IGF CultureWatch

Civil libertarian Wendy Kaminer warns of The Return of the Thought Police, regarding the proposed federal hate crimes law, in the Wall Street Journal (now online for non-Journal subscribers). She takes on the typical "pro" arguments made by big-government progressives on behalf of such legislaton:

[D]istinguishing hateful bias crimes from other hateful acts of violence punishes ideas and expression, no matter how scrupulously the legislation is crafted. When someone convicted of assaulting one woman is subject to an enhanced prison sentence or a more vigorous prosecution because his assault was motivated by a hateful belief in the inherent inferiority of all women, then he is being punished for his thoughts as well as his conduct.

While motive or state of mind are routinely considered in criminal cases (as mitigating or aggravating factors,) ideology is not routinely invoked in determining the seriousness of an alleged crime. Hate crime legislation, however, is expressly designed to punish particular thoughts or ideas.

Its advocates argue that hate crimes demand differential treatment because they are crimes against communities, not just individuals.... Civil libertarians, however, ought to be more sensitive to the creation of thought crimes-even when "bad" thoughts are only punished in the course of punishing bad acts. Free-speech advocates who believe that misogynist pornography should be legal, for example, should question whether evidence of a defendant's porn collection should be introduced at a sexual-assault trial in order to convict him of a hate crime. It's sophistry to suggest that in such a case the defendant would suffer punishment only for his conduct, and not his beliefs.

She concludes:

Matthew Shepard's killers were convicted of homicide and kidnapping by the state of Wyoming and are serving consecutive life sentences. His torture and murder remain awful to contemplate, but civil libertarians ought not be squeamish about questioning the consequences of the law that would bear his name.

So now it seems that gay men are discriminated against more at work than gay women. Not that I want to play the victimization game, but it is interesting that for years some lesbian-feminist activists have claimed "double discrimination" as women and as gay (which is why, in LGBT, true progressives insist that the "L" must be first, even though survey data repeatedly shows about twice as many gay men as lesbians).

That it appears that it's gay men who face more salary-level discrimination than lesbians goes against the accepted narrative.

Giuliani entered the fabled lion's den in a major address to an audience of Christian conservative activists, declaring (the New York Times reports), in pointed contrast to ex-social liberal Mitt Romney, "Isn't it better that I tell you what I really believe, instead of pretending to change all of my positions to fit the prevailing winds?" Moreover:

"Christians and Christianity is all about inclusiveness," he said. "It's built around the most profound act of love in human history, isn't it?"

Yes, it is-or should be. And it's good to see a GOP politician take that message to the religious right.

Fox News adds: "Giuliani did not mention the subject of gay marriage in his remarks. Gary Bauer, a Christian activist and former presidential candidate, said Giuliani should have addressed the issue." The fact that he didn't (even though, like Hillary and Obama, he opposes marriage equality and might have scored some points by stressing that) is telling.

Dubmledore comes out, or is it more appropriate so say that Rowling outed him? The Potter series deals movingly with the age-old saga of the force of light and love that values each human life vs. the powers of darkness and inhumanity, including those who would degrade someone for being different. No matter, expect Christian conservatives, not at all happy with Potter-mania to begin with, to go a bit bonkers:

Not everyone likes her work, Rowling said, likely referring to Christian groups that have alleged the books promote witchcraft. Her news about Dumbledore, she said, will give them one more reason.

Burn the witch!

More. It's not only the rightwing that's reacting with snarky homophobia. Check out the festival of stereotypes Rowling's announcement has unleashed over at gossip site Radar and at left-friendly Salon .

On Tuesday, NBC's Matt Lauer, interviewing Sen. Larry Craig, said (as I took it down): "the report says that you followed a well known pattern of behavior by members of the gay community seeking sex in restrooms." Hmmm, I thought GLAAD had educated these guys?

When NBC showed an old news clip from the first Clinton presidency, with Sen. Craig ragging that Bill "is a naughty, nasty, bad boy," it did sound like something out of a bad pedophile novel.

Beware of the unintended consequences of anti-discrimination mandates. That's what some folks are discovering in Santa Fe, where the residents of the RainbowVision development, created to provide a secure and affirming environment for gay seniors, fear it could soon be overrun by heterosexuals. New Mexico law bars housing discrimination based on sexual orientation, and so the home owners association can't maintain a balance toward gay people (and it seems that the management company is just as happy to rent to whomever).

