IGF CultureWatch

Adding to the posts below by Dale and David, it doesn't appear to me that Obama deserves any credit for being forced to move ahead on repealing "don't ask, don't tell." The movers here are those Democrats in Congress who are, finally, standing up to the president.

As the AP reports, under the proposal Congress would overturn the Clinton-era law barring gays from serving openly in the military, but would "allow the Pentagon time-perhaps even years-to implement new policies" following completion of a comprehensive study. At that time, implementation would require approval of the president, defense secretary and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. And tellingly, according to the AP:

"The White House had hoped lawmakers would delay action until Pentagon officials had completed their study so fellow Democrats would not face criticism that they moved too quickly or too far ahead of public opinion in this election year. Instead, administration officials recognized it could not stop Congress in its effort to repeal the 1993 ban and joined the negotiations."

In other words, Obama's hope was to sacrifice his commitment to gay equality in the military for electoral expediency. But at least some congressional Democrats, who may or may not have the votes to put this across, aren't letting him get away with it. Good for them.

More:

uh-oh.

"A lukewarm endorsement from Defense Secretary Robert Gates and opposition among some lawmakers cast doubt Tuesday on whether Congress this week would lift a 17-year-old ban on gays serving openly in the military....

"I see no reason for the political process to pre-empt it," Sen. Jim Webb, a conservative Democrat from Virginia, said of the military study."

By the way, the Human Rights Campaign's website is still bragging about the group's support for Webb.

ADDED: With House passage, all eyes will be on the Senate, which isn't expected to vote until later this summer. At issue: will the Senate Republicanbs mount a filibuster?

Also, it should be noted the despite the characterization in the excerpt above, Sen. Jim Webb is no "conservative Democrat." He was an enthusiastic supporter of the Obama mega-billion pork-barrel "stimulus" and of so-called health care reform. He's a big spending, government expanding Democrat who thinks he can placate Virginia conservatives by opposing equality for gays. Nice. Let's all send our checks to HRC to keep him in office.

Benefits of bipartisanship. GOP Sen. Susan Collins of Maine backs repeal, giving conservative Democrats some wiggle room.

American libertarians, including Barry Goldwater back in the day, have opposed racial discrimination but been wary of using the federal government to make discrimination by private employers against "protected classes" illegal, as Reason' hit & run blog notes.

Which brings us to the current Rand Paul brouhaha. This erupted after the Kentucky GOP Senate primary winner, a favorite of Tea Party patriots, told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow (when asked) that he would not have voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act barring discrimination in hiring by private employers. Predictably, Paul was branded a "racist" and has come under enormous political fire by the mainstream media.

But libertarians' opposition to the Civil Rights Act no more makes them "racists" than their opposition to outlawing anti-gay hiring discrimination in the private sector makes them homophobes (as Nigel Ashford addressed here back in 1999).

Whether you agree or not, it's a principled view based on assumptions about, and in defense of, individual liberty. But as a society we've become unable to discuss and debate serious positions regarding political philosophy, and instead have only demagoguery and partisan grandstanding.

What I find interesting is the fact that the Employee Non-Discrimination Act, which would make sexual orientation and gender identity into classes protected from employment discrimination, is going nowhere fast (as Dale Carpenter makes clear), despite two years of a liberal Democratic president with sweeping majorities in both houses of Congress.

But in this case, it's not because Democrats are closet libertarians; they just don't see the advantage in using political capital on our behalf. And their inaction seems perfectly fine with the liberal grandees of the mainstream media, given their silence on the issue. For them, at least, some forms of private-sector discrimination are more tolerable than others. And that is not a principled position; it's just a political calculation.

This account in D.C.'s City Paper is about a burning issue facing our community: making sure that we all use LGBT (or LGBTQ, or LGBTQIT, or...) and not the no longer correct GLBT. For those not consumed with politically correction nomenclature, the only truly progressive stance is to put lesbians before gays, bisexuals and the transgendered in the ubiquitous if ungainly (and mystifying to the uninitiated) acronym. But see, we're striking a blow against male privilege, and after all, isn't that what matters?

And if you ever wondered why after two years of Democratic majorities we will not be seeing an end to "don't ask, don't tell" or movement on the anti-discrimination law that activists say is their top priority, this sort of nonsense may give you a clue.

