IGF CultureWatch

Updated Sept. 5

The Log Cabin Republicans have now endorsed John McCain for president, having waited to see that his veep wasn't going to be a raging 'phobe (she isn't). The announcement notes that McCain broke ranks with the GOP to publically oppose and speak out against the anti-gay federal marriage amendment:

"On the most important issue that LGBT Americans faced in the last decade-the federal marriage amendment-Sen. John McCain stood with us. Now we stand with him," said Log Cabin Republicans President Patrick Sammon.

Of course, McCain does support state constitutional amendments to limit marriage to a man and a woman-that would be the Kerry/Edwards position of four years ago, for those with short memories. But in the GOP world, his opposition to the federal amendment sets him apart.

Chris Crain blogs that Log Cabin should not have endorsed McCain (just as four years ago, the group chose not to endorse Bush). Yes, we all realize that on matters of gay legal equality, Obama is better. Of course, Log Cabin could also simply turn itself into yet another beltway Democratic Party fundraising front group, but I don't see how that would advance gay issues in the GOP.

[Added: Crain, in supporting Obama and attacking McCain, also blogs of Palin's youngest that "this special-needs child is still an infant and requires far greater attention than Palin could give as vice president or president." Well, so much for nontraditional families with a working mom and stay-at-home dad-or working dad and stay-at-home dad!]

By endorsing McCain, Log Cabin has provided itself with access to McCain's White House. They won't get everything they want, but they'll be welcomed into the conversation. Snubbing McCain despite his historic (for the GOP) opposition to the federal amendment would have closed that door.

For the past four years, no gay group has had White House access. Should the worst nightmare of LGBT beltway activists come to pass and McCain actually win, what good would a marginalized Log Cabin be? LCR did the right thing.

Gays still a cheap date. Karen Ocamb blogs at The Belierico Project:

[D]id anyone notice that the bar Obama set for LGBT discrimination was hospital visitation? Was this wish for agreement the most respect our LGBT leaders could elicit from the Democratic Party's presidential nominee after all the fundraising, all the volunteering, all the hurt feelings over antigay errors, now tucked away in the name of unity? Was this a hint of what we can expect?

She goes on to note that an openly gay man, Bob Hattoy, addressed the Democrats' nominating convention in 1992, and sees a step back. (Yes, yes...Republicans are worse.)

More. On Reason magazine's website, Michael C. Moynihan takes on Andrew Sullivan's Palin bashing.

Furthermore. No mention of gay issues by McCain in his acceptance speech (though he did reference American Indians). On the plus side, the Advocate reports that at the convention "Senior McCain campaign strategist Steve Schmidt spoke to Log Cabin Republicans, calling them "an important part" of the Republican Party and sounding a personal note about his lesbian sister." This happened the day after Log Cabin's endorsement. (YouTube of the meeting is here.)

More still. It's been pointed out that no mention of gays, in a GOP context, is actually progress-the last Republican convention included Bush's call to pass the anti-gay federal marriage amendment. McCain did criticize judges who "legislate from the bench," which covers judically ordered marriage equality but has long been a conservative critique of the judiciary, pertaining to many areas of social policy and expansive goverment.

The Advocate strains mightly to give McCain horns:

His running mate had a "news flash" for the media Wednesday night, and John McCain had one for LGBT Americans on Thursday: "Education is the civil-rights issue of this century." It was the second thinly veiled dig at gays and lesbians the Arizona senator made as he accepted the GOP's nomination for president.

I guess you find what you're looking for.

Over at the Volokh Conspiracy site, IGF contributing author Dale Carpenter posts about a New York Times/CBS poll showing that 49% of the GOP delegates favor full recognition for gay unions either in the form of marriage (6%) or civil unions (43%). Only 46% of the delegates believe there should be no legal recognition whatsoever of same-sex couples. Writes Dale:

It's still the case, of course, that Democratic voters and delegates are far more likely than Republican voters and delegates to support legal recognition of gay families. The latest draft of the official platform of the national GOP contains no position-either for or against-civil unions, which is noteworthy all by itself and may signal that party leaders understand the changed dynamic on this issue even among Republicans. The platform does reiterate the party's opposition to same-sex marriage and support for a federal marriage amendment (which McCain himself opposes). But I consider this poll of party activists quite surprising, and for a supporter of same-sex marriage, quite encouraging.

And yet in this election cycle the big beltway LGBT political lobbies are more than ever committed to the one-party strategy, betting everything on an Obama victory (and that, although they've pledged their support unconditionally, his administer will-somehow unlike Bill Clinton's-spend its political capital on our behalf).

