IGF CultureWatch

No, this isn't about Obama and his latest gaffe (defined as when a politician accidentally reveals what he truly believes). But somewhat relatedly, James Kirchick takes aim at liberal homophobia. He covers a lot of ground, but here's part of his take on the free pass given to Bill Clinton:

In 1996, Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which allows states (and the federal government) not to recognize same-sex marriages of other states, and then touted his support of the measure on Christian radio stations. The Clinton Justice Department refused to offer an amicus brief in the Supreme Court case of Romer v. Evans, which challenged a Colorado constitutional amendment seeking to ban cities and towns from instituting antidiscrimination laws protecting gays. Clinton also signed a bill barring HIV-positive people from entering the country and one that discharged HIV-positive soldiers from the military. "It's really outrageous the pass that Clinton has gotten from gay and lesbian people considering the harm he did to the gay rights movement," [the Log Cabin Republican's Patrick] Sammon says.

Clinton did not stop harming gays once he left office. In 2004 he reportedly encouraged Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry to not only support anti-same-sex marriage constitutional amendments at the state level, but the Federal Marriage Amendment as well. The Clinton administration- looked upon by liberals, gay ones especially, as a golden era in American history-proved that leading Democrats can be pro-gay by convenience, not conviction, and that when homophobia works for political advantage liberals are no less hesitant to employ it than conservatives.

In addition to those cited by Kirchick, I can think of several other instances of gay-baiting by public figures on the left. I've also personally encountered morally superior "love me I'm a liberal" types who, affronted by the expression of political heresy, have no compunction about revealing what they really think by unleashing anti-gay-tinged tirades. And I know that a great many other gay non-liberals, and especially out Republicans, routinely experience the same.

More (on topic). Can you imagine the uproar from LGBT activists and the banner headlines in LGBT media if Republicans did this? Clinton and Obama Appear at Religious College that Categorizes Homosexuality with Stealing, Adultery & Sexual Abuse. At this self-describe "Compassion Forum" held at a Christian college that urges gay students to seek reparative therapy immediately, neither candidate mentioned their support for gay nondiscrimination-except-as-regards-marriage.

Off-topic: The left's latest harvest. Advocates of big-government social engineering told us that mandating production of a five-fold increase in biofuels, and paying government subsidies so that farmers would switch from traditional crops to grow a type of corn that people can not eat, would help alleviate the apocalypse of global warming (or so St. Al of Gore has revealed unto us). The result: worldwide starvation. Liberals-and big-government conservatives-defenders of the poor and powerless.

As long as I'm off topic, should I bring up how liberals spearheaded passage of a law-the Community Reinvestment Act-forcing lenders to extend credit to those with, shall we say, poor credit histories (effectively amounting to a soft quota for such loans) ? More progress thanks to government intervention over the "mindless" market! (Okay, not the whole cause, but a contributing factor-and along with their protests that banks were unfairly denying credit to the disadvantaged, more of one than liberals will admit.)

A fascinating bit of uncovered history regarding gay playwright (and bon vivant) Noel Coward's anti-Nazi spying during World War II has some relevance for today. Via the New York Times Sunday Book Review:

[Coward] had been a spy for England, trained (with his friend Ian Fleming) in covert action in the secret headquarters of Bletchley Park. ...

Coward's spycraft had a Scarlet Pimpernel side. The idea was to use his public personality-the merry playboy, the "don't ask/don't tell" gay celebrity-as a mask for his passionate antifascism. By 1936, Coward's unchic loathing of appeasement and Neville Chamberlain ("that bloody conceited old sod") was turning him into something of a Churchill bore. In 1938, when his old friend Ivor Novello shed "tears of relief" over Chamberlain's let's-pretend peace, Coward threw a punch that nearly decked him. "We have nothing to worry about," he wrote to another friend, "but the destruction of civilization.' ...

Guided by a fellow celebrity-spy, Cary Grant (!), he was to assess pro- and anti-British opinion. On the right, a minority of stars-Errol Flynn, for example-were suspected of being pro-Nazi. On the left, Stalinists were using fronts like the Yanks Are Not Coming Committee to rationalize Stalin's alliance with Hitler and the defeat of Britain, while the American Communist Party began a campaign denouncing Coward as an agent of British warmongers.

Quite inspiring, really. As for the left, when will they ever learn?

