IGF CultureWatch

Feminist author Linda Hirshman's longish analysis in Sunday's Washington Post, Looking to the Future, Feminism Has to Focus, takes on the self-defeating aspects of the women's movement. The lessons she finds also apply, in many respects, to the fight for gay equality. For example, she writes that:

Faced with criticism that the movement was too white and middle class, many influential feminist thinkers conceded that issues affecting mostly white middle-class women-such as the corporate glass ceiling or the high cost of day care-should not significantly concern the feminist movement. Particularly in academic circles, only issues that invoked the "intersectionality" of many overlapping oppressions were deemed worthy.

But somehow, only those privileged by white middle-classness were expected to stop selfishly focusing on their own needs and goals. Hirshman continues:

Although other organizations work on women's issues when appropriate, none of the other social movements were much interested in making intersectionality their mission. The nation's oldest civil rights organization, the NAACP... says nothing about feminism or homophobia or intersectionality in its mission statement.

An unmentioned exception, of course, is that the leading LGBT organizations make support for abortion rights and race-based preferences (see past Human Rights Campaign scorecards) litmus test issues and otherwise define themselves as working on behalf of the entire progressive agenda (see the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force's mission statement). But I digress. Hirshman goes on, and quotes Martha Burk, past president of the National Council of Women's Organizations (with brackets and ellipses in the original):

A lot of millennial feminism simply magnifies the weakness of the old movement. As Burk says: "When we started the [younger women's] task force, the young women wanted to identify it with environmentalism and prison rights and, and, and,..." Sound familiar?

She concludes:

So I'll invoke the insights of someone less than half my age, the young editor of Feministe, Jill Filipovic. "Mainstream liberal Democratic guys don't have to take feminism seriously because they know that, at the end of the day, we're going to be there," she told me.

Yep, sounds familiar.

At his arraignment at Gitmo on Thursday, alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed described what drives his jihad:

"I consider all American constitution" evil, he said, because it permits "same-sexual marriage and many other things that are very bad," he told the military judge, Col. Ralph Kohlmann. "Do you understand?"

Meanwhile, Dan Blatt over at Gay Patriot reports a story ignored by U.S. mainstream and gay media:

At a fashion show to promote tolerance of gay people on April 30, a national holiday in Holland, celebrating the birthday of the late Queen Juliana, a group of ten Muslim youths dragged gay model Mike Du Pree down from the catwalk, beating him up and breaking his nose. A second model who tried to help out was also attacked.

I could find no reference to this beating on any of the [U.S.] gay news web-sites I checked....

Martin Bosma, gay issues spokesman of the Dutch Party of Freedom (PVV), said..."This shows how strong the Islamic gaybashers feel they are. Even at daylight, on Queen's Day, in the heart of Amsterdam, they strike.... Either they will win, or we will win."

Or we could pretend that offering their allies tea with Obama will take care of all.

The Human Rights Campaign has now endorsed Obama for President, despite his refusal to oppose the California ballot initiative to ban same-sex marriage (as reported in the San Francisco Chronicle), and despite his stated position that marriage can only be between a man and a woman-neither of which is mentioned in HRC's gushing endorsement announcement.

As noted in the item below, the Economist reports that African-Americans overwhelmingly oppose same-sex marriage, and Obama is likely to fire up a much larger African-American turnout in California this November. So why an endorsement with no strings attached? Because HRC exists to serve the party, silly.

More. HRC even beat the Stonewall Democrats in getting out their endorsement message, showing which organization is the more effectively partisan.

Furthermore. The San Francisco Chronicle article states:

Obama ... has said repeatedly that marriage itself should be reserved for a man and a woman. With an amendment outlawing same-sex marriage on the California ballot in November, Obama will probably be called to defend his carefully nuanced position when he campaigns in the state.

Gee, maybe HRC should have gotten him to strongly, and publicly, condemn the amendment and work against its passage as a precondition for their endorsement, you think?

From The Economist:

Although California's major pollsters reckon the gap is closing, they have never found a majority of residents in favor of same-sex marriage. Whites are evenly divided on the subject, whereas Latinos are opposed and blacks are fiercely opposed. February's primary election suggests turnout among both minority groups will be high this November.

