IGF CultureWatch

There's a big (or maybe not so much) National Equality March on Washington coming up on Oct. 10-11, organized by "grassroots" left-liberal and pro-union LGBT activists. But its main characteristic might be the lack of a clear, focused and achievable demand - I'd nominate pressing the Democratic Congress and president to repeal the provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that prohibit the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages that are legal and valid under state laws. Along those lines, two stories this week caught my eye.

The New York Times looks at The High Price of Being a Gay Couple:

In our worst case, the couple's lifetime cost of being gay was $467,562. But the number fell to $41,196 in the best case for a couple with significantly better health insurance, plus lower taxes and other costs.

From another angle, CNNMoney.com looked at health care costs and included a profile of a gay man married to his partner:

"I've started my own business, so for the time being, we've added me to my spouse's insurance plan.... The good news is that he's got an excellent benefits package, so that doesn't cost us anything extra out-of-pocket.... The bad news is that the Federal government doesn't acknowledge our relationship, so the employer contribution is reported as taxable income....

"I don't believe in socialized health care. I am a very big believer in the free market. I want universal health care through the private sector, through the free market."

Spot on. Marriage equality and the free market - a liberty agenda for real change we could believe in!

A Human Rights Campaign (HRC) nightmare: As the Washington Blade reports, in an upstate New York congressional district a pro-gay-marriage Republican is running against an anti-gay-marriage Democrat. My prediction: no endorsement from the nation's largest LGBT rights group.

Of course, Democrats may say (should a gay-supportive Republican tip the partisan balance) that a GOP-led House wouldn't take up issues such as reforming the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)...oh...never mind.

OK, there is some truth to that. But you simply can not get to gay legal equality with just one party, while half the nation supports a party that remains opposed, because it receives no gay support, because it remains opposed (play loop endlessly). Gay inroads must be made in the GOP, and races such as this one are important.

Two things struck me about last Saturday's huge "tea party" March on Washington: the way the media dismissed the event's importance and focused on the kooks (exactly as they used to do with gay protests), and the lack of an anti-gay message from among the marchers (a very good development).

As to the first point, Matt Welch, editor of the libertarian magazine Reason, observed in the New York Post, "How do you marginalize a significant protest against a politician or policy you support? Lowball the numbers, then dismiss participants as deranged and possibly dangerous kooks. In the case of Saturday's massive 9/12 protest in Washington, done and done." Just as was done with gays. The major media is rarely objective, it's just that its biases change.

Similarly, the Cato Institute's Gene Healy's recounted:

Judging by the massive crowd on Saturday that descended on Washington for the 9/12 March, you'd have to be deaf not to recognize that small-government conservatism remains a vital part of the national conversation.

If you've been fed a steady media diet of MSNBC over the last few months, though, you could be excused for fearing a Pennsylvania Avenue takeover by a rabble of pitchfork-wielding cranks and extras from "Deliverance." But the crowd - "in excess of 75,000 people," according to a D.C. Fire and Emergency Medical Services spokesman - was made up of orderly, pleasant, middle-class Americans from all across the country.

In my two hours at the protest, I didn't see a single "Birther" sign, and spied only one racially insensitive caricature. "Many of the signs," the liberal Center for American Progress alleges on its blog, "attacked President Obama using explicit racial and ethnic smears" - a claim that's simply false. . . . The gallery of "racist, radical portrayals" they posted after spending hours looking at tens of thousands of signs contains few that fit the bill.

And, somewhat surprisingly, there seems to be no evidence of anti-gay contingents at the protest, either. Even Andrew Sullivan, who posted every crazy or embarrassing sign that anyone saw at the March (how dare they criticize the Chosen One!), couldn't find any that were anti-gay. So I think we can assume there weren't any.

This was, in fact, a different group of right-wingers, as the Wall Street Journal reported on Saturday:

"The demonstrators, who plan to march up Pennsylvania Avenue to the Capitol, are drawing their passion not from Bush-era fights over terrorism or gay marriage, but rather from Reagan-era debates over big government programs."

