IGF CultureWatch

Dick Cheney "takes a position that places him at a more progressive tilt than President Obama" regarding same-sex marriage, according to Sam Stein at the left-liberal Huffington Post. Cheney supports allowing states to let gay couples wed, which Obama opposes, although Obama supports civil unions. As Stein observes:

Cheney has made similar arguments in support of gay marriage in the past, including during the run-up to the 2004 election. But his current comments come at a moment when the Republican Party and conservative movement is increasingly split on the issue. Bush recount lawyer Ted Olsen and John McCain campaign manager Steve Schmidt have both argued in favor of gay marriage. The religious right, as expected, remains opposed.

Those who think the Republican Party is hopeless are wrong, but repeated declarations by LGBT Democratic operatives that we MUST support, and only support, their party is a strategy bent on ensuring that the GOP remains the hand-maiden of the religious right, while assuring Obama that he need do only the most minimal in order to maintain the unconditional support of national LGBT fundraising fronts (since he is, after all, busy with far more important tasks such as nationalizing the economy, spending us into generational mega-debt and regulating how we sit at our desks).

And counting... Per the Washington Examiner, by one report, 218 gay service members have been discharged under the "don't ask, don't tell" (lie and hide) policy since Obama and the overwhelmingly Democratic Congress took office. But if they end the ban, what would they promise LGBT activists - again - in 2010...and 2012?

Furthermore. A revealing comment from reader "SStocky":

Every time I'm solicited for Equality Florida I ask for information on what they're doing with Republicans who control the state government - who have they met with lately, what potential allies are they grooming, who's their contact in the governor's office? No answers are forthcoming and, of course, my wallet stays closed. Let's face it, no major civil rights legislation has ever passed without significant bipartisan support, yet the professional gay activists would have us believe putting all our eggs in the Democratic-liberal, left basket is the path to victory.

When will the community wake up and see they're being taken? When will serious efforts be made to reach out to all reasonable people of both parties and independents rather than continually playing the insider Democrat game? I hope it will be in my lifetime, but I'm not holding my breath.

When both parties were unwelcoming, we had a more or less bipartisan movement. Since the Democrats learned to use inclusive rhetoric and toss in a few (very few) bones, "LGBT" fundraising has been taken over by Democratic operatives whose allegiance is to serving their party. Like this reader, I'm not overly optimistic that things will change soon.

"Praise for Sotomayor" proclaims the Washington Blade's headline, followed by "Activists 'encouraged' by Supreme Court pick, despite thin record on LGBT issues."

In other words, the Democratic Party loyalists leading our LGBT activist groups are swooning over self-described "wise Latina" Sonia Sotomayor even though her record of ruling on behalf of gay legal equality is nonexistent. In the words of D'Arcy Kemnitz, head of the National LGBT Bar Association, "As LGBT Americans, we are excited to have more diversity on the bench."

And she does, after all, speak for all of us "LGBT Americans," right?

I suppose these left-liberal advocates are heartened by Sotomayor's disrespect for property rights and support for race-based preferential treatment, as part of what Human Rights Campaign leader Joe Solmonese praises as "Judge Sotomayor's record of fair-minded decisions." From this perspective, if you favor expanded government confiscation of private property and support blatant discrimination by government against white males, you are - wait for it - a progressive. And thus you must also be in favor of gay equality.

Well, probably she is, but Supreme Court justices have a way of ruling counter to what many of their early supporters expected, especially when they lack a record on a particular issue. Let's hope that on our particular issue that doesn't turn out to be the case.

More. The Washington Post reports that:

Sotomayor's religion - and her lack of a record on abortion rights cases - has helped spark some concern among liberal interest groups that she may not be sufficiently pro-choice for some of them. The White House on Thursday offered strong, if vague, reassurances that she would support abortion rights.

But apparently, no need to reassure LGBT groups, since they're clearly in the bag.

Just to follow up on Jonathan's fine post below, when someone labeled a "social conservative" like David Blakenhorn opposes gay marriage but supports civil unions, he's a bigot. When Barack Obama takes the same position, he's a "fierce advocate" for gays and lesbians.

