IGF CultureWatch

Gays working for spiritual integrity within the Church of England and the American Episcopalian Church are this week once again challenging virulently homophobic and hate-minded Anglican leaders, such as Nigerian Bishop Isaac Orama and Archbishop Peter Akinola, at the once-a-decade Lambeth Conference.

Britain's Times Online reports on the continuing moral cowardice of the Archbishop of Canterbury in the face of evil, in contrast to groups such as Integrity:

In spite of attempts by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, to keep homosexuality as low down the agenda as possible, the subject is likely to dominate the conference. Bishop [Gene] Robinson [the openly gay Episcopal bishop of New Hampshire] is not invited to the conference but is in Canterbury attending fringe events. On Wednesday, the US lobby group Integrity will release a video showing real-life stories of African gay Christians.

A report commissioned by the British gay group Stonewall suggests that "Religious people are more positive towards homosexual people than is claimed by conservative faith leaders." Another finding:

Those interviewed for the report said that new legal protections for lesbian and gay people, including civil partnerships, have had a "civilizing effect" on British society. The increased acceptance of gay people on a national and political level has also had a positive impact on attitudes at a local level, they said."

IGF contributing author Deroy Murdock has a fine column in the conservative flagship, National Review, making the case for ending the U.S. military's gay ban. Writes Murdock in Don't Make Sense: A Policy that Deserves a Dishonorable Discharge:

Last year, the Army gave moral waivers to 106 applicants convicted of burglary, 15 of felonious break-ins, 11 of grand-theft-auto, and 8 of arson. It also admitted five rape/sexual-assault convicts, two felony child molesters, two manslaughter convicts, and two felons condemned for "terrorist threats including bomb threats."

"The Army seems to be lowering standards in training to accommodate lower-quality recruits," RAND Corporation researcher Beth Asch observed at a May 12 Heritage Foundation defense-policy seminar in Colorado Springs.

Conversely, expelled military personnel include Arabic linguists and intelligence specialists who help crush America's foes in the War on Terror. "Don't Ask" has ousted at least 58 soldiers who speak Arabic, 50 Korean, 42 Russian, 20 Chinese, nine Farsi, and eight Serbo-Croatian-all trained at the prestigious Defense Language Institute. Al-Qaeda intercepts need translation, and Uncle Sam may need people who can walk around Tehran with open ears. Yet these dedicated gay citizens now are ex-GIs.

Murdock doesn't make any arguments that haven't already been made; it's the venue that matters. He's using his cred as a conservative to speak to other conservatives who would simply dismiss what's said in the lefty "progressive" media. Murdock's referencing of the conservative Heritage Foundation, for this audience, adds still more weight to his case.

Since, apart from the partisan Log Cabin Republicans, the leading national LGBT lobbies have been turned into Democratic party fundraising vehicles, they can hardly be expected to try to sway conservatives. In fact, they're not even interested in trying.

Over at the liberal New Republic's "The Plank" blog, IGF contributing author James Kirchick cast a critical eye at Liberal Silliness on Gay Marriage, which includes those progressives who don't understand why gays want to get married because, in their enlightened view, marriage remains a sexist, racist, oppressive institution. Example: Courtney E. Martin, author of Perfect Girls, Starving Daughters: The Frightening New Normalcy of Hating Your Body, acknowledging that gay couples should have the same legal rights endowed by marriage, yet can't help but wonder:

But do these rights really trump the woman-as-property history and discriminatory present (on a state by state basis, of course)? Why do so many of my gay friends have such faith that they can transform the institution when I'm still so unsure?

Replies Jamie:

I answer a resounding 'Yes' to the first question and don't much care about the second because I don't see how marriage needs to be 'transformed' other than that it should be opened to homosexuals.

Of course, his post elicits some typical responses from offended liberals, including this gem: "Fire Jamie Kirchick. Nobody likes him."