This could be partly because Obama has steered clear of social issues, such as marriage equality, and has instead worked hard to advance bigger-government programs, so that's where the country's focus is. But it's also true that the established groups that played some role in Saturday's march - National Taxpayers Union, Freedomworks, Americans for Prosperity - tend to be led by libertarians with no interest in the anti-gay agenda.

It's clear that the Bush-Obama bailouts and the larger Obama program have galvanized libertarian-leaning, anti-tax, anti-deficit, small-government people, and those are the issues being talked about this summer. And if the beltway LGBT movement wasn't run by Democratic party operatives, they might see that making common cause with pro-liberty groups on the right as well as with the pro-gay big-government left could create a movement that might have a fighting chance of achieving legal equality for gay people, rather than just delivering gay votes, and dollars, to Democrats.

Celebrated attorney David Boies (he led Gore's Florida recount legal team in 2000) explains in the Wall Street Journal why he and Ted Olson (who led Bush's recount effort) have now come together and brought a lawsuit asking the courts to declare unconstitutional California's Prop. 8, which limits marriage to couples of the opposite sex. Writes Boies:

"We acted together because of our mutual commitment to the importance of this cause, and to emphasize that this is not a Republican or Democratic issue, not a liberal or conservative issue, but an issue of enforcing our Constitution's guarantee of equal protection and due process to all citizens."

Meanwhile, some LGBT groups are upset that a conservative lawyer is part of an effort to strike down laws that treat gays unequally, as Mother Jones reports. Well, maybe the case is mistimed and misdirected. But it also seems clear that these groups are really upset over (1) not calling all the shots here (as this Washington Blade story suggests), and (2) the fact that a conservative (albeit a limited government one) is not playing his assigned role of anti-gay demon. Just how, they must be wondering, could that possibly aid the advancement of the greater progressive agenda under the leadership of the one true party?

I've never shied from criticizing the gay left for preaching that "LGBT rights" are just one part of a broad "progressive" agenda leading to the golden age of redistributive socialism under the direction of a liberal elite that's better than the rest of us. And I stand by that, especially to the extent that the leading LGBT rights organizations are now little more than Democratic party fundraising fronts run by Democratic party operatives.

But I have to say, as of late, I'm more sympathetic to focusing on a broader agenda, but from the opposite direction. One reason my heart hasn't been in blogging here at IGF is that, as important as gay legal equality remains in the face of government-mandated discrimination (primarily marriage and the military), I'm totally bummed out by the greater issue of the harm to American long-term prosperity and individual liberty under the current administration in Washington, all to the sycophantic cheerleading of the big-government-loving propagandists who dominate the media.

As I doubt that there will be anything other than feigned moves toward repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act or Don't Ask, Don't Tell before the 2010 elections (at which point Republicans who've been opposed by the gay lobbies will, I believe, pick up several or more seats in both congressional chambers), all we're likely to reap from the chosen one is a yet bigger orgy of spending to grow government at the expense of the private sector, sowing the seeds of even more confiscatory taxation and/or hyperinflation, along with still more ill-conceived and anti-growth regulation (much of the worst justified by the hysteria of global warming alarmism, the left's religious apocalypticalism).

So my attention has not been on gay rights; it's not where the action is. And to that degree, as I said, I can sympathize with the left that's always been more interested in "larger issues" at hand.

Still, from time to time I'd like to draw attention to some truly independent thought on gay issues, such as Camille Paglia's recent explanation of why she's against hate crime/thought crime laws (it's here, but you have to scroll down to the last answer on the page). Excerpt:

"Government functionaries should not be ceded the dangerous authority to make decisions about motivation. ... The barbaric acts that led to the death of Matthew Shepard in 1998 deserved a very severe penalty, which has been applied."

As reader "avee" wrote in the comments, responding to some muddled assertions:

Motive is only important in terms of its relation to pre-meditation. If motive reveals a crime was pre-meditated, then it's a more serious crime.

