IGF CultureWatch

The Washington Blade's annual look at compensation paid to, as they term it, "leaders of the LGBT rights movement," is always an interesting read. But the real issue isn't just the level of pay; I agree that, in general, CEOs of nonprofits should earn what the competitive market deems is fair. The broader, and far more important question, is the same one that's being asked of private-sector CEOs these days - does the level of their individual performance this past year still entitle them to receive what would otherwise by deemed fair compensation for their positions? Or should there by some "clawback" (i.e., recouping promised compensation in light of poor performance) for these executives as well?

Given the devastatingly bad leadership shown on the part of some, particularly as regards the debacle of California's Proposition 8, a campaign mismanaged to an extraordinary degree, should Lorri Jean of the LA Center still be getting $327,000? (The Advocate, in its "Anatomy of a Failed Campaign," called her one of "the small clique of California LGBT leaders" who were in charge of directing, or misdirecting, opposition to the initative.) Should Joe Solmonese, under whose management the bulk of HRC's efforts went to getting out the vote for Obama instead of fighting the three statewide anti-gay marriage initiatives that were passed, be receiving $338,400? Or would it be more just to direct their way some of the same outrage over the bonuses being paid to executives who ran their companies into the ground?

There are signs that, as is usual in non-presidential year congressional elections, the party in power (the Democrats) are headed toward losing a substantial number of seats in 2010. Respected pollster Charles Cook provides this analysis.

Given the Democrats' misdirected spending binge, yielding trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see, and their bumbling efforts to fix the nation's banking crisis, it's likely the GOP could retake the House and pick up several seats in the Senate, robbing the Democrats of their near filibuster-proof super-majority.

Which is just to say, this may be a quickly passing moment when the Democrats have near-supreme power with the White House and Congress. If we are ever going to get the party that gay people have chosen to fund and support to do anything substantial on our behalf - with repealing don't ask, don't tell and the Defense of Marriage Act at the top of the legal-equality agenda - now is the time.

As we get closer to 2010, the Democrats are going to get increasingly hesitant to raise our issues. This is it; and if "it" doesn't happen, that means the Democrats get to fundraise on our issues for years to come, while we get to write them checks while listening to campaign rhetoric about how inclusive they are.

More. In the comments, "avee" responds to "BoBN" thusly:

BobN: For folks who constantly complain about the "trough" of Democrat-led government, you sure complain loudly when the slop isn't doled out pronto!

Avee: No, Bob, I'm not asking for billions, er, trillions in taxpayers' money; just equal rights under the law. See, I'm not a Democrat. Just asking for equal legal rights.

New GOP Party Chair Michael Steele says some interesting things-certainly not all bad-about his party and gays in his GQ interview. Some excerpts (the magazine left in the "ums" and used "gonna" for "going," which is not standard journalistic practice but serves to make Steele seem less articulate):

On gay marriage: "I have been, um, supportive of a lot of my friends who are gay in some of the core things that they believe are important to them....the ability to be able to share in the information of your partner, to have the ability to-particularly in times of crisis-to manage their affairs and to help them through that as others-you know, as family members or others-would be able to do. I just draw the line at the gay marriage....[F]rom my faith tradition and upbringing, I believe that marriage-that institution, the sanctity of it-is reserved for a man and a woman. That's just my view. And I'm not gonna jump up and down and beat people upside the head about it, and tell gays that they're wrong for wanting to aspire to that, and all of that craziness. That's why I believe that the states should have an opportunity to address that issue."

On a federal constitutional amendment: "I don't like mucking around with the Constitution.... I think that the states are the best laboratory, the best place for those decisions to be made, because they will then reflect the majority of the community in which the issue is raised. And that's exactly what a republic is all about."

On whether people choose to be gay, as the anti-gay right claims: "Oh, no. I don't think I've ever really subscribed to that view, that you can turn it on and off like a water tap. Um, you know, I think that there's a whole lot that goes into the makeup of an individual that, uh, you just can't simply say, oh, like, 'Tomorrow morning I'm gonna stop being gay.' It's like saying, 'Tomorrow morning I'm gonna stop being black.'"

