IGF CultureWatch

I can understand why Target Corp. would want to donate to politicians who support a pro-growth agenda and oppose the sort of job killing regulations, confiscatory taxation and anti-growth spending that aims to grow unionized government at the expense of the private sector. Unfortunately, many fiscal conservatives are also social conservatives and oppose legal equality for gay people.

That may describe Minnesota gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer, a Republican who, as a legislator, supported amending the state consitutution to ban same-sex marriage. When Target donated to an independent political fund supporting Emmer (Best Buy did so as well), activists groups went into protest mode, including the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and Moveon.org. According to one gay media report:

Activists angry at Target for supporting an anti-gay marriage gubernatorial candidate in Minnesota are pressing on with their protests after the company apologized.

The Minnesota-based retail giant apologized last week for contributing $150,000 to MN Forward, an independent political fund supporting anti-gay Republican Tom Emmer. Emmer clinched the GOP nomination for Minnesota governor Tuesday.

In a memo to employees, Target CEO Gregg Steinhafel wrote that he continues to believe that a "business climate conducive to growth is critical to our future," but added he had not anticipated how the donation would affect its employees. "And for that I am genuinely sorry," Steinhafel wrote.

Of course, if Emmer were a Democrat who opposed gay marriage it's doubtful that HRC would be targeting Target, given that HRC has itself supported the campaigns of candidates such as Virginia's Sen. Jim Webb, a Democrat who favors keeping "don't ask, don't tell," as well as a great many Democrats who oppose gay marriage to varying degrees. Maybe HRC should target itself?

That being said, it's probably good to send a message that businesses that donate to candidates opposing legal equality for gay people are going to be held to account. Whether the protests should continue after the donors subsequently apologize, in an effort to get them to cough up more funds for LGBT groups and their favored causes and/or to keep activists in the news and gin up their fundraising operations, is debatable.

On that matter, consider that the gay conservatives at GOProud are out and proud about violating the boycott by LGBT activists and unions of the Manchester Grand Hyatt in San Diego. Doug Manchester, the owner of the hotel, was a financial supporter of California's anti-gay-marriage Prop. 8. Manchester subsequently issued a statement saying "I am sorry for the pain and conflict I have caused and would like to take this time to apologize, clarify my views on the matter and share some background on Hyatt's long-standing and commendable support of the GLBT community" (it's quoted in the link above).

Again, I think there is value in protesting businesses that support opponents of gay equality. But at this point, GOProud believes the ongoing boycott has all to do with unions opposing the fact that Manchester's hotel remains non-union, and I suspect the group is right.

Last year, conservative superstar Glenn Beck said some truly stupid things about gay marriage, such as claiming it would lead to polygamy. Which is why it is so startling now to hear him refuse to condemn gay marriage, even as Bill O'Reilly tried to bait him into doing so:

O'Reilly: You are ignoring the profound change in the American family. ... Do you believe that gay marriage is a threat to the country in any way?

Beck: A threat to the country?

O'Reilly: Will it harm the country?

Beck: [Mockingly] Will the gays come and get us? I believe that Thomas Jefferson said if it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket, what difference is it to me....

O'Reilly: So you don't. That's interesting. I don't think a lot of people understand that. ... Ok, gay marriage to you, not a big threat to the nation.

Beck has become more libertarian as he educates himself, and apparently now sees attacking gay marriage as needlessly divisive. A growing number of conservatives (though clearly not Bill O'Reilly and Cal Thomas) recognize that beating the anti-gay drum drives away independents whose support is needed to roll back the gargantuan, deficit-skyrocketing (see here and here) expansion of government (and government mandates) under Obama, Pelosi and Reid. And that's a positive development.

More. David Boaz cast as critical eye on Cal Thomas and his fulmination against freedom.

There is a sad story in the paper about a transgender woman in Texas, Nikki Araguz, who is being barred from collecting the death benefits of her husband, a firefighter killed in the line of duty. Her late husband's mother is arguing that Ms. Araguz was born a man and that since Texas defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, the marriage is void and she has no rights to spousal and survivor benefits.

In many jurisdictions transgender people are legally the sex they've transitioned to and have been able to marry someone of the (now) opposite sex. What's interesting about this story is that a transgender activist is decrying the confusion between the rights of transgenders and the fight for marriage equality for gays:

Shannon Price Minter, legal director for the National Center for Transgender Equality, said the national push for gay marriage has unintentionally hurt transgendered people and resulted in cases like this.