This same hypocrisy was evident over the brouhaha regarding Miss California USA Carrie Prejean, leading to Donald Trump's assertion of an inconvenient truth: that when Prejean said she believes marriage is only between a man and a woman, she "gave a very, very honest answer when asked a very tough question at the recent pageant. It's the same answer that the President of the United States gave."

We don't know how Prejean would have responded to a question about civil unions (or, as Obama likes to put forth as a major sign of his pro-gay sympathies, his support for same-sex hospital visitation rights). Liberals like to claim that the difference between gay-marriage-opposing conservatives and gay-marriage-opposing "progressives" is really, really important (really), involving tone and nuance.

Regardless, it shouldn't be much of a surprise following so many denounciations directed at Prejean that, in response, she does become a spokeperson for the anti-gay marriage movement. And wouldn't that make all sides feel happy and vindicated.

Update: May 20

California voters on May 19 soundly defeated all of the tax hike initiatives that Equality California, with its unerring sense of wrong-headedness, had invested its "brand" in promoting. Looks like EQCA's involvement is the kiss of death for whatever position it favors on statewide ballot initatives.

California voters did pass an initiative to punish their spendthrift legislators by limiting their pay increases, but leaders of the EQCA alliance groups will probably give themselves even bigger raises in 2010 than they did after the passage of anti-gay Prop. 8.
--------

Equality California, the statewide alliance that so badly mismanaged efforts to defeat the Golden State's gay-marriage-banning Prop 8 last November, has a new cause. My partner just received an email from the group urging him to vote for all six California budget propositions placed on the ballot by Schwarzenegger and Democratic legislators to "raise revenue" in the wake of a severe budget crisis - a crisis caused in no small measure by huge spending increases over the past few years under said governor and legislators. From a Wall Street Journal op-ed:

Several months ago, lawmakers were forced to tackle a $42 billion deficit that stems from a 35% general fund spending increase since Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger replaced Mr. Davis. The deficit is $4 billion larger than the one that helped end Mr. Davis's political career. After wrangling over what to do, the governor and legislature struck a deal that raises income and sales taxes as well as car-registration fees. In all, the tax increases will cost Californians some $13 billion over the next three years.

The lawmakers punted the decision to enact much of the budget deal to voters in six ballot initiatives - most of which are behind in the polls by nine percentage points or more.

EQCA says it is taking no official position on the propositions but is passing along a very professionally designed argument with the "unanimous recommendations of our LGBT legislators." (They don't say how many of the four LGBT legislators are L, G, B, or T.)

Taxpayer groups oppose Prop. 1A, in particular. So why are gay-rights groups jumping on the Establishment tax-hike bandwagon? Fealty to state employee unions, in large measure. Left foot first, friends. Left foot first.

The passage of California's anti-gay marriage Prop. 8 with the strong support of that state's African-American churches led to heated complaints by some supporters of marriage equality (including author/activist Robin Tyler, as we noted here), which were quickly met with cries of "racial scape-goating" from the politically correct crowd. The issue then died down - Mormons and white evangelicals being far easier to protest against. But the role of black churches has come to the fore again, this time in Washington, D.C., where the City Council just voted to recognize same-sex marriages from other states, and openly gay City Councilmember David Catania is preparing to introduce a bill to recognize same-sex marriages performed in the district.

Former D.C. mayor and current City Councilmember Marion Barry, an otherwise very left-liberal Democrat, is a vocal opponent of marriage equality and declared, "We may have a civil war. The black community is just adamant against this." (IGF contributing author David Boaz has more about Marion Barry, Defender of Marriage.)

According to the Washington Blade story "Barry warns of racial divide over marriage":

Barry's comments came after more than a dozen black ministers and members of their churches in D.C. and Maryland rushed out of the Council chamber following the vote [recognizing same-sex marriages performed elsewhere] and shouted their disapproval of the Council's action.

The paper goes on to note:

Statements by local ministers that they planned to work for the election defeat of Council members who supported the D.C. marriage bill prompted a church-state watchdog group to warn that it would monitor the ministers' actions. Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, said churches could lose their tax-exempt status under federal tax law if they become involved in partisan politics.