Following protests by LGBT activists, the Energy Department removed Washington University physics professor Jonathan Katz from a select group of five top scientists asked to pursue a solution to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The reason had nothing to do with the physics of stopping oil from pouring into the sea. It centered on Katz's postings on his website regarding his adamant disapproval of homosexuality.

Let's be clear: Katz is a homophobe, and proud of it. As the Washington Times reported, in Katz's website posting titled "In Defense of Homophobia," he opined that "the human body was not designed...to engage in homosexual acts," and that "Engaging in such behavior is like riding a motorcycle on an icy road without a helmet...sooner or later (probably sooner) the consequences will be catastrophic. Lethal diseases spread rapidly among people who do such things."

Pretty offensive stuff. But should opinion written on a personal website get you booted from a government assignment? What about from your job? Where does the line get drawn?

According to the newspaper's account, A.J. Bockelman, director of the St. Louis LGBT advocacy group PROMO, applaued the decision to remove Katz, saying, "It's disappointing at a time like this that when all Americans need to come together and focus on relief efforts and recovery efforts in the Gulf, someone divisive was placed in a position of power." But obviously it's not "all Americans" that Bockelman thinks should come together to solve the Gulf spill, since Katz, too, is an American, and one (unlike Bockelman) with expertise that the Obama administration felt would be valuable to the mission at hand.

Rather than demanding that Katz not be allowed to help solve the spill, in an effort, more or less, to punish him for his wrong-headed advocacy, it would be far more productive to engage him (and the many who think like him) in open and vigorous debate. But that is no longer the progressive way, and hasn't been for many years. Bad speech is to be punished, otherwise some may be misled. End of story.

I might be more sympathetic to the argument that Katz's personal advocacy placed him beyond the pale if it weren't for the hypocrisy of so many on the left, who believe one of the great crimes of the 20th century was that certain American Communist Party members (and yes, they were), who during the time of Stalin worked to advance the cause of communist tyranny, suffered grievously by being denied movie industry work in Hollywood.

Eugene Volokh discusses the new liberal line being taken by Elena Kagan advocates, i.e., "She can't be lesbian, she's dated men." Says Volokh,

seems to me pretty odd to see assertions...that she must be straight because she has dated men.... As I understand it, the great majority of women who are not purely heterosexual are actually to some degree bisexual.

That's certainly what the surveys, and everyday observation, seem to suggest (not to mention lessons learned from TV's Grey's Anatomy).

But the Obama administration and its fellow travelers-including, it seems, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, as quoted here-have decreed that questions about Kagan's personal relationships are out of bounds (unlike, say, for relationship questions about nominees who are unquestionable straight), and any suggestion she might not be exclusively heterosexual is a smear. (Reminds me of how so many feminists joined with liberal men to argue that it was a terrible thing Sarah Palin wasn't staying at home, where she belonged, to raise her children.)

More. In response to the disbelieving commenter, here's one example (hat tip: Bobby)-the Washington Post's Sally Quinn, as recounted by Politico: " 'Her first priority has to be her children,' Quinn wrote. 'When the phone rings at 3 in the morning and one of her children is really sick what choice will she make?' "

But I grant you, liberal men were far more likely to engage in this sort of thing, and worse.

Leaving aside the brouhaha over whether Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan is in the closet-and the Obama administration's contention that even to ask is a "slur"-there is a bigger gay-related issue with the nominee. As dean of Harvard Law School, Kagan barred military recruitment on campus because the military discriminates against gay people. She reversed herself when it looked like mega-endowment-rich Harvard Law would otherwise lose funds that the government takes from Joe Taxpayer and gives to the elite university.

As former New Republic editor Peter Beinart, himself a liberal, writes at The Daily Beast:

The United States military is not Procter and Gamble. It is not just another employer. It is the institution whose members risk their lives to protect the country. You can disagree with the policies of the American military; you can even hate them, but you can't alienate yourself from the institution without in a certain sense alienating yourself from the country. Barring the military from campus is a bit like barring the president or even the flag. It's more than a statement of criticism; it's a statement of national estrangement.