Increasing the penalties for assault or murder because of the bias in a person's head is a very different matter. It is, in effect, punishing thought. You may like punishing those with thoughts you don't think they should have, but it's a very bad road to go down. Beware, social engineers, of the consequences of your actions.

More. Reader "Sol" comments, responding an assertion that it's all Bush's fault:

"The Bush deficit was bad; the Obama deficit is catastrophic. There really is no way to convey the unprecedented size of the projected federal debt, but this chart gives some indication. ... At some point we will either have to inflate our way out of this hole, or raise taxes in a drastic way. The result will be a low-growth, heavily government dependent economy for years to come."

Ah, but at least we'll have higher criminal penalities (or, probably in fact not) if the state can ferret out bias!

From activist/blogger Michael Petrelis, on the upcoming Washington, DC, Democratic Party fundraiser being hosted by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and others:

It is time to close the LGBT checkbook and ATM for the Democratic Party, until such time as the party actually delivers some real legislative and presidential-driven changes and advancement for LGBT people.

But if LGBT beltway operatives didn't raise money unconditionally for the Democratic Party, what would they do?

The New York Times on Tuesday called Obama out for his about-face support of the Defense of Marriage Act:

The Obama administration, which came to office promising to protect gay rights but so far has not done much, actually struck a blow for the other side last week. It submitted a disturbing brief in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, which is the law that protects the right of states to not recognize same-sex marriages and denies same-sex married couples federal benefits. The administration needs a new direction on gay rights.

Later that same day, the Washington Post reported on its website (and then in Wednesday's paper) that the administration would extend federal benefits to unmarried partners of federal workers. Will that appease LGBT Democratic liberals, who have shown themselves extremely easy to appease in the name of party unity? Stay tuned.

More. The Wall Street Journal clarifies, "The president doesn't have the power to grant gay and lesbian partners of federal workers health care and many other benefits." That's because "The government is prevented from granting many federal benefits under the Defense of Marriage Act." But, the Journal adds, "he could take other steps, such as offering family services like language training and evacuation assistance for State Department workers." Woo-hoo!

But fear not. For Pride week, Obama is signing a directive banning discrimination against LGBT federal workers (Clinton signed an executive order covering gay workers and Bush left it in place; Obama's directive includes the transgendered). Change we can believe in!

From Ryan Sager, Being Barack Means Never Having to Say You're Sorry. It's excellent. Here's an excerpt:

And, you know what, they (we) will pretty much take it. Just like with Bill Clinton...

If we generally like someone - and the vast majority of gay people like Obama and voted for him - we're far more likely to accept an apology from them. ...

[By the same token, if you didn't like President Bush, you were certainly never going to forgive him for supporting the Federal Marriage Amendment (even though Bush only fake-supported it to appease his base and then made sure it never moved forward in Congress - arguably making him better on gay rights than Clinton).]

Another factor at work is the "false consensus bias." It's a shame the things Obama has had to do out of political necessity, you tell yourself, but I know deep down he cares about gay rights ...

Of course, this is bull. Experiments have shown that we're all terrible intuitive psychologists and extremely prone to projecting our views onto others (that is, in the absence of evidence, we assume people think what we do).

Obama, in fact, has really been the master of false consensus bias.

Read the whole thing.

As if to prove the above: The AP reports, Obama fends off criticism from gay supporters

Trying to quell that anger, Obama was set on Wednesday to sign small changes in benefits available to same-sex couples....Partners, however, would not have access to primary health insurance or to pensions....

...the administration defended the Defense of Marriage Act, which allows states to reject another state's legalized gay marriages and blocks federal Washington from recognizing those state-based unions. Overturning it is a top legislative target for gay activists. But Justice Department lawyers used incest as a reason to support the law.

[White House press secretary Robert] Gibbs argued that the administration had no choice but to defend existing laws and said Obama still believes it should be repealed. But he also would give no specific timeframe for doing that, or for overturning the military's "don't ask don't tell" policy in effect since 1993....

