Obama’s vision of an America in which everyone has high-speed access capable of meeting the demands of distance learning and telehealth programs.”

GLAAD’s current president, Jarrett Tomás Barrios, is a former Democratic state senator from Massachusetts. Maybe he should have stayed in politics. … Oh, he has.

Furthermore. Criticism is coming from the left as well. Activist/blogger Michael Petrelis questions whether Joe Jervis should return his GLAAD award and writes: “My understanding of this latest GLAAD controversy is that the Astroturf, slaves to its corporate sponsors and Democratic Party friendly organization is again using its resources for highly questionable advocacy.”

More still. From The Stranger, “What the Hell Is Going on at GLAAD?“

Update. Jarrett Barrios has resigned as President of GLAAD.

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.”