At the conservative National Review, Ed Whelan blogs:

It's also worth emphasizing that what Kagan mischaracterized as the "military's policy" is in fact the Clinton administration's implementation of a provision of the defense-appropriations law that a Democratic-controlled Congress enacted in 1993 (with Clinton's signature). Instead of taking potshots at military recruiters who were merely complying with the law, did Kagan ever exclude from campus any of the politicians responsible for the law? Of course not. Indeed, whatever moral opposition Kagan had to the law when it was adopted didn't deter her from seeking and obtaining employment in the Clinton White House. Nor will it keep her from palling around with the many senators who voted for it, such as Vice President Biden.

Let's be clear: I abhor "don't ask, don't tell" as much as Elena Kagan. But something is very wrong about Harvard faculty and students taking the view, during a time of war, that the military's gay ban means that they need not consider serving in the armed force.

Working to keep the military from recruiting Harvard's "best and the brightest"-the soon-to-be power elite-was never the way to oppose the congressionally imposed military gay ban. But it sure gave Harvard elitists the perfect excuse for leaving the fighting, and the dying, to those with calloused hands.

More on Kagan. Politico reports that the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation is complaining about a Wall Street Journal photo showing Kagan playing softball, whining it implies she's a lesbian (sadly, I'm not making this up). Chris Barron of the conservative gay group GOProud comments to Politico, "I fully expect the White House to push back and claim Kagan never played softball and that it's a smear to insinuate she did."

California U.S. Senate Candidate Tom Campbell, leading in the GOP primary, has an interview with Frontiers magazine on marriage equality and individual freedom:

Tom Campbell does not look or act like the Republican politicians LGBT people are used to seeing on cable news. He's more Clark Kent with a sense of humor. But underneath that collegial demeanor is the steel spine of a strongly principled moderate/conservative Republican with a laser focus on federalism, less government and more individual freedom.
....

Interestingly to LGBTs, Campbell is leading among the usually anti-gay Republicans, despite his long-held views as a pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-marriage equality social moderate.

Many gay people say they will never vote for the party of Lincoln because of its past decades of opposition to gay equality. But what if there were a brilliant Republican U.S. senator from the nation's largest state who opposed Proposition 8? Mightn't that help to bring about the Republican party they'd prefer to see? Along with Sen. Scott Brown (who calls marriage equality in Massachusetts "a settled issue"), wouldn't we begin to see, finally, a less southern, less conservative-religious party? And why wouldn't that be a really good thing?

More. David Boaz takes aim at Sarah Palin's misguided endorsement of Campbell's chief primary opponent, failed CEO Carly Fiorina.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has sent Congress a letter stating that that ending the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy before the military conducts a thorough review (translation: not this year) "would send a very damaging message to our men and women in uniform that in essence their views, concerns and perspectives do not matter." After all, those serving in the military expect to make political policy and dislike taking orders, right?

A release from the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network states:

Gay rights advocates are furious after Defense Secretary Robert Gates, speaking for the Administration in a letter to the Hill, effectively killed the chances of a vote on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" before the Midterms. And if the Democrats lose the House, repeal-a firm Obama campaign promise-may be deferred indefinitely.

Uh, oh, guess who's been thrown under the bus.

Not surprisingly, the Obama fundraisers at the Human Rights Campaign are spinning the Gates letter as if the Defense Secretary had operated independently, like some sort of loose cannon (reminds me of how in Russia during the '30s Gulag prisoners used to lament, "if only Stalin knew!"). States an HRC release:

Today's letter from Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen to House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton flies in the face of the President's commitment in the State of the Union address to work with Congress to repeal the discriminatory "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law this year.... It is inconceivable that the Secretary of Defense would so blatantly undermine the Commander-in-Chief's policy commitment.

But as scholars at the Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara, point out in a release titled Experts: Obama Administration Defers "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Repeal Two Years:

Christopher Neff, Deputy Executive Director of the Palm Center, believes that Secretary Gates' letter is a signal from the White House, not just the Pentagon. "Today's letter represents a public effort by the Obama Administration to put a stop to Congressional repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell' in 2010. Clearly, the Department of Defense is not its own branch of government. The Secretary of Defense serves the President."

Somebody tell the Human Rights Campaign.

