IGF CultureWatch

The Washington Blade reports:

Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.) maintained this week that pro-LGBT legislation could see progress in the Democratic-controlled Senate during the 112th Congress as prospects of movement are unlikely in the Republican-controlled House.

Well, yes. So, why weren’t these measures brought forward during the 111th Congress, when Democrats enjoyed large majorities in the House and Senate (with a filibuster-proof party majority in the latter for a year and a half, lost only with the election of moderate Republican Scott Brown)? It’s only now, when these bills are certain to die in the GOP House that the Democrats are making them an issue with an eye on rousing LGBT donors and support for 2012.

It’s the same old, same old. As I’ve previously argued, even repeal of don’t ask, don’t tell (DADT) was shoved off to the last possible moment last year, and then initially brought to the floor by Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid in a way that ensured maximum GOP opposition (i.e., with no debate allowed on amendments to the military appropriations bill). It was only when left-wing bloggers and activists began to turn on the Democrats over these shenanigans that a clean DADT repeal bill was brought to the floor and then passed with the support of six GOP Senators (including Scott Brown).

Anyone remember Bill Clinton’s first two years, with majorities in both Houses?

Gay voters are like Charlie Brown and congressional Democrats are Lucy, jerking the football away so that Charlie Brown trips and falls as he runs up and is just about to kick it. Again, and again, and again.

I certainly don’t think libertarian-leaning Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) should be exempt from criticism, but the reporting shouldn’t be as misleading as in the Advocate story, Ron Paul Supports DOMA.

There is much confusion both by politicians and throughout the media over the fact that the Defense of Marriage Act that Bill Clinton signed into law has two aspects: Section Two holds that states do not have to recognize same-sex marriages that are authorized by other states. Section Three holds that the federal government may not recognize any state-sanctioned same-sex marriage for purposes of federal law, which includes matters such as joint income tax filing, spousal immigration, Social Security inheritance, etc.

An argument can be made that Section Two upholds federalism and, even if disagreeable, allows for a slow but steady progression of state-recognition for same-sex marriage without forcing Utah and Alabama to recognize marriages performed in Vermont and Massachusetts. That could have the positive benefit of taking some of the heat off of a push by social conservatives for a federal constitutional amendment that would bar all states from recognizing same-sex marriage.

But there is no justifiable federal argument on behalf of Section Three. It’s anti-federalist, imposing one doctrine (non-recognition) on all states. It’s also ahistorical, in that the federal government has always allowed states to define their own marriage laws and to then recognize those unions.

So what’s wrong with the Advocate piece? Here’s an excerpt:

Speaking to the group Family Leader in Pella, Paul said of DOMA, “I see that as an act that was prohibiting the move to nationalize [same-sex marriage] and force Iowa to accept the rules of Massachusetts or whatever,” The Des Moines Register reports. DOMA, which President Obama and the Justice Department said they will no longer defend in court, allows states to deny recognition to same-sex marriages performed in other states, and also prevents federal recognition of such unions.

Rep. Paul states his support for Section Two of DOMA. He doesn’t mention Section Three. But the Advocate then defines DOMA via non-federal recognition.

Maybe Rep. Paul is bad on that, too. But it’s not what he is quoted as saying and doesn’t jive with his opposition to a federal anti-gay marriage amendment. The magazine says, with some justification, that Paul “seemed unclear” and showed “confusion” about DOMA, which is true to the extent he didn’t mention the anti-federalist Section Three in making his federalist argument. But the Advocate itself further muddies the water by confusing support for Section Two with Section Three; they are different, and reporting should clarify, not confuse, that point.

It’s very possible that when DOMA reaches the U.S. Supreme Court, Section Two will be upheld but Section Three ruled unconstitutional. Our efforts should be concentrated on getting rid of Section Three, even if it means living with (or even embracing) Section Two. That will require a bit more sophistication than the Advocate and other media seem willing to muster.

In addition to the studies showing growing support for marriage equality that Jonathan Rauch notes below, according to the latest polling by the highly regarded and nonpartisan Pew Research Center, about as many adults now favor (45%) as oppose (46%) allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally. Last year opponents outnumbered supporters 48% to 42%. Opposition to same-sex marriage has declined by 19 percentage points since 1996, when 65% opposed gay marriage and only 27% were in favor.

But GOP leaders, with the marked exception of Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, continue to place their bets on wooing the anti-gay right. As for Daniels, the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll “appears to vindicate his repeated insistence that the country needs a ‘truce’ on fights over social issues while it grapples with its mounting economic challenges.” The Journal adds:

Nearly two thirds of Republican primary voters said they would be “more likely” to vote for a GOP primary candidate who says the party should focus more on the economy and the deficit and less on social issues such as gay marriage and abortion. Only 8% said they would be less likely to vote for such a candidate. The rest said they were unsure.

Yet this week House Speaker John Boehner announced he will be spearheading a congressional effort to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing state-sanctioned same-sex marriages. Once again, the GOP ensures it doesn’t miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

This is good news: the Obama Administration drops its defense of the Defense of Marriage Act. How this plays out in the court cases, however, remains to be seen, but at long last our “fierce advocate” isn’t actually opposing judicial efforts to secure federal recognition of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages.

Added. Will the LGBT Obama partisans (including several commenters to this blog) 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? Nay.

On another topic in the news, I’m reposting this update to a prior post, with a nod to what’s going on in Wisconsin, Ohio and Indiana:

Here vs. There. It’s worth noting that, unlike the British Conservative party, the U.S. Republicans are under the sway of a powerful and well-organized religious right contending for influence with a more libertarian, small-government “leave us alone” faction. That’s a challenge on the right that will have to be confronted for many years to come before we see a Republican president call for “equal rights regardless of race, sex or sexuality” [as Conservative British Prime Minister David Cameron recently did].