Although John McCain became the certain GOP presidential nominee months ago, James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family, the richest and most powerful of religious right organizations, has refused to endorse him. And by refusing to offer McCain a free ride, he succeeded in pushing him to make concession after concession to social conservatives. That explains, in no small measure, McCain's initial response opposing adoptions by same-sex couples. Having achieved what he wanted, Dobson is now considering, at this late date, providing his endorsement.

In contrast, although Barack Obama opposes same-sex marriage, and for months failed to publicly express opposition to California's same-sex marriage-banning initiative (only doing so on July 1), as soon as he clinched the Democratic nomination he was unconditionally endorsed by the Human Rights Campaign and most other inside the beltway Democratic GLBT fundraising vehicles. And the amount of political capital Obama has pledged to spend on behalf of gay equality even when push comes to shove, as opposed to much feel-good political rhetoric, remains remarkably slim.

Majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents alike now believe it is acceptable for openly gay people to serve in the U.S. armed forces, which they can not do under the military's don't ask, don't tell (DADT) policy, which congress passed (thanks to former Sen. Sam Nunn, Sen. Robert Byrd and others) and Bill Clinton signed into law.

A new Washington Post-ABC poll says 75% of Americans now support allowing gays in the military-compared to 44 percent in 1993. That support cuts across party identification to include a majority of Republicans. Even 57% of white evangelical Protestants now support allowing openly gay service members in the military.

Given the bigger majorities Democrats are certain to enjoy in the Congress that convenes in January 2009, failure to remove this discriminatory measure, which undermines America's ability to defend itself and wage the war on terrorism, is utterly unacceptable. But will a President Obama, coming into office with the poorest presidential relationship with the U.S. military brass since Bill Clinton, be willing to push for it?

I've been traveling all week and will be on the road for another. Jon Rauch is also away, so blogging is going to remain skimpy for awhile. Still, I wanted to take note of the brouhaha over John McCain's thoughtless response to a question about gay adoption as reported in the New York Times:

Mr. McCain, who with his wife, Cindy, has an adopted daughter, said flatly that he opposed allowing gay couples to adopt. "I think that we've proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so, no, I don't believe in gay adoption," he said.

And , after a stinging response from libertarians and limited government, big-tent conservatives (and, of less importance, LGBT Democratic activists), his campaign's statement to Andrew Sullivan revising and extending McCain's comments:

"McCain could have been clearer in the interview in stating that his position on gay adoption is that it is a state issue, just as he made it clear in the interview that marriage is a state issue. He was not endorsing any federal legislation.

McCain's expressed his personal preference for children to be raised by a mother and a father wherever possible. However, as an adoptive father himself, McCain believes children deserve loving and caring home environments, and he recognizes that there are many abandoned children who have yet to find homes. McCain believes that in those situations that caring parental figures are better for the child than the alternative."

(The New York Times story is here.)

McCain's "clarified" position remain intentionally mushy, and if his original intent was to placate the anti-gay religious right, he's now managed to tick them off all the more. But it does represent some sort of progress that he was made to realize his earlier position, which was entirely consistent with the GOP's traditional dismissal of gay citizens and gay voters, in 2008 will no longer fly.

Updated July 17

Yes, this poll showing majority support for anti-gay state marriage amendments and, in general, candidates that support them-including among "soft Democrats"-is from the anti-gay Family Research Council. But it's also largely consistent with other polling. If there are polls showing more optimistic findings, I'd like to see them.

Also, the Washington Blade takes a clear-eyed look at opposition to same-sex marriage and civil unions among a big majority of African Americans. The Blade reports that:

two-thirds of black Americans are against gay marriage. Although the numbers vary by poll, research shows most blacks oppose both gay marriage and civil unions. The findings come as some surveys show a majority of whites have dropped their objections to same-sex unions.

Remember that this is a core Democratic demographic that much LGBT activist propaganda portrays as our steadfast progressive allies in the grand coalition of the left.

Even with an Obama victory, the passage of anti-gay marriage amendments in California and Florida remains frighteningly likely. Yet the overwhelming energy of national LGBT groups seems to be targeted at aiding a Democratic presidential win, not defeating anti-gay amendments, just as it was eight years ago.

