IGF CultureWatch

Conservative Christian activists are using a week in which U.S. librarians highlight the danger of banned books to protest the refusal of high school libraries to accept donations of books such as "The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage and Parenting," or books presenting homosexuality as a reversible condition. It's a clever protest, organized by the group Focus on the Family.

The problem is that public school librarians are government employees, and so the role of the state in sanctioning one set of ideas over another comes into play. In the end, librarians who are hired by the representatives of taxpayers should have the right to make these calls, and they are deciding not to include books they consider hurtful and misleading. And religious conservatives certainly have a right to protest.

It's a valid question as to whether there is value in providing access to the anti-gay point of view on the shelf next to books supportive of gay equality. How can anyone learn to respond to arguments they have never really read or heard? Yet children are certainly prone to hurtful and hateful behavior, and public schools are not exactly adept at teaching dispassionate approaches to hot button issues.

The issue, of course, is made increasingly irrelevant by the internet, where content (so far) is not regulated by the state, and which allows children and adults to see all sides of social arguments, even (and too often) at the extremes.

Jonathan Rowe over at Positive Liberty has an interesting post on social conservatives who would rather scapegoat gay people than deal with the far greater impact of heterosexual misbehavior, which leads to real social ills including young unwed mothers unable to emotionally and financially care for their children (who, in turn, grow up with the dysfunctions of being abandoned by their fathers). Case in point: William F. Buckley's disinheriting his illegitimate grandson by declaring in his will, "I intentionally make no provision herein for said Jonathan, who for all purposes...shall be deemed to have predeceased me." Ouch.

In comparison, the Palins look like models of tolerance.

Updated Oct. 3, scroll down

I hope this isn't just an act of political desperation, but John McCain has become the first GOP presidential nominee to participate in an interview (albeit through written answers) with a gay publication. He promises to "give full consideration" to the Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and to review don't ask, don't tell (but to defer to military commanders on changing the law, a position similar to Obama's).

More. LGBT activists are jumping all over Sarah Palin for her comments to Katie Couric referencing a gay friend and saying she doesn't judge those who make different choices. No, being gay is not a choice (although, in some sense, acting on one's orientation may be). But when it comes to discussing being gay, activists go ballistic if you're in any sense "pro-choice."

Yet Palin, despite her evangelical background, is clearly pointing to a way to be evangelical and be part of a larger community that includes gay people that's very different from the condemnation we usually hear from the religious right. But instead of encouraging her (and through her, religious conservatives), she gets blasted.

Furthermore: THE GREAT DEBATE

From Thursday's veep debate:

Ifill: Do you support, as they do in Alaska, granting same-sex benefits to couples?
Biden: Absolutely. Do I support granting same-sex benefits? Absolutely positively. Look, in an Obama-Biden administration, there will be absolutely no distinction from a constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint between a same-sex and a heterosexual couple.
The fact of the matter is that under the Constitution we should be granted-same-sex couples should be able to have visitation rights in the hospitals, joint ownership of property, life insurance policies, et cetera. That's only fair. ...

Ifill: Governor, would you support expanding that [granting same-sex benefits to couples] beyond Alaska to the rest of the nation?
Palin: Well, not if it goes closer and closer towards redefining the traditional definition of marriage between one man and one woman. And unfortunately that's sometimes where those steps lead.
But I also want to clarify, if there's any kind of suggestion at all from my answer that I would be anything but tolerant of adults in America choosing their partners, choosing relationships that they deem best for themselves, you know, I am tolerant and I have a very diverse family and group of friends and even within that group you would see some who may not agree with me on this issue, some very dear friends who don't agree with me on this issue.... But I'm being as straight up with Americans as I can in my nonsupport for anything but a traditional definition of marriage.

Ifill: Let's try to avoid nuance, Senator. Do you support gay marriage?
Biden: No. Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that. That is basically the decision to be able to be able to be left to faiths and people who practice their faiths the determination what you call it.
---

McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden both oppose same-sex marriage. Biden feels the constitution mandates giving gay couples the same benefits as marriage (but not giving them marriage). Palin felt that Alaska's constitution bound her to veto a bill that would have barred benefits to the same-sex partners of state employees.

Obama/Biden have the edge in the commitment to equality, but honestly, not by much. And certainly not to any degree that might conceivable justify the viciously mean-spirited and often hysterical demonizing of McCain and (especially) Palin by LGBT Democratic activists.

I've blogged about Jay Bakker before, but his story is inspiring so here's another link.

And here's more Good News about younger evangelicals, from the Greenberg Quinlan Rosner poll:

"Young evangelical Christians display generational differences on some key social issues. A majority of younger white evangelicals support some form of legal recognition for civil unions or marriage for same-sex couples. Older evangelicals remain strongly opposed. At the same time, young evangelicals are as solidly pro-life on abortion as older evangelicals."