Moreover, Britain’s Conservatives are in a governing alliance with the Liberals against the leftwing, union-dominated Labour party. But in the U.S., our traditionally liberal party, the Democrats, are now controlled to a large extent by public-sector unions. So we no longer have a pro-market liberal party. That leaves us with a rightwing party dominated by social conservatives and a leftwing party driven by redistributionist unions. Hence, our sad political predicament.

Indeed.

More. David Boaz on Madison, Wisconsin: The Athens of the West.

The Advocate publishes (online) a dissenting commentary:

Over the last months, conservatives have complained to The Advocate about its inaccurate and glowing coverage of Obama administration official Susan Rice, its lack of coverage of John Bolton’s support for “don’t ask, don’t tell” repeal and gay marriage, and its whitewashing of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid’s failed two years of dominance. . . . It’s time The Advocate stops painting Democrats with a perfect brush and starts highlighting the efforts of gay conservatives working to limit government’s involvement in LGBT people’s lives.

The odds that Rep. Ron Paul will ever be president are very slim. But it’s still nice to see him best Mitt (amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage) Romney and win the presidential straw poll at CPAC—the Conservative Action Political Conference—thanks largely to his energized young supporters.

For those who don’t know, Paul was one of just five GOP members of Congress who voted to end “don’t ask, don’t tell.” And during his 2008 presidential run, when John Stossel (then of ABC’s 20/20) asked if gay people should be allowed to marry, Paul, an opponent of the anti-gay federal marriage amendment, replied “Sure…I’d like to see all governments out of the marriage function. I don’t think it’s a state function; I think it’s a religious function.”

As the Economist reports, Conservative British Prime Minister David Cameron gave a resounding endorsement to what were once termed liberal values and against the sort of state multiculturalism that defends the separatism of immigrant communities, including radical Islamism, and opposes their cultural integration into Western society.

Cameron declared that the state needs actively to promote values of “freedom of speech and worship, democracy, rule of law and equal rights regardless of race, sex or sexuality.”

Added the Conservative PM:

Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and the mainstream. We have failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong.…

We need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and much more active, muscular liberalism.

His remarks, not surprisingly, were dismissed by progressives.

Relatedly, columnist Abigail R. Esman describes how the liberal media’s refusal to investigate and report on the wave of honor killings of young women by their families in Islamic immigrant communities led her to reassess her progressive politics.

More—Here vs. There. It’s worth noting that, unlike the British Conservative party, the U.S. Republicans are under the sway of a powerful and well-organized religious right contending for influence with a more libertarian, small-government “leave us alone” faction. That’s a challenge on the right that will have to be confronted for many years to come before we see a Republican president call for “equal rights regardless of race, sex or sexuality.”

Moreover, Britain’s Conservatives are in a governing alliance with the Liberals against the leftwing, union-dominated Labour party. In the U.S., our traditionally liberal party, the Democrats, are now controlled to a large extent by public-sector unions. So we no longer have a pro-market liberal party. That leaves us with a rightwing party dominated by social conservatives and a leftwing party driven by redistributionist unions. Hence, our sad political predicament.

The brouhaha over GOProud’s participation in the Conservative Political Action Conference, the largest annual gathering of conservative activists in Washington, is getting bigger.

Those boycotting the event over the participation of openly gay conservatives are using the Orwellian name “Conservatives for Unity” to declare that gay conservatives are anathema and must be expulsed from the movement. They held forth that “it is necessary for each group within any coherent movement not to stand in diametrical opposition to one or more of its core principles. It is our conviction that the institution of marriage and the family qualify as such principles.”

But what does it say that Larry L. Eastland, a bishop in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and a board member of the American Conservative Union, the group that organizes CPAC, responded in a letter to fellow board members that they should “not be guilty of ‘casting the first stone,’ and added, “Let us not lose sight of our goals by closing the door on individuals who will stand with us on public issues on which we agree, and keep to themselves their differences on issues where it could give ‘aid and comfort’ to our opponents.”

I guess it says that the boycotters are so crazy that they make the Mormons look like liberals.

More. Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist, who sits on the board of the American Conservative Union and is on the advisory board of GOProud, dismissed the boycotters, saying:

Loser people and loser organizations that haven’t done any work all year try to get headlines so they can whine about CPAC. They can get a little press. That happens all the time.

Zack Rosen demonstrates the contortions that gay white men who aspire to be part of the LBGT progressive world have to undergo. He writes “In Defense of the Gay White Male,” but his defense is extremely tepid and his column is more about recognizing his privileged condition as a non-transgendered non-person of color while asserting, mildly, that he really doesn’t quite understand why he should be apologizing for this. Give it up, Zack, cause you’re never going to escape the oppressive white male accusation with that crowd.

In the San Diego Gay & Lesbian News, a progressive outfit called Courage Campaign states:

This weekend in Rancho Mirage, Calif., the Koch brothers—key funders of California’s anti-environment Prop 23 as well as the Tea Party, Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, and countless other right-wing organizations—will meet behind closed doors with other conservative power brokers. There, these billionaires and their elected officials will strategize on how to impose their right-wing agenda on the rest of us.

Would that “right wing agenda” of the Cato Institute include its amicus brief in Lawrence that Justice Kennedy cited in his opinion overturning state sodomy laws (note: he didn’t cite the briefs from NGLTF or HRC), or the Cato Institute’s efforts backing the suit to overturn California’s anti-gay marriage Prop. 8?

Ah, well here’s some good news to be filed under Things Change: Gay Marine’s husband surprised at respect shown by Naval Academy.