More. On the 65th anniversary of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, remembering their heroism, and why it's important we never forget. Also, this timely observation (hat tip: instapundit).

The Politico reports:

The results of a March 26, 2008, AOL Television popularity poll of television hosts reveal Americans may now embrace Ellen DeGeneres over Oprah by a wide margin. Forty-six percent of the 1.35 million people who participated in the poll said the daytime talk show host that "made their day" was Ellen, compared with only 19 percent who chose Oprah. Nearly half (47 percent) said they would rather dine with Ellen, compared with 14 percent who preferred Oprah.

To be sure, Oprah remains one of the most popular figures in America, but recent data suggest her popularity has eroded. One possible explanation for this decline is that her endorsement of Obama and her support for him may have done more to damage impressions of her than to strengthen support for Obama.

If this analysis is correct, daytime chat viewers don't much like overt political endorsements by show hosts, but are comfortable with Ellen ("Yep, I'm Gay") Degeneres, who doesn't browbeat her audience over the issue but did recently movingly address the murder of young Lawrence King.

As both Rosie O'Donnell (back when she was seen as the Queen of Nice) and Ellen have shown, gay women have broken through a media barrier. But no out and proud gay man has come anywhere close to such onscreen success as of yet.

The Washington Blade takes a look at what's happened (or, rather, not happened) to the LBGT movement's two prime legislative goals: a federal hate crimes bill covering sexual orientation, and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), passed by the House last fall with enough GOP support to compensate for those defecting Democrats who voted to defeat the measure (because it only covered gays and lesbians and not the transgendered).

On the hate crimes bill:

Once congressional source familiar with the hate crimes bill said a number of GOP lawmakers believe Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) did not want to bring the hate crimes bill to a vote because doing so would help the re-election chances of moderate Republican senators who support the bill. Among them are Sens. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine), who face strong election challenges by Democrats in November.

And on ENDA:

[The National Gay & Lesbian Task Force] has called on Congress not to pass a gay-only version of the bill at any time, saying a trans-inclusive version would be the only outcome acceptable for the group and its members. . . .

Veteran lesbian activist Robin Tyler . . . said she is among a growing number of "progressive" activists who support passing the gay-only version of ENDA this year, with the aim of adding transgender protections when more support can be lined up.

"As for whether it comes up this year, what I'm hearing is just a bunch of excuses," Tyler said. "The Democrats have been tip-toeing over this for decades. Are they saying they can't find a few minutes to schedule a vote on this?"

I guess in the age of the audacity of hope, we should celebrate that the Task Force is making common cause with the religious right to defeat "special rights" that only pertain to homosexuals.

Note: I personally don't favor federalizing hate crimes. As for ENDA, while I have a deep-seated dislike for government intrusiveness into private sector hiring (and promoting, and contracting), the reason I remain neutral and not opposed is that I see it as mostly a symbolic step-certainly less onerous than bureaucrat-administered federal mandates that impose racial, ethnic and gender-based quotas (er, "hiring targets") that expose employers to lawsuits if not met. And I believe its passage could set the stage to actually help end federal discrimination against gays in the military, in immigration, and in recognition of state-sanctioned marriages.

More. The Blade story also reports on an internal memo from the Human Rights Campaign's director of field operations that stated it would be best if ENDA did not come up for a vote until 2009, since chances would be better for moving a trans-inclusive version through Congress next year. However, an HRC spokesman said the field director did not speak for HRC (that is, he was not speaking on the record to HRC's members, at any rate).

Pictures of Thomas Beatie, the married and pregnant Oregon man, this week moved from The Advocate (and, in sensationalized versions, the tabloids) to the mainstream media as Beatie appeared on Oprah. Not so surprisingly, as the original first-person Advocate piece made perfectly clear, Beatie is a transgendered man who was born a female named Tracy Lagondino, but had gender reassignment surgery and is now legally male and married to a woman. He decided to carry a baby for his wife, Nancy, who has had a hysterectomy.

The only thing "shocking" about this story is the widespread revelation that in the United States a woman can only marry another woman, and a man can only marry another man, if they are first "surgically adjusted." That's fine for those who are, in fact, transgendered, but doesn't help those of us who are gay and lesbian with no desire to go under the knife in order to gain the right to wed (or to marry and become parents through adoption or surrogacy.)