More. Roger Simon blogs on why he supports same-sex marriage. Simon is the co-founder and CEO of Pajamas Media, which aggregates a number of conservative, pro-Republican and/or conservative/libertarian-leaning blogs for advertising purposes (it's despised by leftwing bloggers).

IGF contributing author James Kirchick has a strong op-ed in the L.A. Times (also posted here) about the uproar that ensued when Jonathan Crutchley, co-founder of the website Manhunt, was discovered to have contributed to McCain's presidential campaign, leading to his dismissal by the board. Writes Kirchick:

The hue and cry over Crutchley's politics is all too familiar. Why can't gay activists countenance the idea of a "Massachusetts Republican"? Liberal intolerance. In the minds of too many on the left, gay people (like women and ethnic minorities) have to be liberal and support Democratic candidates. To do otherwise-that is, to have opinions on issues (even issues utterly unrelated to gay rights) that don't follow the left-wing line-is to be a traitor to the gay "community."

For too long, many gay-rights activists have acted as if throwing temper tantrums will magically bring about their political agenda. But labeling everyone with whom they don't agree a "bigot" does not help the worthy cause of gay equality.

The truth of the matter is that civil rights for gays can't come about without the help of Republicans. And this means that gay people-and straight supporters of gay equality-need to stand with, not silence, people like Crutchley who are working to change the GOP from within.

But did he not commit heresy against the one true party? And shall we suffer heretics? Nay!

Editors' reminder: Comments that contain name-calling directed at other commenters (i.e., "idiot," "liar," etc.) are subject to deletion.

In accepting the Democratic presidential nomination Thursday night, Barack Obama endorsed every form of big government interventionism and bureaucratic social engineering known to man ("now is not the time for small plans"), along with a forceful statement of his commitment that "our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters" deserve to "live lives free of discrimination" (except as regards marriage).

Leftists will celebrate him on both counts, while rightists will equally denounce him. Gays of a libertarian bent will have to weigh the whole package in making their decision.

McCain's Choice
I don't know much about Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, McCain's veep pick. She's pro-life but apparently no 'phobe. She vetoed an anti-gay bill passed by the legislature that would have barred the state from granting benefits to the partners of gay state employees, and has met with gay groups and spoken publicly about gay friends and relatives. Log Cabin President Patrick Sammon issued a statement calling her "an inclusive Republican who will help Sen. McCain appeal to gay and lesbian voters." Andrew Sullivan, no friend of the GOP, sums it up.

But obviously, if your vote is determined by gay issues, it's going to go to Obama/Biden. If you think Obama is better for gays but worse (or even dangerously worse) for the country, than voting for McCain/Palin does not make you a self-loather (though Obama's LGBT devotees will certainly tar you, endlessly, with that brush).

More. Let's see, the relatively unknown GOP governor of Alaska is unqualified to be veep because she has no foreign policy experience, but Bill Clinton, when the relatively unknown governor of Arkansas, was fit to lead. And Barack Obama, just a few years out of the Illinois legislature and with no substantive accomplishments since as a first-term U.S. senator, is also fit to lead. Can you spell m-i-s-o-g-y-n-y? (Oh, I forgot, liberals can't be misogynists, just like they can't be racists (cough, Clarence Thomas, cough) or homophobes.

Along with the Governator, Republicans working to defeat California's anti-gay marriage initiative (Proposition 8) include African-American affirmative action foe Ward Connelly, comedian turned conservative radio host Dennis Miller, and "Desperate Housewives" creator Marc Cherry. And Mary Cheney, too. The RepublicansAgainst8 website makes the limited government case that:

Proposition 8 will give big government unprecedented control over the lives of private citizens by usurping their Constitutionally guaranteed rights and fundamental freedoms. ... In California, we are already over-taxed and over-regulated fiscally- the kind of social regulation put forth in Proposition 8 only makes a bad situation worse.

That argument is more likely to reach tolerant-minded conservatives than the "let's unite and roll back the right" rhetoric of some left-leaning activists.

On her world tour, adored gay icon Madonna shows a video that juxtaposes images equating John McCain with Adolf Hitler and Robert Mugabe, while she compares Obama to John Lennon, Al Gore and Gandhi. What's worse, so many of her fans, including one must suppose her legions of gay fans, robotically clap their hands and hoot their approval.