The "religious right" is changing, and as I've argued regarding conservatives in general, inroads can be made if there's an effort to do so, rather than knee-jerk, secular-liberal and frequently contemptuous dismissal of the Palin people.

Another observation: it's past time to stop insisting that gay legal equality be tied at the hip to support for abortion on demand (are you listening HRC and Victory Fund, both of which have a "pro-choice" litmus test for candidates they support-even if those candidates are openly gay Republicans).

More. This is religious cultism we could do without.

Roger L. Simon adds, "And they complain about the religious right -- can you imagine the reaction to a similar group of kids singing about McCain under the tutelage of an evangelical minister?"

Blogs the Volokh Conspiracy's Jim Lindgren, "as creepy and inappropriate as this singing is - it's not as bad as what Obama is actually proposing: forcing all children, starting at the age of 11, to give 50 hours a year of child labor working in their communities at the direction of the federal government."

Reason.tv now has this parody.

This being a blog titled "Culture Watch," although focused on socio-political developments affecting the status and legal rights of gay people, I must recognize the coming out of popular American Idol runner-up/teen fave Clay Aiken and former Disney child star/aspiring actress Lindsay Lohan. Churlishly, my initial response (particularly as regards party girl Lohan) is, must they? But out gay celebs do represent some kind of progress, especially for the younger set.

Rick Sincere blogs, "The shock and surprise with which this news is being met is ... [ellipses in original, denoting silence] well, isn't it."?

Yes, it is.

More. In the entertainment world, "Republican is the new 'gay.'"

moved up from prior posting

The AP reports:

Proposed bans on same-sex marriage are on the ballot in three important states this fall, rousing passions on both sides, yet neither John McCain nor Barack Obama seem eager to push the issue high on their campaign agendas. . . . [Joe] Solmonese [head of the Human Rights Campaign] said there is broad support for Obama among gays despite his hesitancy on same-sex marriage.

Well, he is the chosen one for whom we have been waiting, isn't he?

Elsewhere, Roger L. Simon pens an "Open Letter to My Fellow Jews," stating, "The Democratic Party is not your religion (or anybody's)." But in this race above all others, politics has taken on deep religious connotations, with Obama self-cast as the long-awaited bearer of salvation. You can then guess the roles that are assigned to McCain and Palin (well, this video makes it fairly clear -- next up, Obama's devotees will be singing "Tomorrow Belongs to Me").

Furthermore: Imagine the outcry from LGBT Democrats if McCain had done this:

Barack Obama's Faith, Family and Values Tour will feature Douglas Kmiec, a Catholic legal scholar who will be stumping for Obama. Kmiec has written an op-ed in support of anti-gay Proposition 8. "On Same-Sex Marriage: Should California amend its Constitution? Say 'no' to the Brave New World," is his essay's title.

Kmiec supports Obama, so he's not really anti-gay, see, he's just opposed to our legal rights. Got that?

Addendum: Despite prior misleading reports, McCain never returned the contribution from Manhunt co-founder Jonathan Crutchly.

And then there's this, via Signorile and friends. Not sure what to make of it, because there are so very many untruths about McCain and Palin's records on gay issues in so very little space. But if it is true, I suspect it will help McCain-just the opposite of what the LGBT Democratic smear-mongers hope to achieve.

More. James Kirchick pens an even-handed piece on Sarah Palin in the Advocate. His take isn't positive, but he avoids the kind of unfounded hysteria that the gay left has been spewing.

updated Sept. 29

The never-ending presidential race has sucked the air out of every other issue, save for perhaps the credit crisis-thank you Barney Frank and Acorn-empowering Obama, who has the gall to blame Republicans for the mess caused when he and his fellow Democrats used government to pressure lenders to make subprime loans to lower-income families (i.e., "community activism"). Maybe voters are so ill-informed that they'll buy it; well see. But I digress. Below are more as-of-now political musings.

If McCain wins, I think it will show that the U.S. remains a center-right majority electorate, and that working singularly within the Democratic party in the hope of a leftwing ascendancy remains a failed strategy.

If Obama wins with a Democratic Congress (the likely outcome, given the nation's GOP-fatigue), we'll see how well the Democrats deliver on their promises -- and whether it's better than when Clinton had both houses of Congress and our rights went backwards because the party saw no need to spend political capital on gay voters. This under-reported back-tracking by Obama on "don't ask, don't tell" doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

Gay activist Wayne Besen, formerly of the Human Rights Campaign, recently penned a column in which he calls on the Log Cabin Republicans to disband. He's beside himself over LCR's endorsement of John McCain-heresy, heresy, HERESY. (Ok, that's a paraphrase). But his concern is that we don't quite have 100% of our eggs in just one basket, and everyone should be toeing the party line.