Steele has made his share of missteps as he tries to move his party in a somewhat broader direction. He's been criticized by the right for his moderation on some issues (he has said he's personally anti-abortion but it should remain an indivdiual choice), and for his criticism of Rush Limbaugh's bombast (about which he was forced to recant), while attacked from the left (and mocked, of course, on Saturday Night Live) for being a black Republican. Still, the level of vitriol directed at him from left and right indicates he may be trying to do something positive, at least on the social issues front.

(For a contrary, far more negative assessment, see James Kirchick's "Rusted Steele." For its part, the Log Cabin Republicans welcomed Steele's appointment but chided him for saying his party would not support federal recognition of civil unions.)

Some Democrats in Congress may soon press for repeal of the military "don't ask, don't tell" gay ban, an issue that Obama would rather not come up, suggests The Politico. But some anti-gay activists are eager to take it on, thinking it will be a winner for them. They might want to consider what a straw poll of 1,750 conservatives (of whom nearly 60% were college age) at last weekend's CPAC confab in the nation's capital showed. Look what issue least motivates them. (Okay, if you don't want to open the nifty PowerPoint, the answer is: only 1% indicated "letting gays serve openly in the military" was the Democrats' initiative they most feared, whereas "expanding government with new spending programs" was #1, with 36%).

Also at CPAC, a panel sponsored by PajamasTV looked at finding common ground, including the question Marriage? Civil Unions? Is There a Compromise? (click on the link and keep scrolling, using the orange arrow way over on the right, to find this segment, and then click on the title). Glenn Reynolds, blogger at InstaPundit.com, said his ideal world is one in which "happily married gay couples have closets full of assault weapons." (Hat tip: Rick Sincere)

I wonder how many viewers-especially among those who voted to ban gay marriage-agree with novelist and Pajamas Media columnist Andrew Klavan's reaction to Sean Penn's best actor acceptance speech for Milk:

Let's say you believe that gay marriage should be legalized and you want to convince those among your fellow Americans who have reservations. It seems to me the wisest, most effective course would be to assume the opposition to be people of good will with real concerns and to argue your position before them forcefully but reasonably. Now let's say you're a narcissistic windbag who wants to parade yourself in front of people who agree with you as an icon of crusading righteousness when you're really just a violent lowlife who idolizes dictators and tyrants while attacking your own country. Ah, then you would be Sean Penn. Winning an admittedly deserved Oscar for an excellent performance in Milk, Penn used his time at the podium to declare everyone who doesn't support his cause hateful and shameful, a disgrace to their grandchildren. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Leftists are always talking about diversity but if you disagree with them-you're a monster. What a schmuck!

Klavan's reaction is over the top, but I think Penn's plea for voters to reconsider their opposition to Prop 8 would have been more effective without comingling it with his adoration for Obama. At some point, supporters of gay equality are going to have to realize that they have to win over Americans beyond the liberal-left Democratic party (although, admittedly, winning them over would be a start).

Separately, Wednesday's New York Times includes a range of letters regarding the Rauch/Blakenhorn op-ed calling for a compromise on marriage.

The Sunday New York Times brings a new op-ed by Jonathan Rauch, writing in collaboration with same-sex marriage opponent David Blankenhorn of the Institute for American Values. In A Reconciliation on Gay Marriage they write:

We take very different positions on gay marriage. We have had heated debates on the subject. Nonetheless, we agree that the time is ripe for a deal that could give each side what it most needs in the short run, while moving the debate onto a healthier, calmer track in the years ahead.

Congress would bestow the status of federal civil unions on same-sex marriages and civil unions granted at the state level, thereby conferring upon them most or all of the federal benefits and rights of marriage. But there would be a condition: Washington would recognize only those unions licensed in states with robust religious-conscience exceptions, which provide that religious organizations need not recognize same-sex unions against their will. The federal government would also enact religious-conscience protections of its own. All of these changes would be enacted in the same bill.

More. Dale Carpenter responds:

My initial and very tentative reaction, as a same-sex marriage supporter, is that the Blankenhorn-Rauch compromise probably gives little away since SSM was never really a threat to religious liberty anyway. As a practical matter, gay families gain a lot in very important federal benefits in exchange for what appears to be barring lawsuits that either weren't -- or shouldn't -- be available. The devil is in the details -- what exactly do "robust religious-conscience exceptions" cover? -- but the op-ed starts a conversation about federal legislation that might be politically achievable in the near future.