A diatribe at The Clyde Fitch Report blogsite tears into Kelsey Grammer, formerly of "Frasier" fame and currently co-starring in a Broadway revival of La Cage aux Folles. Grammer, a Republican who supported Rudy Giuliani for president in 2008, is promoting the soon-to-be-launched RightNetwork with a video riffing on big government, more taxes, and trillion dollar deficits. For this, the Fitch Report howls that Grammer is "a radical right-winger...putting his reactionary maw behind the RightNetwork, a new multiplatform venture that presumably aims to hurl the LGBT community all the back to the closet, stripped of whatever rights they may have won, and, for all we know, marked with ass tattoos just the way that William F. Buckley, Jr., wanted."

Nothing on the site, or in Grammer's video, warrants that assessment or suggests that the new "network" will be anti-gay. But like those who make up racist slurs to attack everyone who joins Tea Party protests against gargantuan government, truth has very little to do with it.

Everything we know about Grammer suggests he's gay-supportive (this Wall Street Journal profile calls him an "outspoken Republican" and "a supporter of same-sex marriage"). But I suspect the left's biggest fear is a limited government movement that is not socially reactionary.

Yet if only the intolerant get involved in the GOP, the Tea Parties, and conservative politics in general, it's clear that the right will stay predominantly intolerant forever, giving many on the left what they seem to want-a boogeyman party to fundraise against. That may be in their partisan interest, but it's not a strategy that bodes well for the expansion of our rights, especially given likely Republican gains in Congress come November.

Wall Street Journal columnist William McGurn pens a column (for WSJ subscribers only) on the Supreme Court case involving whether a conservative Christian student group at Hastings College can be treated equally with other student groups regarding university recognition and funding, when the university itself receives taxpayer funding, and still exclude non-believers and gays from its membership and leadership.

McGurn notes that with bigger and bigger government spreading taxpayers' money more widely in all directions, it becomes harder for any institution to not receive public funding. That leads to contortions such as this:

The dean is Leo Martinez of the University of California Hastings College of the Law. Here he is defending the school policy at issue, which requires the Christian Legal Society (CLS) to admit non-Christians and gays if it wants to be an official student group:

Question: "Would a student chapter of, say, B'nai B'rith, a Jewish Anti-Defamation League, have to admit Muslims?"
Mr. Martinez: "The short answer is 'yes.'"
Question: "A black group would have to admit white supremacists?"
Mr. Martinez: "It would."
Question: "Even if it means a black student organization is going to have to admit members of the Ku Klux Klan?"
Mr. Martinez: "Yes."
Question: "You can see where that might cause some consternation?"

LGBT activists and much of the gay community are opposing the Christian Legal Society, but as McGurn further writes:

That's a much more serious proposition than a simple disagreement with some private organization. That public/private distinction helps explain why CLS has also found allies in the libertarian Cato Institute and Gays & Lesbians for Individual Liberty. In their own brief, this latter group stresses that it was the ability of gay Americans to form gay associations-whose membership rules they defined for themselves-that gave them a collective voice in the face of an often hostile majority.

Presumably Gays & Lesbians for Individual Liberty do not share the CLS view of human sexuality. But they understand exactly where Dean Martinez's logic is taking us.

Update. And expect to see more of this:

"Three bisexual men are suing a national gay-athletic organization, saying they were discriminated against during the Gay Softball World Series held in the Seattle area two years ago. The three Bay Area men say the North American Gay Amateur Athletic Alliance in essence deemed them not gay enough to participate in the series.

An alliance attorney says the group is a private organization and, as such, can determine its membership based on its goals. Good luck with that!

Update. The San Diego Gay & Lesbian News reports:

The National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) last week filed suit against NAGAAA for enforcing its policy of no more than two heterosexual players for each team competing in the GSWS against three players who now purport to be bisexual. Melanie Rowen, the NCLR attorney representing the plaintiffs, told SDGLN the orientation of five players from the San Francisco-based team "D2" was protested by an opposing team at the GSWS in Seattle two years ago. The protesting team claimed D2 had perhaps as many as five straight players. NAGAAA's tournament rules allow for no more than two per team.

According to Rowen, after being asked what their sexual preferences were, one said he was gay, two refused to answer and two more said they enjoyed both men and women and one of those was married to a woman.

Apparently, the National Center for Lesbian Rights has nothing better to do than sue gay organizations for trying to maintain a gay identity. Of course, when it comes to defending the rights of women to mantaining "safe" and "affirming" women-only spaces, that's apparenlty an entirely different matter.