I'd counter that, with increasingly rare exceptions, LGBT liberal-left activists are no longer even trying to woo the center-right (where I believe most Americans reside). So if Besen would have Log Cabin disband, here's my own proposal: If more gay people joined their local GOP committees and supported GOP/conservative groups and pacs that are either gay supportive (LCR) or avoid social issues (Club for Growth), and worked within them (while being open about being gay), we'd begin to counter the influence that the religious right has exerted throughout the GOP. And that might do more to advance gay equality than partying with fellow liberal Democrats ever will.

More. Log Cabin's Patrick Sammon on why gay Republicans are standing with McCain. Sammon cites not only McCain's consistent opposition to the federal marriage amendment, but also his support for allowing people "to invest part of their Social Security taxes [into] private accounts that can be left to one's partner-something prohibited under the current system that Obama defends."

The Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund says it's a nonpartisan organization that supports gay candidates of whichever party if it deems them sufficiently electable. But next week in Washington it's honoring comic Margaret Cho, a comic who is a rabid hater of the GOP, with its leadership award. Gee, doesn't that make gay Republicans feel welcome in their club.

"I think [Palin] is the worst thing to happen to America since 9-11," Cho recently told the Washington Blade. "Someone who has no thoughts about women's rights and who wants to send women back to the Stone Age? You might as well not let women vote." Cho, the Blade reports, also singled out Palin in part because, as it paraphrases Cho, "the Alaska governor's church has encouraged discredited reparative therapy techniques to help gay people become straight."

Reality check: Palin has been condemned for not staying home and raising her kids-by progressive liberal supposed feminists. But she's a setback for women's rights because....she has an [R] after her name and is personally pro-life. Also, she has never expressed any support for reparative therapy and her church is not leading a crusade against gays. One worship program at her church carried an ad for a Focus on the Family conference on overcoming homosexuality. If that makes Palin a homophobe, then Obama can be said to hate this nation based on his attendance at a church where his spiritual mentor preached "God Damn America."

Is honoring Cho likely to promote gay participation within the GOP, and thus advance gay equality by making inroads with both parties? Hardly. Gay Republican candidates who might accept Victory Fund money are going to have to explain to Republican voters why they're being supported by a gay Democratic group.

The Victory Fund ought to be shamed for honoring Cho with its leadership award and calling itself nonpartisan at the same time. To quote Obama, how stupid do they think we are?

Okay, if I were a betting man, I'd still wager that Obama takes it and the Democrats extend their gains in Congress. But that result isn't anywhere near as certain as before McCain's strategically brilliant (yes, politically speaking, brilliant) selection of Sarah Palin, which unleashed the unvarnished hatred and elitism of the angry left with the predicable result of prodding non-elite America to give the GOP another look.

Not only are some national polls now giving McCain a slight edge (and a slightly bigger lead among likely voters), but according to Gallup the battle for Congress suddenly looks competitive. Per Gallup, "If these numbers are sustained through Election Day-a big if-Republicans could be expected to regain control of the U.S. House of Representatives."

Which is to say, the LGBT beltway activists' commitment to a one-party roll of the dice is looking like an even more high-risk proposition that it was a few weeks ago.

Further thoughts. Leaving aside the enthusiasm among African-Americans for the first major-party black presidential nominee, this race increasingly is about the urban/urbane/secular vs. those who aren't. Palin didn't have an abortion. She (like the president they detest) prays for God's guidance (the "religious nut" who proclaims, "I would never presume to know God's will or to speak God's words. But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that's a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God's side"). She doesn't have an Ivy League degree. She, in short, challenges the left's sense of entitlement to rule based on its perceived cultural superiority.

But the LGBT movement is, for all intents and purposes, an appendage of the cultural and political left (for many good historical reasons; primarily being homophobia fueled by religious intolerance and provincial conservatism). Yet, as I've argued, failure to make gaining inroads among conservative-minded independents a key strategy, and instead focusing on achieving victory by and through the hoped-for ascendancy of the political left, has rendered the gay movement deeply vulnerable to the reversals that result when the center-right majority expresses its antipathy toward elite left-progressive opinion (as when majorities vote to overturn the pro-gay decisions of liberal courts).

Two op-eds, worlds apart. B. Dan Blatt of GayPartiot.net on the lack of personal animosity toward gays at the Republican convention (Proud to be a Republican). And Joan Garry, former head of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), attacking gay Republicans (Chickens are voting for Colonel Sanders) and demonstrating why, under her tenure, GLAAD completely failed to reach out to the American center and instead devoted itself to honoring, ad nauseum, the cultural left.