"I think it's very unfortunate that, perhaps because of the visibility of lesbian and gay couples seeking marriage, that transgendered people have been caught up in that frame and have been hurt by that and have actually, in some respects, are more vulnerable now than they have been in the past," he said. "I think it's really only in the past few years that we see pretty ugly cases like this coming up because people are, I think, exploiting homophobia."

Okay, but who was it that insisted that transgender people be conflated with gays and lesbians under the LGBT rubric, if not transgender activists?

Very good news. From the ruling in Perry v. Schwarzenegger:

Plaintiffs have demonstrated by overwhelming evidence that Proposition 8 violates their due process and equal protection rights and that they will continue to suffer these constitutional violations until state officials cease enforcement of Proposition 8. California is able to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as it has already issued 18,000 marriage licenses to same-sex couples and has not suffered any demonstrated harm as a result ...

Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement; prohibiting the official defendants from applying or enforcing Proposition 8 and directing the official defendants that all persons under their control or supervision shall not apply or enforce Proposition 8.

It will be stayed, appealed, and eventually make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Passing marriage equality in a few more states legislatively, and managing to defeat some anti-gay-marriage ballot initiatives, would certainly help its chances there. Public perceptions are changing, but the Supreme Court, with Justice Kennedy as the swing vote, under the best case scenario won't get too far ahead of public sentiment. There is work to be done.

We'll also have to see how this plays out come November in California, with the GOP senate and gubernatorial candidates opposing gay marriage and favoring Prop. 8. Things certainly would have been brighter if, in the GOP senate primary, gay marriage opponent Carly Fiorina had lost to former GOP congressman and gay marriage supporter Tom Campbell. But sadly, that didn't happen.

Bad News. Bradley Manning, the alleged leaker of the Afghan war memos that put at risk the lives of Afghans identified as aiding the U.S.-backed war against the Taliban, is, reportedly, openly gay. Thanks guy, if it was you, this will be a big help with ending don't ask, don't tell (already, we're seeing responses like this one). But hey, what does the fight against Islamofascism matter when there's a chance to boost your cred with the left.

The Cato Institute's David Boaz blogs that Judge Vaughn Walker, who just struck down the California ban on same-sex marriage, is no "San Francisco liberal" (as some marriage equality opponents are claiming). In fact, "progressives" and gay activists fought his appointment. As Boaz writes:

Judge Walker was first appointed to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1987, at the recommendation of Attorney General Edwin Meese III. ... Democratic opposition led by Sen. Alan Cranston (D-CA) prevented the nomination from coming to a vote during Reagan's term. Walker was renominated by President George H. W. Bush in February 1989. Again the Democratic Senate refused to act on the nomination. Finally Bush renominated Walker in August, and the Senate confirmed him in December. ...

[C]oalitions including such groups as the NAACP, the National Organization for Women, the Human Rights Campaign, the Lambda Legal Defense Fund, and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force worked to block the nomination.

In other words, this "liberal San Francisco judge" was recommended by Ed Meese, appointed by Ronald Reagan, and opposed by Alan Cranston, Nancy Pelosi, Edward Kennedy, and the leading gay activist groups. It's a good thing for advocates of marriage equality that those forces were only able to block Walker twice.

It almost makes you doubt whether progressives really are smarter and more insightful than the rest of us.

More. James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal predicts that Justice Kennedy, based on the consistency of his pro-gay equality rulings, will vote to uphold Judge Walker's decision:

Yet while Kennedy cannot be pigeonholed in terms of "ideology," on this specific topic, he has been consistent in taking a very broad view of the rights of homosexuals. He not only voted with the majority but wrote the majority opinions in two crucial cases: Romer v. Evans (1996) and Lawrence v. Texas (2003). ... Those who see Justice Kennedy's position in Perry as difficult to predict in effect entertain "the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do" with his decisions on the court.

Kennedy, too, was a Reagan appointee opposed by liberal advocacy groups.

Furthermore. Jon Rowe has a different prediction.

It will be interesting to see if Perry meets up with July's federal district court ruling in Boston that found parts of the Defense of Marriage Act to be unconstitutional.

I almost hesitate to post this because many of our self-styled "progressive" readers take such intense offense at any item taking note of gay Republican efforts to work with their party's leadership toward moderating the GOP's traditional anti-gay stance. But this is worth pointing out: Staunchly conservative Texas GOP Sen. John Cornyn will speak at the Log Cabin Republicans 2010 National Dinner in Washington, D.C. (event details and speakers here).