It's altogether possible that a huge African-American turnout for Obama (who believes marriage is only between a man and a woman, just like the wording of the ballot initiative) could doom marriage equality in the nation's most populous state. But that's a scenario you won't hear discussed by Obama's LGBT supporters.

More. Since one commenter charges that my remarks about Obama's views on same-sex marriage are wrong, here are some facts:

Obama says: "I do not support gay marriage. Marriage has religious and social connotations, and I consider marriage to be between a man and a woman." (From the Human Rights Campaign's 2008 Presidential questionnaire)

Proposed California marriage amendment says: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Furthermore. Reader "avee" predicts:

Obama says he is against the CA marriage amendment [sic], but he also says that he is against gay marriage because marraige can only be between a man and woman. Expect his anti-gay-marriage quote to be reproduced in ads in the African-American media by amendment supporters before the election.

Actually, Obama apparently has not come out in opposition of the amendment, unlike GOP Gov. Schwarzenegger. From the San Francisco Chronicle:

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, the likely Democratic presidential nominee, supports civil unions and equal rights for same-sex couples, but he has said repeatedly that marriage itself should be reserved for a man and a woman.

With an amendment outlawing same-sex marriage on the California ballot in November, Obama will probably be called to defend his carefully nuanced position when he campaigns in the state.

McCain, regrettably, endorsed the state amendment while continuing to oppose a federal amendment, but one would certainly expect more-much more- from Obama, who is and will be receiving droves of gay dollars and gay votes, and the adoration of LGBT activists throughout the land.

More still. It's now on the ballot. And it's unclear whether same-sex marriages performed over the next five months would be nullified if the amendment passes. Also, New York State's recent executive order instructing state agencies to recognized same-sex marriages performed elsewhere is being challenged.

In Wednesday's Los Angeles Times, Macy's ran a full-page ad for its wedding registry that says, "First comes love. Then comes marriage. And now it's a milestone every couple in California can celebrate."

A while back, Paul Varnell looked at the positive side of gays being (oh, the horror!) a target market.

The Macy's ad also brought to mind the article Capitalism and the Family, written last year by Steven Horwitz, a professor of economics at St. Lawrence University, who noted that:

One final result of capitalism's effects on economic growth and the rise of the love-based marriage is perhaps the most controversial cultural issue of the early 21st century: the demand for the legalization of same-sex marriage. ...

Although leftist historians...at least recognize the ways in which capitalism has made gay identity and thus the demand for same-sex marriage possible, they still go out of their way to note that this does not mean that capitalism is actually good.

Conservatives, however, seem unaware of the connection. They continue to pay lip service to the great things capitalism provides and often understand correctly the ways in which its economic effects cannot be controlled, yet they complain about the cultural dynamism that is the direct result of the dynamism of the market.

That sums it up nicely.

More. David Boaz, as it happens, has a Wall Street Journal op-ed this week about capitalism and its political discontents, taking aim at presidential candidates (and, I'd add, their media cheerleaders) who hypocritically disparage the "money culture" of traders, entrepreneurs and manufacturers. States Boaz, in rebuttal: "You have a right to live it as you choose, to follow your bliss. You have a right to seek satisfaction in accomplishment. And if you chase after the almighty dollar, you just might find that you are led, as if by an invisible hand, to do things that improve the lives of others."

A report in LA Weekly, California GOP: The Queer Enablers of Gay Marriage, highlights why the "all LGBT eggs (and votes, and money) in the Democratic Party basket" (or else you must be a "self-loathing" rich white gay jerk) is and always was partisanship gone wild:

[GOP Gov. Pete Wilson] appointed Judge Ronald M. George to the California State Supreme Court. Nearly 17 years later, the moderate Republican jurist would become a national gay hero. Last Thursday, it was George's carefully written majority opinion that legalized same-sex marriage in California. By nightfall...gay activists stood on a stage and publicly lauded the judge as "courageous." Speaker after speaker also praised another Republican, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, for promising to "fight" against a November ballot measure that could still outlaw gay marriage in the Golden State. ...