Much nonsense has been flowing from left wing blogs about Sarah Palin, making it hard to distinguish her real strengths and weaknesses on social issues from paranoid caricature. Clearly, she is pro-life, supports 2nd amendment rights to gun ownership and is against same-sex marriage. Aside from that, there are a few worthy reports and commentaries online that shed some insight on her views and values, and they suggest that Palin represents a shift forward for the GOP. (This, in turn, has rattled Democrats and resurfaced some of the misogynistic tactics deployed against Hillary.)

The Los Angeles Times reports that "The Republican vice presidential candidate says students should be taught about condoms. Her running mate-and the party platform-disagree," revealing that Palin is more progressive on sexual matters than McCain:

In a widely quoted 2006 survey she answered during her gubernatorial campaign, Palin said she supported abstinence-until-marriage programs. But weeks later, she proclaimed herself "pro-contraception" and said condoms ought to be discussed in schools alongside abstinence.

"I'm pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues," she said during a debate in Juneau.

Some LGBT Obama supporters are making much of a report that Palin's church, as activist Wayne Besen puts it, "appears to support so-called 'ex-gay' ministries." The source is Time magazine, which reported:

Churches proliferate in Wasilla today, and among the largest and most influential is the Wasilla Bible Church, where the Palins worship.

At the 11:15 a.m. Sunday service, hundreds sit in folding chairs, listening to a 20-minute sermon about the Book of Malachi and singing along to alt-rock praise songs. The only sign of culture warring in the whole production is an insert in the day's program advertising an upcoming Focus on the Family conference on homosexuality in Anchorage called Love Won Out. The group promises to teach attendees how to "respond to misinformation in our culture" and help them "overcome" homosexuality.

These programs are benighted and deeply damaging, but having an ad for Focus on the Family's conference in the worship program does not make your church worse than most any other evangelical house of worship. And Palin has apparently no record on the subject. In fact, Jim Lindgren at The Volokh Conspiracy shares that:

"[Palin] has basically ignored social issues, period," said Gregg Erickson, an economist and columnist for the Alaska Budget Report.

[Added: On one gay issue in which Palin did weigh in, her first veto as governor was against a bill that would have barred benefits to the domestic partners of gay state employees. Her rationale: she said that she was advised the bill violated Alaska's constitution, but Palin would not have been the first governor to sign a constitutionally suspect bill and left it to the state courts to adjudicate. Palin supsequently did support a successful bill to put these benefits up to a non-binding vote of the people, but passions seem to have cooled and the matter appears moot, leaving the benefits in place.]

Over at Slate, Chistopher Hitchens advises "Don't Patronize Sarah Palin" and notes:

Was she in the Alaska Independence Party? Not really. Did she campaign for Pat Buchanan in 2000? The AP report from 1999 appears to be contradicted by her endorsement of Steve Forbes.

He also takes note of "the attempt to paint the Palin family as if it were Arkansas on ice or Tobacco Road with igloos and Inuit." It's a sentiment echoed by iconoclastic commentator Tammy Bruce, who describes herself on her website as "an openly gay, pro-choice, gun owning, pro-death penalty, voted-for-President Bush progressive feminist." In her San Francisco Chronicle op-ed, A feminist's argument for McCain's VP, Bruce argues that "The [Democratic] party has moved from taking the female vote for granted to outright contempt for women." She adds:

There is a point where all of our issues, including abortion rights, are made safer not only if the people we vote for agree with us-but when those people and our society embrace a respect for women and promote policies that increase our personal wealth, power and political influence.

Make no mistake-the Democratic Party and its nominee have created the powerhouse that is Sarah Palin, and the party's increased attacks on her (and even on her daughter) reflect that panic.

And finally (for now), blogger Ann Althouse wonders:

Did the "belief that women can balance family life with ambitious careers" just become right wing? If so, wow! That is perhaps the most amazing political flip I've seen in my life.

(Hat tip to Instapundit for many of the above links.)

More. IGF contributing author James Kirchick has a fine piece in the Sept. 9 Wall Street Journal, The GOP Should Kiss Gay-Bashing Goodbye. In the print edition, it dominates the top half of the opinion page.

Back to Palin. Camille Paglia, another iconoclast lesbian (albeit an Obama-supporting Democrat), weighs in:

Now that's the Sarah Palin brand of can-do, no-excuses, moose-hunting feminism-a world away from the whining, sniping, wearily ironic mode of the establishment feminism represented by Gloria Steinem, a Hillary Clinton supporter whose shameless Democratic partisanship over the past four decades has severely limited American feminism and not allowed it to become the big tent it can and should be. Sarah Palin, if her reputation survives the punishing next two months, may be breaking down those barriers. Feminism, which should be about equal rights and equal opportunity, should not be a closed club requiring an ideological litmus test for membership.

Sound like any other social movement for equal legal rights that's prone to partisan servitude?