IGF CultureWatch

This has been all over the web, but it's still fun. The rabidly anti-gay American Family Association, based in Tupelo, Mississippi, runs an online news service that's set to auto-change "gay" to "homosexual in wire copy stories. In several pieces about runner Tyson Gay's record-breaking performance at the U.S. Olympic track and field finals, the AFA auto-changed his name to "Tyson Homosexual," as noted over at outsports.com and elsewhere.

Even conservative blogger James Taranto at the Wall Street Journal's Best of the Web (scroll down to "William was a Homosexual Deceiver") found the AFA's intransigence more than slightly ridiculous.

(Relatedly, a friend emails me that "I've seen lots of headlines this week saying 'Gay Breaks World Record,' and I've beamed with pride.")

This Advocate article looks at efforts by the nonpartisan Gill Action Fund to elect fair-minded (read gay-friendly) officials beginning at the lowest levels and then supporting them throughout their careers, a strategy that has been used successfully by the religious right and, more generally, by the conservative GOPAC. Interestingly, the two leaders of this effort are Patrick Guerriero, a former leader of the Log Cabin Republicans, and Bill Smith, a former employee of Karl Rove.

These guys seem willing to play hardball for providing select candidates with financial support. That's a refreshing change from gay Democrats, whether at the Human Rights Campaign or elsewhere, and gay Republicans, who are primarily party activists looking to elect their party's candidates, and then expand their niche in the party as a reward for their service. That's fair enough (except when HRC pretends to be nonpartisan, when it clearly no longer is). But I'm glad to see efforts such as this one that don't put partisanship first.

From The Advocate: "Sen. Obama reminded us this week that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman, something LGBT people might have easily forgotten over the course of the primary." Meanwhile, thousands of gay couples wed across California. And Obama still hasn't (that I could find) spoken out against the California anti-gay marriage amendment, despite the swooning endorsements and piles of cash he's receiving from smitten LGBT activists and their followers.

But, as former Reason magazine editor Virginia Postrel observed on her Dynamist blog, "If Obama comes out forcefully against the amendment-as he should-his African-American base in California and elsewhere won't like it."

More. Postrel also notes that "Blacks are overwhelmingly opposed to gay marriage and supportive of the [California] initiative, so much so that gay marriage supporters are essentially writing them off...," and that if, as widely expected, Obama turns out a hugh African-American vote in the Golden State, it will help pass the anti-gay marriage amendment. That's a point I've also made.

Furthermore. On June 25, Andrew Sullivan takes exception and says I'm wrong about Obama's position on the California amendment. But I think reader "avee" has hit the nail on the head about what's behind the confusion. He writes:

One or more commenters claim that Obama has spoken out against the amendment; neither blogger Steve nor I can find any such statement.

[Obama] has said that marriage is only between a man and a woman, and that state's should decide. He has also suggested that he doesn't have a problem with what's happening in CA. That double-talk does not amount to speaking out against the amendment....

UPDATE. On July 1, Obama finally issued a statement opposing the California anti-gay marriage amendment. Good. Now let's see how enthusiastically he speaks out against it (if at all) while on the campaign trail.

And yes, McCain is backing the admendment. Bad boy. But he's not getting all the campaign support, including voter registration/mobilization and mass solicitation of gay donations, being orchestrated by HRC and friends, is he? That's why Obama is being held to a higher standard, and why his long delay in coming out against the amendment was not acceptable.

Not all LGBT Americans are celebrating the newly gained freedom to marry in California, it seems. Writing over at The Advocte, IGF contributing author James Kirchick takes aim at a particularly insipid example of politically correct victimization posturing, the claim that "racist" white gays are forcing marriage on same-gender loving African Americans.

Here's a look at some items of interest in the wake of the CA marriage ruling:

A coalition of gay rights groups is urging out-of-state same-sex couples who marry in CA not to file lawsuits in their home states and in the federal courts demanding recognition of their unions. The reason:

"Pushing the federal government before we have a critical mass of states recognizing same-sex relationships or suing in states where the courts aren't ready is likely to get us bad rulings. Bad rulings will make it much more difficult for us to win marriage, and will certainly make it take much longer," the groups said....

When we've won in a critical mass of states, we can turn to Congress and the federal courts. At that point, we'll ask that the U.S. government treat all marriages equally. And we'll ask that all states give equal treatment to all marriages and civil unions that are celebrated in other states."

That seems like a healthy does of realpolitik, although I'd contend that focusing on winning legislatively is the way to make real advances while minimizing the risk of voter backlash (in CA, the legislature twice passed same-sex marriage bills, and the governor who vetoed them now says he supports the idea-and still all could be lost in November's ballot initiative when the masses vote on an anti-gay marriage state amendment that polls show has majority support).

I'm also guessing that some newly married gay couples will still sue in their home states, and that the likely results won't take us forward.

Somewhat related, but on a more positive note, Overlawyered.com looks at the ongoing Miller-Jenkins (Vermont-Virginia lesbian custody) legal battle, and how Virginia's highest court has now ruled in favor of the lesbian co-parent's visitation rights, in a state where conservatives have gone to great aims to deny any recognition of relationship rights for same-sex couples.

And the New York Times analyzes how "Gay Unions Shed Light on Gender in Marriage," and finds:

While the gay and lesbian couples had about the same rate of conflict as the heterosexual ones, they appeared to have more relationship satisfaction, suggesting that the inequality of opposite-sex relationships can take a toll. ...

The ability to see the other person's point of view appears to be more automatic in same-sex couples, but research shows that heterosexuals who can relate to their partner's concerns and who are skilled at defusing arguments also have stronger relationships.

Same-sex marriages is going to enrich the culture of marriage, it seems, just as some of us have always contended.

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."