IGF CultureWatch

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.")

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.