IGF CultureWatch

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.

We hope you like our new design. Here's another new change: Jonathan Rauch and I would like to welcome two new bloggers to "Culture Watch." They're no strangers to IGF: James Kirchick (bio here and David Link (bio here) have been IGF contributing authors for some time. Now, they'll be sharing their thoughts on a more frequent basis, via blog posts. IGF's mission remains the same: "We deny 'conservative' claims that gays and lesbians pose any threat to social morality or the political order. We equally oppose 'progressive' claims that gays should support radical social change or restructuring of society." As our mission statement continues, "We share an approach, but we disagree on many particulars." Certainly, just as Jon and I disagree on political particulars, David and James (we call him "Jamie") hold differing views along the political spectrum. But as with our other contributing authors whose views are shared here, we hold in common a disdain for the politically correct boilerplate that too often takes the place of real thought and argument. Look for their posts here, coming soon.

The New York Times looks at lesbian communes founded in the '70s, still in business but worried about new members and survival:

Alapine...is one of about 100 below-the-radar lesbian communities in North America, known as womyn's lands (their preferred spelling), whose guiding philosophies date from a mostly bygone era.

The communities, most in rural areas from Oregon to Florida...have steadily lost residents over the decades as members have moved on or died. As the impulse to withdraw from heterosexual society has lost its appeal to younger lesbians, womyn's lands face some of the same challenges as Catholic convents that struggle to attract women to cloistered lives.

It's certainly a more sympathetic portrayal than the Times would give to, say, a men's club.

Updated January 31, 2009

Peter Berkowitz writes in the Wall Street Journal, Bush Hatred and Obama Euphoria Are Two Sides of the Same Coin:

It is not that our universities invest the fundamental principles of liberalism with religious meaning-after all the Declaration of Independence identifies a religious root of our freedom and equality. Rather, they infuse a certain progressive interpretation of our freedom and equality with sacred significance, zealously requiring not only outward obedience to its policy dictates but inner persuasion of the heart and mind. This transforms dissenters into apostates or heretics, and leaders into redeemers.

Indeed.

Updated January 25, 2009

Apparently independent of me (and I of him), Christian blogger Mike Ruffin discusses the demonization vs. deification meme now dominant in U.S. politics - with some of Obama's supporters, such as Washington Post columnist Harold Myerson, celebrating that the word has been made flesh. (I see others are picking up on Myerson's creepy use of biblical allusion as well.)

Updated January 23, 2009

[by Stephen Miller] From Gay Patriot: "Obama worship is the flip side of Bush hatred." I'd add that the demonization (blaming for all ills) and deification (an awe-struck expectation of deliverence) toward opposed/favored political leaders has become the religion of the left. And of the two responses, deification of the person elected to be chief administrator of the executive branch is the more dangerous for the well being of any democratic republic.

Furthermore. As neatly summed up in the comic Prickly City.

--------------

Original post

[by Stephen Miller] Well, no mention of gay equality by "O" or his selected speakers, although the breakthrough that his administration represents for racial civil rights was a key theme. As one of our commenters likes to say to LGBT Obamists, "He's just not that into you," at least not once he's gotten your dollars and votes. What Obama is into is bringing Rev. Rick Warren's constituency of anti-gay, pro-social spending evangelicals into his takings coalition.

One of Obama's first acts will be to sign two so-called paycheck equity bills that make it easier to sue (or settle with) employers who don't pay women and racial minorities, on average, the same as they pay white men for the same positions (let's leave aside that if your male employees happen to be better performers, you're hamstrung if you think you can disproportionately reward them). These measures are being rushed through so Obama can sign them within days. But take note: no measures to advance gay equality, even just by ending government discrimination, are on his near-term legislative agenda.

Expect the promise to one day move on "don't ask, don't tell," the Defense of Marriage Act, and employment discrimination to resurface in Democratic fundraising efforts before the 2010 congressional elections, to shake down gay voters once again.

So enjoy your parties, gay Obama folks. It's just about all you're likely to receive for your contributed dollars and worn shoe leather.

Added. Ok, to be fair, Rev. Joseph Lowery's benediction may have had us in mind: "O Lord, in the complex arena of human relations, help us to make choices on the side of love, not hate; on the side of inclusion, not exclusion; tolerance, not intolerance. And as we leave this mountaintop, help us to hold on to the spirit of fellowship and the oneness of our family."

Stirring words. But then, as noted in an earlier posting, Lowery was vocal in his criticism of Rick Warren, selected by Obama to deliver the Inaugural invocation.

Assessing the "W." years, San Francisco Chronicle columnist Debra J. Saunders highlights how "To trash Bush was to belong." (hat tip: susu). Suddenly, however, the party line of self-righteous contempt is out, and marching in pro-government lock-step is in. One sign: public school officials cracking down on "inappropriate comments" that show a lack of respect toward Obama. And will "Saturday Night Live," hate-central of the Bush years, ever move beyond gently chiding Obama for his overabundant goodness and innocence?

Plus, other signs of the need for an ongoing CultWatch.

Whereas DC was full of demonstrators during both of George W.'s inaugurations, just about the only folks giving any indication of protest this weekend are gays raising an outcry over Obama's honoring of anti-gay activist/preacher Rick Warren by selecting him to deliver the Inaugural invocation. Here's hoping that spirit of dissent continues.

Have We Gotten the Message Yet?

HBO, which exclusively televised the Lincoln Memorial pre-Inaugural concert, did not include out Bishop Gene Robinson's opening invocation. According to HBO, "the Presidential Inaugural Committee made the decision to keep the invocation as part of the [untelevised] pre-show." (For it's part, team Obama, heralded for its near flawless event organizing skills, says it "regrets the error"). If a gay bishop prays in a forest of Obamists but nobody hears... (via Box Turtle Bulletin).

So much for in some small way counterbalancing the honor bestowed upon Warren.

Also, more on why Warren's selection to give the Inaugural invocation (which everyone will televise) was and remains morally wrong.

More. IGF contributing author David Boaz offers his Dissident Notes on the Obama Coronation.

The Rev. Joseph Lowery, 87, a veteran of many civil rights battles, weighs in on same-sex marriage, civil unions, and Rick Warren. The Washington Post reports:

Lowery, who supports civil unions, has already spoken out about Obama's controversial selection of the Rev. Rick Warren to give the inaugural invocation, which has been protested by gay rights groups because of disparaging comments Warren has made about gays and his support of the California proposition to ban same-sex marriage.

"I understand the protesters and I disagree vehemently with some of the nasty things Brother Warren said about gay people. I support civil rights for all citizens. I don't think you can fragment civil rights," Lowery says. "I have also said to gay groups, 'If y'all can stop talking about marriage and start talking about civil unions it would change things.' The concept of marriage is so embedded in my soul as being between a man and a woman."

In Britain, where gays have "civil partnerships" with all the rights of marriage, the issue seems to be resolved as far as most are concerned. Singer Elton John has said that LGBT activists working for marriage rather than civil partnerships are making a critical mistake:

"If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership," John says. "The word 'marriage,' I think, puts a lot of people off. "You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships."

Could it be that glomming on to the "separate but equal is not equal" meme was never going to be an effective strategy, especially when pursued through the courts rather than state legislatures?

More. George Will weighs in on the current super judicial strategy in California, and the possibility of a super backlash.

Furthermore. Was Chicago's Windy City Times sitting on its archival record of Obama's 1996 expression of "unequivocal support" for gay marriage, in response to the paper's questionnaire? If this had been allowed to come out during the campaign, Obama might have been seen as a Romneyesque flip-flopper, which may be why this record has only now been discovered.