More. I'm all for boycotting major donors to the anti-gay marriage drive in California or elsewhere; that's democracy in action. It's what the beltway LGBT groups ought to be doing if they weren't so all consumed by working on behalf of the Obama campaign.

Furthermore. Richard Nixon predicted same-sex marriage by 2000! From a Gail Collins op-ed in the NY Times:

Back in 1970, when Americans were still adjusting to the Supreme Court ruling that people of different races had a constitutional right to wed, someone suggested to President Richard Nixon that same-sex marriages would be next.

"I can't go that far; that's the year 2000," Nixon rejoined.

Collins comments, "Nixon was a little early." And if this November sees passage of anti-marriage amendments in California, Florida, and elsewhere, we may be looking at yet another generation of waiting. That's why defeating these amendment should be the #1 task for gay Americans and their political lobbies. Should be, but isn't. (After all, what mid-level political appointments can national LGBT activist leaders expect by working to defeat state amendments, as opposed to providing their unconditional support to their party's presidential campaign?)

I'm often critical of the Human Rights Campaign for turning itself into the LGBT fundraising arm of the Democratic Party. But it's good to remember that hard-core LGBT activist loonies are even more hostile to HRC, for all the wrong reasons.

A new statement from the San Francisco-based "And Castro for All" attacks HRC for what they claim is "HRC's ongoing refusal to support federal legislation that actually protects all LGBT people from employment discrimination." Actually, HRC does support transgender inclusion in the federal Employee Non-Discrimination Act that passed the House last year; it just didn't withhold its support when House leaders recognized that a bill covering cross-dressing and other transgender behaviors had no chance of passage, while one that dealt exclusively with workplace sexual orientation discrimination had an excellent chance of passing.

(Apparently, both congressional leaders and LGBT activists, including HRC, have now decided to put the whole shebang on hold until next year, when they hope larger Democratic majorities might allow the transgendered-incusive bill to advance. I think that's highly unlikely, but it allows Senate Democrats to avoid voting on sexual orientation protections during an election year.)

In any event, the San Francisco lefties offer a parting shot claiming that HRC's equal sign logo is actually "two gold bars" that:

"represent homosexuals living in the middle of the country-rather than the actual full diversity of our beautiful, global LGBT community."

So all those unhip gay people living between the coasts are not part of the "beautiful diversity" of the "LGBT community," perhaps because they're perceived as ... too white(?), too hard-working(?), or maybe just too non-transgressive? Hey HRC and your job-holding contributors, unconditional support for Obama just doesn't cut it anymore, rock the system-wise.

The anti-gay American Family Association has announced what will be a completely ineffectual boycott of McDonald's because of the fast-food giant's involvement with the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce. The move follows ineffectual AFA boycotts of Disney (for "its embrace of the homosexual lifestyle"), Ford (for running ads in some gay publications) and Target stores.

What's striking about the AFA's hit list is that the group's wrath is directed at the most iconic of American companies. Outside the fever swamps of the religious right or, for different reasons (e.g., "globalization") the anti-capitalist left, these are the companies beloved most by hard-working, family-centric Americans. It's a sure sign of the increasingly farcical marginalization of the AFA and its ilk.

The Washington Post reports that:

Corporations increasingly are courting the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender markets for their buying power and trendsetting value. This translates into corporate sponsorships of events, such as gay pride festivals, and advertising targeted at nonheterosexual consumers.

While I doubt that corporations are actually targeting the small transgender market - a bit of p.c. boilerplate that the journalist picked up from LGBT activist groups - the gay market is a significant demographic.

Once again, free markets work to sweep away the ineffectual, inefficient and irrational (including unprofitable prejudice) when allowed by the state to do so.

More. So much for the hapless AFA's boycott efforts: Public Radio's "Marketplace" just ran a story on U.S. auto makers competing to capture the gay market. General Motors, for instance, sponsored a "speed dating" session at the Detroit gay pride festival. The transcript + audio is here. (Hat tip: Rick Sincere.)

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.")