A churlish thought: If gay people are expected to delay anti-discrimination protections until the transgendered are also covered, shouldn't the transgendered forgo the right to wed?

Too Transgressive? Commenter "Another Steve" writes:

Sorry, but this is a shocking and disturbing development.... We're told that transgendered people identify completely with the opposite gender of their birth and so need sexual reassignment surgery. But if this transgendered "man" decides to become pregnant -- the most womanly thing imaginable -- then what's going on here beyond transgression for its own sake?

We'll, live and let live, but the pictures are a bit unsettling.

More. David Letterman has some fun (view here). Activists complain, "David Letterman Mocks Trans Man."

The Advocate recently published a provocative column titled Mixed Messages, on the murder of cross-dressing 15-year-old Lawrence King by a homophobic classmate, Brandon McInerney, at Oxnard, Calif.'s E.O. Green Junior High. Wrote Neal Broverman:

...each LGBT child at Casa Pacifica [a group home for abused, neglected, and emotionally troubled children where King lived] is given a "Know Your Rights Guide" provided by the National Center for Lesbian Rights, a legal advocacy group. "Queer and Trans Youth in California Foster Care Have Rights!" declares the pamphlet's cover. Inside is a description of the state's Foster Care Nondiscrimination Act, along with a list of entitlements for queer children like safe bathrooms and dating. Included on the list-below an illustration of a teenager in overalls and high heels-is the right for kids to wear clothes and hairstyles that fit their gender identity. King clearly took that freedom to heart in the last weeks of his life.

As wonderful as this encouragement sounds, did it put Larry in harm's way by sending him out in a world not ready for him? It may be beyond the capacity of kids to reconcile a tolerant atmosphere like Casa Pacifica with the xenophobic, conformist nature of school. Children like Brandon McInerney are products of their society, one that simply does not know what to do with a boy in heels.

Broverman raised serious issues that are certainly worth discussing. But his piece provoked strong criticism from certain activist quarters, as in this Open Letter to The Advocate from "lawyers, advocates, and child welfare professionals" who declare "hiding fuels hatred" and that "We cannot keep children safe by hiding them. Succumbing to fear creates an environment in which hatred thrives. Invisibility is just another, more insidious, killer."

That sounds a awful lot like the kind of sloganeering that is meant to stifle open discussion rather than foster it. Gay adults know that, if they choose, they can walk hand in hand down a street of a non-gay neighborhood-and they know that in a great many neighborhoods they will risk getting beaten (or worse) for it. That's a choice adults can make.

I think Broverman was altogether correct in pointing out that 15-year-old King, as a transgendered minor, might have been better served by adults who imparted the message that the world can be a dangerous place and unless one is able, willing and prepared to defend oneself (or makes an informed decision to accept the risks or even to court martyrdom) it may be prudent to place discretion over self-expressiveness-at least until one is able to escape entrapment in the public school system.

James Kirchick, writing in The Advocate, puts forth the best gay case for McCain.

The upshot: McCain is not a homophobe and at a gut level he's repelled by the intolerance of the religious right. But he's no supporter of gay legal equality, either. While the situation for gay Americans would continue to improve under a President McCain, progress would not be driven from the White House.

If you have reason to believe that a President Obama would allow Iraq to become an Al-Qaeda base, strangle free trade, hike taxes up the gazoo for anyone earning over $31,850 (that's just by letting the Bush tax cuts expire) while allowing a Democratic Congress to spend us into stagflation (ok, Bush has pretty much allowed that already, but it could get even worse, really), then it's not self-loathing for gays to support McCain.

On the other hand, if you think rhetorical expressions of support for gays override all other issues facing the nation, then clearly McCain is never going to please.

More. The value of experience.

Furthermore. Somewhat relatedly (gays and GOP), a Log Cabin board member argues that support for Washington State's expanded partnership rights bill fits in with the GOP's "history and tradition of promoting individual liberty and a belief in empowering states and local communities." Well, that's part of the GOP's history, but the good part that it's altogether correct to call the party home to.