When Robin Tyler, a plaintiff in last week's historic case and a gay-rights advocate for more than 40 years, realized many months ago that the California State Supreme Court was jammed with Republicans, she was anything but fearful. "I was thrilled," she says. "I thought we'd stand more of a chance. I think a Democratic court might have shied away because of the issue of the (presidential) election."

As I never tire of pointing out, our national LGBT groups are largely staffed by activists with close ties to the Democratic Party, and much of their top leadership ranks flow back and forth from positions within the party itself (with an eye kept on possible low to mid-level positions in the next Democratic administration). That would be fine if these groups presented themselves as partisans targeting LBGT money and votes on their party's behalf, but they don't.

Yep, It's Groundbreaking

Semi-related, Laura Bush and daughter Jenna last week taped a segment on The Ellen DeGeneres Show (expected to air this coming Wednesday), discussing their new book. Ellen is a California resident, and following the California Supreme Court's marriage ruling she announced her engagement to longtime girlfriend Portia de Rossi.

Ponder that for a moment: A conservative Republican First Lady going on a chat show with a famous lesbian who's just announced she's going to get married?

And now, this just in: The AP reports that "President Bush's newly married daughter, Jenna Hager, seemed to offer her family's Texas ranch to Ellen DeGeneres as a wedding location."

I think this is just another sign that the religious right is losing on all fronts, and that their initiatives to ban marriage are just last stands in their retreat -last stands that may stay in state constitutions for a generation, alas, but still part of a general losing effort.

From the Los Angeles Times: "Among registered voters in California, 54 percent support a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages, and 35 percent oppose it.... Of those who said they didn't know a gay person, 70 percent support the amendment..."

The Times tries to give the findings a positive spin as a "narrow margin" for the amendment's passage, but actually, I'm told, pre-vote polls on state anti-gay amendments have undercounted the support for banning same-sex unions by an average of 10% - amendment backers don't feel comfortable giving their real views, it seems, perhaps fearing that the pollster will think they're bigots.

Equality California's PAC is the right place to donate, I'm told.

If the anti-gay marriage amendment fails (as did a similar effort in Arizona two years ago), it will mark an historic turning point. If the amendment passes, marriage equality will be delayed in the nation's most populous state for perhaps a generation - which demonstrates both the promise and real risks of pursing a judicial strategy.

A panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has issued an opinion favorable to Major Margaret Witt, a decorated Air Force nurse and Persian Gulf veteran who was discharged for being in a longstanding relationship with another woman.

The appellate panel cited the U.S. Supreme Court's Lawrence decision, which overturned so-called sodomy laws criminalizing gay sex, and which established that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment [revised from earlier posting]. The panel then remanded for lower court determination whether Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) violated Witt's (and by extension all service members') fundamental rights. IGF contributing author Dale Carpenter weighs in over at the Volokh Conspiracy, commenting:

I take some satisfaction in the panel's conclusion that Lawrence supports heightened scrutiny for laws that burden the exercise of private adult sexual autonomy.

But just about every lower federal and state court, and it seems most scholars, until now have refused to read Lawrence that way. Even courts that have struck down laws that are anti-gay, like the Kansas Supreme Court (striking down a law establishing vastly different criminal penalties for sex with a minor depending on whether the minor was of the same or opposite sex), or striking down laws that have infringed on private adult sexual autonomy, like a recent Fifth Circuit panel (striking down a Texas law against sex toys), have avoided reading Lawrence as a fundamental-rights case. Indeed, on the question of whether the sodomy decision recognized a fundamental right, it can be said without too much exaggeration that the controlling opinion in Lawrence is actually Justice Scalia's dissent....

Nevertheless, quite apart from whether DADT is ultimately struck down, and unless the en banc court reverses the panel's determination that some form of intermediate scrutiny applies under Lawrence, this holding by itself is significant.

Law professor Eugene Volokh adds:

there's now a split on the subject between the Ninth and the Eleventh Circuits, and the question extends far beyond "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." (The Eleventh Circuit decision, for instance, upheld Florida's ban on adoption by homosexuals; that case might well come out differently under heightened scrutiny.

There's background on Maj. Witt and her case here.