Yes, he opposes gay marriage. Yes, he wants to wait until the military study concludes before addressing don't ask, don't tell. Yes (all together now): Democrats are better on gay issues (although, as noted in the previous post, much of this is rhetorical). Cornyn's speaking at the fundraiser is still a positive sign.

As the senator put it, same-sex marriage is "absolutely" one of those things he and LCR members don't agree on, but "I don't want people to misunderstand and think that I don't respect the dignity of every human being regardless of sexual orientation."

Forward-looking conservatives know that their party has to moderate its views on gays (and the Texas GOP is among the most reactionary pillars of gay rejectionism within the party). So this should be viewed, and welcomed, as a sign of the times. We won't achieve gay legal equality until there is support within both parties, despite those who protests that backing the "progressive" party and maximizing its power over the country is the best strategy (well, it's best for that party and its partisans, I guess).

The Washington Blade reports that "Democratic senators are blaming Republican obstructionism for the Senate's failure to advance the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, but others say a lack of strategy is preventing a vote." Moreover:

Assistant Majority Leader Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) said Democratic leadership wants to move forward with ENDA, but noted difficulties in moving any item on the legislative agenda forward. "We have a tough time moving anything on the calendar because of Republican filibusters," Durbin said. ... Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee where ENDA is pending, on Tuesday expressed similar grievances about Republican obstructionism. Asked what's keeping the legislation from coming to a Senate vote, Harkin simply replied, "Republicans."

Of course, Democrats have an overwhelming majority in the House. In the Senate, Republicans can only filibuster if all 41 vote in unison, but ENDA has two GOP co-sponsors, Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine. If Democrats were committed to it, ENDA would be passed. But they're not. ENDA is a vote they'd rather do without, and by taking no action they can (1) blame Republicans and (2) keep using the lure of ENDA to reel in more checks from gay Democrats. This isn't a new gambit; during Bill Clinton's first two years in office Democrats also had solid congressional majorities. The result: no ENDA then, either.

As the Blade also reports:

R. Clarke Cooper, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, dismissed the notion that Republicans were holding up ENDA in the Senate and said "only the current Senate majority leadership can truly answer" why ENDA isn't on the calendar. "Blaming the minority leadership for the majority's disorganization and lack of planning this year is simplistic and, frankly, lazy," Cooper said.

indeed, when Sen. Durbin was asked whether any discussions on a strategy to advance ENDA in the Senate have taken place, he admitted to the Blade, "We have not reached that level." Well, it is much easier to blame Republicans than for the majority to actually do anything.

As Blade editor Kevin Naff commented in an editorial: "Democratic politicians will never shake their nervous Nellie ways and stand up for LGBT constituents if they know gay donors will write checks election after election regardless of legislative advances."

It really is all a game, and we're the marks.

Columnist Steve Chapman looks at the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) bus tour and reaches an interesting conclusion: NOM is capitalizing on provoking LGBT protests at its events, and activists are giving NOM what it wants. Chapman writes:

why would NOM hold a rally where it is sure of being badly outnumbered by motivated and well-organized critics? Maybe because that's what it wanted. The Summer for Marriage Tour could have been called the Come Shout Us Down Tour. The endeavor has managed to make opponents of gay marriage look like a brave, embattled minority, even though they constitute 53 percent of the public and have gotten their way in all but a few states. ...

NOM's website ... focuses not on any outpouring of support for its cause, but on the protesters who have appeared at its rallies, including some it accuses of disruptive and intimidating tactics. ...

The organization specializes in a form of political jujitsu, leveraging its foes' weight against them. As chairman Maggie Gallagher tells me, "The counter-protests are holding down our physical numbers, but they're expanding our online activist community."

Chapman adds:

It's hard to get terribly outraged when a group that goes out of its way to be drowned out by its critics almost gets drowned out by its critics. But the people here to support "traditional marriage" can accurately claim that they have been impeded in their effort to communicate their views.

The older I get, the more it seems that activists on the left and right work hand in glove, often giving each other what they crave.

More. Somewhat related, Andrew Klavan writes about the left's penchant to try to suppress opposing views. Generally speaking, he's not wide of the mark. Our own John Corvino and Jon Rauch, on the marriage question, are rare exceptions in seeking to actually debate those on the social right rather than shout them down.