Given the long-standing role of black churches on behalf of liberal causes and candidates, it's good to see them getting some of the same scrutiny that's been, quite rightly, focused on conservative churches involved in political action. It may be that marriage-equality advocates are finally realizing what they should have learned in California - just because religious leaders are black and Democrats doesn't require us to give them a pass when they mobilize to fight against our rights.

More. From the Wasington Examiner, Battle over gay marriage in D.C. raises questions of racial divide, quoting Bishop Harry Jackson, the leader of a black mega-church who is emerging as a national leader in the fight against gay marriage:

Black people have been silent for too long on matters of "righteousness," Jackson said. Gay marriage offers the perfect opportunity to refocus their political power.

The Obama administration and Congress may be working overtime to put the government on tax-and-deficit-fueled steroids, to extend their regulatory tentacles and grow the power of the state over us all. But outside the beltway, as IGF contributing author David Boaz writes on the Cato Institute's blog, genuine citizen activism is having an effect on state legislatures that's led to an inspiring culture shift toward liberty on two fronts: the legal use of marijuana and marriage equality. On the latter, Boaz reflects that:

[One of] the striking things about the rapid succession of [pro-marriage-equality state legislative] votes is the lack of public opposition. Conservatives have been remarkably silent, perhaps because some of them genuinely do feel less outrage about legislative action than about "judicial tyranny," and perhaps because opposition to gay marriage is getting to be embarrassing among educated people.

Concludes Boaz:

The "shift to the left" that we seem to observe on economic policy is depressing to libertarians. But that's mostly crisis-driven. When the results of more spending, more taxes, more regulation, and more money creation begin to be visible, we may see the kind of reaction that led to Proposition 13 and the election of Ronald Reagan at the end of the 1970s. Meanwhile, this cultural "shift to the left" is far more encouraging.

In addition to Jennifer Vanasco's column posted at left, "Obama's No Show," it's beginning to dawn on some activists (not those at the Democratic Party auxiliary known as the Human Rights Campaign, but to some others) that their president is a bit of a let down when it comes to being the promised "fierce advocate" for gay rights (excepting for the small matter of the right to marriage, which he upfront opposes as un-Christian).

Reports the New York Times, "President Obama was noticeably silent last month when the Iowa Supreme Court overturned the state's ban on same-sex marriage." And while the president has urged Congress to pass a dubious bill federalizing hate crimes against selected victims, he's delayed action on one of his key campaign promises that, like marriage, involves fundamental equality under the law: repealing the military's "don't ask, don;t tell" gay ban.

Last weekend, Richard Socarides, who advised President Bill Clinton on gay issues, published an opinion piece in the Washington Post headlined, "Where's our fierce advocate?"

It's about eggs and baskets, and what happens when you put all in one (HRC to Obama last year: here's our unconditional support plus our dollars and volunteer hours, given at the expense of fighting anti-gay state initiatives; we trust you'll be kind to us and invite us to your victory parties).

More. From Steve Clemons of the liberal New America Foundation, "Obama Needs to End Silence on Biggest Civil Rights Move of Our Time".

Furthermore. See Ross Douthat's New York Times op-ed column, "Faking Left." He writes:

the Obama administration does seem to have a plausible strategy for turning the "social issues" to liberalism's advantage. The outline is simple: Engage on abortion, and punt on gay rights.

The punting has been obvious. On the campaign trail, Obama promised to repeal the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy He still intends to - but not yet, not yet. He said he supported federal recognition for civil unions. His administration has ignored the issue. He backed repealing the Defense of Marriage Act. Don't expect that to come up for a vote any time soon.

With every passing day, it becomes clearer to those with eyes that so many professional LGBT leaders were and are merely Democratic party operatives, first and foremost.

Still more. From Andrew Sullivan, with whom I rarely agree, but perhaps he's beginning to see the light:

Here we are, in the summer of 2009, with gay servicemembers still being fired for the fact of their orientation. Here we are, with marriage rights spreading through the country and world and a president who cannot bring himself even to acknowledge these breakthroughs in civil rights, and having no plan in any distant future to do anything about it at a federal level. Here I am, facing a looming deadline to be forced to leave my American husband for good, and relocate abroad because the HIV travel and immigration ban remains in force and I have slowly run out of options (unlike most non-Americans with HIV who have no options at all).