Over at Overlawyered.com, in No conscience clause for California fertility doctors IGF contributing author Walter Olson questions a recent California Supreme Court ruling that would require the fertility doctors in question, against their religious convictions, to inseminate (artificially) a lesbian patient. (Just why the lesbian patient wants to force the fundie doctors to do this when San Diego isn't lacking alternative fertility services appears more a matter of bile than babies.) Olson writes:

The ruling also allows doctors to excuse themselves on the basis of religious scruples if there is a second doctor within the same practice-but not, apparently, a doctor across town at a different practice-willing to perform the work in question. And of course the legislature in Sacramento could readily help bring peace to the culture war by inserting into the law a generously drafted conscience clause-if it wanted to.

But then, how would that stick it to the 'phobes?

More. In certain respects this case brings to mind the suit brought by a lesbian couple who wanted the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights to order the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association of the United Methodist Church to rent their seaside pavilion for the couple's commitment ceremony. Or the Canadian pastor ordered by a government Human Rights Commission to apology and pay $1000 in fines for his anti-gay letter published in an Alberta newspaper.

Across the page, IGF contributing author John Corvino argues in When Tolerance Isn't Enough that acceptance, rather than tolerance (or, I assume, mere legal equality) should be our goal. But expressions of acceptance must be voluntary and achieved via convincing arguments and moving examples, not coerced through threat of punishment by the state.

The Federalist Society, "a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order," hosted an online debate about same-sex marriage featuring IGF contributing author Dale Carpenter. What jumps out at you about this exchange is just how obviously weak the anti-gay marriage arguments are. Gay marriage advocates, including Dale and IGF co-managing editor Jonathan Rauch, among others, have done a masterful job of developing arguments in favor of marriage equality that are based on conservative, even "Burkean," perspectives (basically, same-sex marriage strengthens marriage as an institution and thus society as a whole).

Social conservatives have a hard time countering that. Gays on the left side of the spectrum, in contrast, too often merely assert that they should have the benefits of marriage (or even, as in the "Beyond Marriage" manifesto, marriage benefits for whatever sorts of loose domestic relationships they may choose to enter). That's not going to win any arguments with those whose greatest fear is that substantively changing the social order can have destabilizing and destructive consequences.

Thus spake the candidates:

Though the candidates came down on opposite sides of the California initiative that would ban gay marriage, both stressed that they opposed same-sex marriage. Obama called marriage "a sacred union," drawing applause when he added, "God is in the mix."

Sen. McCain, despite his praiseworthy opposition to the anti-gay federal marriage amendment (on which Sen. Obama was mostly silent), gets demerits for supporting the California anti-gay initiative. But really, wouldn't an objective observer have deep doubts about both, rather than singling one out for near-reverential praise and the other for abject demonization?

More. Reader "Timothy" writes (in response to our Aug. 17 post):

I have noticed during this political season that some purportedly gay websites have dedicated themselves to be anti-McCain sites. They aren't even as pro-Obama as they are anti-McCain.

And I would have to say that about 80% of the time the attacks on McCain have nothing whatsoever to do with sexual orientation or gay equality whatsoever.

At times the accusations are so far-fetched that if anyone made similar accusations against a gay person many of us would be horrified at the blatant homophobia. It really does go into the hatred category.

And I have to wonder why.

While I don't think McCain is particularly supportive of the gay community and while I think that he "doesn't get it" sometimes, the guy is certainly not a homophobe. He's not even an anti-gay opportunist like Bush, who probably isn't a hater either but is willing to sell out principle for political gain (in my opinion).

He's just some politician who gets nervous around gay questions and wishes he didn't have to address the issue at all. I may not vote for him (I'm waiting for the two Veep picks to decide) but he's not a heinous villian.

And really McCain's gay positions are not all that far from Obama's. If McCain were a Democrat, he'd fall into the "acceptable" category - though there would be some concern over his bumbling of the adoption issue and I think he's flat wrong on DADT (his position is to rely on the advice of the military leaders).

So why the hate?

All I can conclude is that McCain is completely and entirely evil without a single redeaming quality because he has an R in the parentheses after his name.

I think that nails it.

Tom G. Palmer has an interesting post on China's gay scene, its connection to the development of free markets and property rights, and the efforts by U.S. fundamentalists such as Focus on the Family to thwart these new freedoms (they're in China promoting the view that homosexuality is a disease/sin that can be cured/repented). I suppose the fundies would prefer to have China go back to its communist-era anti-gay ways but leave them free to proselytize their hidebound distortion of Christianity.

More. China, of course, is still far from a land of liberty for Chinese gays and for Chinese Christians, as well as for U.S. proselytizers, some of whom may not understand that working against freedom for some results in less freedom for all.