(Policy reminder: comments with personal insults or obscene invective will be deleted; repeat offenders will be banned)

As it's Easter, let's turn to a more upbeat story regarding gays and religion. The Jewish newspaper The Forward reports that traditionally gay synagogues are now so well accepted that they are grappling with the high percentages of heteros and their families who want to join. (hat tip: Rick Sincere). Excerpt:

That difficulty has become particularly acute at Bet Haverim, where more than half the 300 members are straight. After some confusion with Atlanta's gay newspaper, Bet Haverim's rabbi, Joshua Lesser, asked that Bet Haverim be described as a "gay-founded" synagogue....

"I think that was a profound transformational moment where most of us realized: 'Oh, this is the value of opening up our synagogue. We have created a community of allies,'" Lesser said.

I also hear that something similar has happened in larger MCC churches as well. And even the gay-focused gun-defending (and training) enthusiasts, the Pink Pistols, recount that straights who are uncomfortable with NRA-type groups are joining.

Other minorities have long confronted issues of assimilation vs. independent institutions, and the need to strike a balance that preserves what's best in minority culture while helping to enrich (and being enriched by) the larger community to which we all belong.

Updated March 25

The Washington Blade headline (top of page 1) proclaims Obama pastor backs gay rights. Oh, so that makes the Rev. Jeremiah Wright a good guy as far as we (that is, the "LGBT community") are concerned? Wright's gay defenders represent the sort of inbred myopia that distresses many of us who have moved away from the LGBT left-liberal party line. Rev. Wright may call on the Lord by saying "God damn America," he may blame 9/11 on the "chickens are coming home to roost" for U.S. support of "state terrorism against the Palestinians." He may declare that the U.S. government invented and spread HIV/AIDS "as a means of genocide against people of color." But hey, he upholds the progressive line on gay rights, sort of. Let's rally to his support, and that of his most-famed mentee. (Yes, Obama has stated he disagrees with some cranky statements uttered by his most revered spiritual adviser for the past 20 years. Sorry, my bad.)

More. From the funny pages.

Furthermore: Why the speech was a brilliant fraud. Writes Charles Krauthammer:

Why didn't he leave-why doesn't he leave even today-a pastor who thundered not once but three times from the pulpit (on a DVD the church proudly sells) "God damn America"? Obama's 5,000-word speech, fawned over as a great meditation on race, is little more than an elegantly crafted, brilliantly sophistic justification of that scandalous dereliction….

Sure, says Obama, there's Wright, but at the other "end of the spectrum" there's Geraldine Ferraro, opponents of affirmative action and his own white grandmother, "who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe." But did she shout them in a crowded theater to incite, enrage and poison others?

And yet Andrew Sullivan, Chris Crain, and other gay pundits still find themselves in full swoon. And they argue that Wright's support for gay rights balances his instances of hatefulness (Sullivan, here, and Crain, here). Just what, one wonders, would be needed to shake their entrancement?

More still. Bruce Bawer writes:

I was no fan of the late Bill Buckley, but a piece by him in the current Commentary has proven surprisingly timely. In it he describes how he and others, back in the 1960s, dealt with the huge and unwelcome influence in conservative circles of the John Birch Society, whose nutbag leader Robert Welch believed Eisenhower was a Communist agent. What did Buckley do? Give a speech in which he refused to disown Welch, explaining that Welch was a part of the big, complex picture of American conservatism and that he couldn't disown him any more than he could disown his grandmother? No, Buckley sought, through the power of the pen, to weaken the Birch Society's influence and separate Welch from the bulk of his followers. Others, too, took part in this effort. And, over time, it worked. It's called behaving responsibly. It's called leadership

And Gregory Rodriguez writes in the LA Times on what he terms Obama's brilliant bad speech:

Just maybe more progress will be made if average, fair-minded, decent people simply chose not to associate with-and lend their credibility to-haters, extremists or sowers of racial discord. Obama could have taken that simple path any time over the last 20 years. He chose not to. Now it's too late.

Yet still more. Christopher Hitchens' take:

You often hear it said, of some political or other opportunist, that he would sell his own grandmother if it would suit his interests. But you seldom, if ever, see this notorious transaction actually being performed, which is why I am slightly surprised that Obama got away with it so easily.... To have accepted Obama's smooth apologetics is to have lowered one's own pre-existing standards for what might constitute a post-racial or a post-racist future. It is to have put that quite sober and realistic hope, meanwhile, into untrustworthy and unscrupulous hands. And it is to have done this, furthermore, in the service of blind faith.