More. Carpenter also comments on sexual orientation and heightened scrutiny in the California marriage decision, here, finding:

the court's equal protection holding will outlast a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and will have potential to challenge anti-gay discrimination well beyond the issue of marriage. If gay marriage loses in California in November, the equal-protection holding will be the lasting legacy of the opinion.

In one of the most bizarre arguments against state recognition of same-sex marriages, social conservative Melanie Scarborough reaches for her pen and writes:

permitting individuals of the same sex to describe their relationships as marriage gives them a right not extended to heterosexuals, for whom "marriage" is very narrowly defined. Although a man and a woman may legally wed, the law does not consider the marriage valid unless it is consummated .... But unless the relationship includes the one act defining marital union ... the question is moot; homosexual marriage is physically impossible.

Now, the assertion that marriage is and can only be "consummated" and thus made legal by vaginal intercourse, or else it isn't marriage, is circular in the extreme. Scarborough is also implying that marriage is as marriage always was, which is ridiculous. Women are no longer property, and marriages (legal ones, at any rate) are no longer polygamous.

And while I haven't read the marriage laws in all 50 states, I know that two people are considered married, with all the legal rights and obligations, without producing evidence of a broken hymen - and that particularly among the elderly, where many late-in-life marriages are companionate, it's a good thing that no bloody sheet need be produced.

It seems that many social conservatives are clearly losing it, and not in a good way.

More. And let's not fail to take note of conservative columnist (and sometimes Culture Watch reader and commenter) Maggie Gallagher, who predicts:

Polyamorists, Muslims, and breakaway heretical Mormons can expect to find at a minimum new comfort in this sweeping moral support (if not yet legal support) for the dignity of their own favored family relationships, since the right to marry is the right to have one's family relationship officially recognized and accorded equal dignity.

Oh dear, it's that old slippery slope again. But to paraphrase Jon Rauch, gays are not fighting for a right that no Americans now legally have (to multiple marriages, or "to marry everybody"), just a right that most Americans have ("to marry somebody").

Furthermore. Liberal columnist E.J. Dionne writes in the Washington Post:

As it happens, I am one of the millions of Americans whose minds have changed on this issue. Like many of my fellow citizens, I was sympathetic to granting gay couples the rights of married people but balked at applying the word "marriage" to their unions.

"That word and the idea behind it," I wrote 13 years ago, "carry philosophical and theological meanings that are getting increasingly muddled and could become more so if it were applied even more broadly.

Like a lot of people, I decided I was wrong. What moved me were the conservative arguments for gay marriage put forward by the writers Jonathan Rauch, Andrew Sullivan and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

They see society as having a powerful interest in building respect for long-term commitment and fidelity in sexual relationships and that gay marriage underscores how important commitment is. Prohibiting members of one part of our population from making a public and legal commitment to each other does not strengthen marriage; it weakens it.

Let's hope California can avoid a constitutional amendment overturning this morning's state Supreme Court ruling that laws excluding gay and lesbian couples from the right to marry are un(state)constitutional - which follows on the heels of twice legislatively passed (but twice gubernatorially vetoed) marriage rights bills.

(Gov. Schwarzenegger, who voted the bills, nevertheless says he supports the court's decion and opposes the proposed anti-gay marriage amendment expected to be on the November ballot.)

If the amendment can be defeated and same-sex marriage becomes an everyday reality in the nation's most populous state, then the pressure will certainly mount to challenge the (federal) constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars the U.S. government from recognizing state-sanctioned same-sex unions for purposes of joint tax filings, spousal immigration, Social Security survivors' income, and myriad other benefits that married heterosexuals take for granted.

More. From the New York Times:

Gay marriage is an issue on which the three major presidential candidates - John McCain, Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton - are pretty much in agreement. All oppose it, while saying at the same time that same-sex couples should generally be entitled to the legal protections afforded married couples. All think the decision should be left to the states.

So they're all pretty much in agreement, but you can bet HRC and the rest of the LGBT beltway gang will be going all out for a McCain defeat (and, if history is a guide, it will be their top electoral priority, dwarfing any efforts to stop state anti-gay marriage amendments).

Changing topics. Beware political hysteria carried forth on a wave of emotional charisma, and be prepared for the unhappy consequences. This picture, for me, invokes visions of Nuremburg.