The New Mexico legislature is set to vote on a domestic partnership bill. As the El Paso Times reports:

The measure allows for domestic partnerships for unmarried couples, including gay couples. ... Supporters say the legislation will provide unmarried couples - regardless of gender - with [some] protections and legal responsibilities given to marriage couples, including rights involving insurance coverage, child support, inheritance and medical decision-making.

This would be a good mid-step advancement for same-sex couples. But why don't opposite-sex couples just get married? And since they can get married, why is it in the common interest to offer them state-provided benefits for "marriage lite"?

As a commenter to my post last week (on French straights abandoning marriage for easily dissolvable civil solidarity pacts) reminds us, Jonathan Rauch summed up the situation nicely in his book Gay Marriage: Why it is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America:

If marriage's self-styled defenders continue along the ABM [anything but marriage] path toward making wedlock just one of many 'partnership choices' (and not necessarily the most attractive), they will look back one day and wonder what they could possibly have been thinking when they undermined marriage in order to save it from homosexuals.

A decade ago, Jonathan Rauch wrote in "What's Wrong with 'Marriage LIte'?" that denying gays access to marriage was resulting in domestic partnerships and civil unions that were less than full marriage but often open to heterosexuals (so as not to be seen by the left as "discriminatory" and by the right as "legitimatizing homosexuality"). That worked to weaken, not strengthen, marriage as an institution. As Jon put it, "Being against gay marriage and being pro-marriage are not, as it turns out, the same thing."

Now the Washington Post reports that, in France, Straight Couples Are Choosing Civil Unions Meant for Gays, in large numbers. "The brief procedure of the Civil Solidarity Pact, or PACS in its French-language abbreviation" are being chosen over marriage by a growing number of French men and women as "a legal and social status, halfway between living together and marriage."

PACS offer the tax and many legal benefits of marriage but:

"If one or both of the partners declares in writing to the court that he or she wants out, the PACS is ended, with neither partner having claim to the other's property or to alimony."

In other words, the couple never become a single legal and economic unit, and are far less bound than business partners.

Yet today, heterosexual couples entering into a PACS agreement has grown from 42 percent of the total initially to 92 percent last year. For every two marriages in France, a PACS is celebrated, and the number is rising steadily.

At the same time, the Post reports, "The social stigma once associated with having children outside marriage has largely disappeared.... More than half the babies in France, including those of PACSed couples, are born out of wedlock." Overall, "The relaxation of marriage-related social strictures marks a significant departure from long-established French family traditions."

Some would celebrate, declaring that marriage is an oppressive bourgeois institution. I think a more effective message is that gays want to strengthen marriage by joining it, not help to weaken it.

"Less than marriage" should, at most, be a way station for same-sex couples until society is ready to grant us marriage equality, not a permanent alternative used mostly by shacked-up straights to gain the benefits of marriage with few of the mutual responsibilities, and with no assumption of permanence.

In response to conservative criticism, Senate Democrats dropped $400 million in HIV prevention funding from their trillion dollar "stimulus" spending bill. (I know, AIDS is not necessarily a "gay" issue, but the Washington Blade put this on their front page, so I'm going to comment on it.)

AIDS activists protested: "Michael Weinstein, president of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation...said critics are wrong in claiming HIV- or STD-related programs don't boost the economy."

That's an understandable response from a lobby, but it misses the point. The question isn't whether HIV prevention programs are economic stimulus; of course they're not. But then, neither is most of the spending in this monstrosity of a bill. And if it's going to provide billions to fund other non-job creating liberal-left initiatives, such as research into global warming, along with giving billions to the states to spend on whatever they please (i.e., pork), then just why not HIV prevention?

The answer is that Senate Dems felt that this was the one area they would be prudent to surrender. That's telling.

More. Yes, I realize that some relatively small, additional cuts have now been made from the original House bill, first in the Senate version and later as part of the Senate-House reconciliation . But as reader Avee comments, there remains in the bill massive amounts of funding for social initiatives that have nothing realistically to do with job creation. And the HIV funding was one of the first that was dropped (and from the original, totally larded-up House version), which is what I found to be telling.

Furthermore. Will the stimulus actually stimulate? Economists say no. And this, from Cato.