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., defended Obama against criticism that he has been slow to deliver on his campaign promises.

Furthermore. From Dale Carpenter, The Least He Could Do.

Much examination has been done of late on the strategic missteps taken by Equality California and others opposing anti-gay marriage ballot initiatives. For example, statistician and political analyst Nate Silver writes:

When gay marriage is polled, it is almost always framed as a positive right, as in: "should the government permit Adam and Steve to get married?".... But there is a different way to frame the question that is no less fair, and flips the issue on its head. Namely: "should the government be allowed to prohibit Adam and Steve from getting married?" ... And it turns out that if you frame a polling question in this particular way...you get a very different set of responses. Take a look at what happens:

When USA Today asks whether gay marriage is a private decision, or rather whether government has the right to pass laws which regulate it, 63 percent say it's a private decision. This contrasts significantly with all other polling on gay marriage. The highest level of support gay marriage has received in the more traditional, positive-rights framing is 49 percent....

[A]dvocates for same-sex marriage can do a better job of framing their argument. Generally speaking, appeals to government noninterference are fairly popular; people don't like government telling them what they do and they don't have the right to do....

Equality California was still stuck in the positive rights paradigm. Gay marriage was something given to California by the state Supreme Court in its benevolent wisdom, not an intrinsic (negative) right for which the government had a duty of noninterference.

And this week, the Washington Post's God and Government blog posted Gay Rights Groups Ignored Religion on Prop. 8, noting a report that shows:

Gay-rights groups made a major strategic error in their failed effort to stop California's Proposition 8, which outlawed gay marriage, by ignoring the faith community and trying to make their case purely on secular grounds....

During the Prop. 8 campaign, the report said, pro-gay religious leaders who opposed the measure were told not to use the religious language of their traditions to voice their opposition to the measure and, when they were finally encouraged to speak out as people of faith, it was too late.

I'm aware that hindsight is 20/20. But we'll see if, going forward, the strategic mistakes of the past - mistakes premised on "progressive" tropes of demanding positive rights from government and appeals to secularism - are corrected.

Maura Flynn makes The Republican Case for Gay Marriage. She writes:

As a nation we're at a crossroads, no question. Our banking industry scrambles to escape quasi-nationalization, our auto industry is in the process of being nationalized, and we have instituted, of all things, a Car Czar (note: it took Russia roughly 300 years to stack up so many czars). If that isn't bad enough, nationalized health care is on the table again.

So as the Republic devolves and those with the means contemplate hightailing it to the Caymans, it's probably time to ask ourselves what it is to be "conservative."

One need only read the comments on this site to know that there are two fundamental schools of thought here. Some of us believe that to be conservative is to defend freedom, preserve individual liberty, and keep government small. Others believe that being conservative is about electing a government that will defend and enforce "traditional" values.

And she adds:

The Republican Party has made a huge mistake in advocating a kind of Cafeteria Constitutionalism. (I'll take some guns, no helmet laws, please, a free market, and...yuck, hold the gay marriage!). One can't legitimately invoke the Constitution to oppose federally mandated sex education, and then use the federal government to impose school prayer. Leave that fair-weather-federalism to the Left.

This is the type of argument a movement seeking legal equality for gay people ought to be making. But, of course, it's something the LGBT Democratic Party fundraisers at the Human Rights Campaign have decided isn't worth any effort.

More. Of course, maybe HRC should focus first on defending gay legal equality to the Great Liberal President to whom they pledged unconditional LBGT support during the election. From AMERICAblog: Obama defends DOMA in federal court. Says banning gay marriage is good for the federal budget. Invokes incest and marrying children.

Not working to build up support on the right is what has allowed the left to walk all over us. Eggs and baskets, boys and girls. Eggs and baskets.

More. LGBT myopia: We don't need Dick Cheney's support. LGBT progressives are confused: how would achieving marriage equality with Republican support serve the Democratic Party?