And what is Obama doing about any of these things? What is he even intending at some point to do about these things? So far as I can read the administration, the answer is: nada. We're firing Arab linguists? So sorry. We won't recognize in any way a tiny minority of legally married couples in several states because they're, ugh, gay? We had no idea. There's a ban on HIV-positive tourists and immigrants? Really? Thanks for letting us know. Would you like to join Joe Solmonese and John Berry for cocktails? The inside of the White House is fabulous these days.

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Bruce Bawer reflects that in Europe, "instead of encouraging Muslim immigrants to integrate and become part of their new societies, Western Europe's governments have allowed them to form self-segregating parallel societies run more or less according to Shariah." One result:

Ubiquitous youth gangs, contemptuous of infidels, have made European cities increasingly dangerous for non-Muslims-especially women, Jews and gays. ...

One measure of the dimensions of this shift: Owing to the rise in gay-bashings by Muslim youths, Dutch gays-who 10 years ago constituted a reliable left-wing voting bloc-now support conservative parties by a nearly 2-to-1 margin.

If our anti-gay religious right were predominantly Muslim and violent instead of Christian and merely reactionary, would the U.S. left be throwing gays under the bus?

Some LBGT activists will no doubt be upset that California's courts have allowed a small, private Lutheran High School to expel two 16-year-old girls for having a "bond of intimacy" that was "characteristic of a lesbian relationship," as reported by the Los Angeles Times. The girls sued; they lost.

Here's a suggestion. Maybe the girls should not go to a school that's founded on religious beliefs that view homosexuality as immoral, rather then trying to use the coercive power of the state to force the Lutherans to modify their dogma-based practice-at a private Lutheran institution-and thereby play into every fear being promoted by the religious right.

A libertarian friend suggests that perhaps we should tell the right that if they agree to marriage equality, we'll drop anti-discrimination laws-and then we could claim the mantle of freedom and diversity. LGBT activists would never go for that one, but advocating that private, religious organizations be treated as serfs of the state really isn't a good idea.

More. Our liberal readers are agast. Typical responses: "Change schools? How insensitive can you get?" and "If it gets one dime for transportation, books, physical ed, health ed, etc., the school can not say it is private."

But reader "Walker" responds to the point:

Religious schools generally don't get government money. But most institutions in a society with a government as big as ours do get some kind of financial "support" from government. Do you really want to bring the entire society under the control of government? Does that sound like a good plan for freedom and diversity? Or for a small minority that depends on tolerance? If you say you can attach all-enveloping strings to ANY government money, then you'd better be confident that your allies will always be in charge of that all-powerful government.

As to the question "Do you really want to bring the entire society under the control of government?," I bet their answer would be, "Yes!"

All opposition to the LGBT-inclusive federal hate crimes bill just passed by the House (Senate action is to come) isn't from right-wing crazies, although reading the LGBT media and blogs you might think so. At the libertarian-minded Reason magazine, Jacob Sullum argues:

Aside from the usual problems with hate crime laws, which punish people for their ideas by making sentences more severe when the offender harbors politically disfavored antipathies, this bill federalizes another huge swath of crimes that ought to be handled under state law, creating myriad opportunities for double jeopardy by another name. The changes would make it much easier for federal prosecutors who are displeased by an acquittal in state court to try, try again, as they did in the Rodney King and Crown Heights riot cases. They simply have to argue that the crime was committed "because of" the victim's membership in one of the listed groups…

Wendy Kaminer also made a sound civil libertarian case against such measures last year in "The Return of the Thought Police." I'm with the libertarians in opposing measures that either federalize or increase criminal penalties for acts committed with anti-gay animus; punish the crime and the degree of planning that went into it, not accompanying thoughts.

But many progressives are cheering this new expansion of federal prosecutorial power - in many cases the same voices who demonized Bush for widening federal prosecutions of alleged terror suspects. They're also lambasting critics of the bill as "bearing false witness" for suggesting that the measure will lead to the silencing of anti-gay sermonizing. I wonder if they said the same thing in Canada and Sweden. And yes, these prosecutions ultimately failed, but that doesn't mean putting pastors on trial and forcing them to defend their sermons isn't chilling.