RainbowVision includes a mixture of condos and rental units plus an assisted-living facility. Interestingly enough, the New York Times recently reported on discrimination against gay seniors in typical assisted living facilities, including one in Santa Fe, finding that gay seniors:

have been disrespected, shunned or mistreated in ways that range from hurtful to deadly, even leading some to commit suicide. Some have seen their partners and friends insulted or isolated.

So it would seem that the right to create gay-focused retirement institutions might be worth preserving.

And its not just gay seniors who fall victim to "fair housing" over-reach. Activist in the past succeeded in forbidding those seeking home or apartment roommates from indicating a religious or age preference in their classified ads, and the same issue has popped up with gay people seeking gay roommates.

To which some housing commissar wannabes simply shrug and say why not force an 80-year-old Catholic grandma to rent her spare room to a 20-something wiccan? It'll be good for the old gal, and it's not like there's any need to respect archaic concepts like property rights or freedom of association or any other impediments on the road to the progressive total state, is there?

Just to be clear... By pushing ENDA toward an inevitable Bush veto, the Democratic leadership anticipates not only galvanizing the LGB (if not T) bloc behind Hillary, but also putting GOP front-runner Giuliani on the spot-if he stays true to his principles and urges Bush not to veto, he hurts himself with the GOP base (and because Bush will veto anyway, it hangs over him during the general election, should he be the nominee). If Giuliani equivocates, he hurts himself with his more socially liberal supporters. It's a win-win for Democrats, which is why Pelosi and the leadership are pushing so hard for a T-less (and thus passable) bill.

Update. But wait, now it seems like Pelosi is saying that the bill will only move with Ts included-which means that in all likelihood it won't be going anywhere soon. They're in, they're out...they're in (for now). Update to the Update: Ok, maybe they're still out, with Pelosi saying she's fully committed to moving an inclusive ENDA forward once the votes are there (don't hold your breath), but then adding that the bill minus Ts is going forward in any event. If so, then we're back to the situation described below...

(Original post) They're out; they're in; they're out... Looks like Rep. Barney Frank wants to push through committee a version of the Employee Non-Discrimination Act that does not include transgenders, yelping activists be damned. The two key points in the New York Times report, Liberal Base Proves Trying to Democrats (and I paraphrase below):

(1) There is almost no chance that President Bush would ever sign the bill.

(2) Some Republicans in the House wish the bill had included language on transpeople because it would have made it easier for them to vote against it (and demagogue it-think of employers being forced to hire bearded men wearing dresses).

The Times reports that gay rights groups are "angry and bewildered, especially because the compromise involves a bill unlikely to be signed by Mr. Bush." But Barney Frank and party leaders want to pass ENDA knowing Bush will veto it, because they believe it will energize gay and gay-friendly voters in the 2008 election. The great "T" debate complicates that, but they still seem committed to this strategy.

In the real world, however, ENDA (with or without Ts) seems increasingly less relevant. As a story on 365gay.com, The Gay Glass Ceiling, notes:

When it comes to the workplace, gay and lesbian activists have focused mainly on ending overt and obvious harassment and discriminatory hiring, firing, and promotion practices.... [But] formal policies are less of a predictor of gay and lesbian happiness at work than are informal measures, such as whether someone feels comfortable bringing a partner to a company event.

It's the corporate culture that counts most, regardless of official nondiscrimination policies (mandated or not). At best, passing nondiscrimination laws may indicate that a shift in attitudes has occurred. In other words, by the time you can garner enough support to pass an ENDA, it's not really needed.

An endorsement of marriage equality by "Dear Abby" columnist Jeanne Phillips is a harbinger that the nation is, slowly, beginning to come around. That's why educating Americans by working through the state legislative process is, I believe, far more likely to lead to same-sex marriage than relying on liberal judges to force the issue (typically provoking a backlash that results in state constitutional amendments banning recognition of all gay partnerships).

Dale Carpenter, a law professor and IGF contributing author, has posted on the Volokh Conspiracy a detailed response to the expressed concerns of some gay groups, including Lambda Legal, that a gay-only ENDA might not adequately protect gays: He writes:

we now have decades of experience with state laws that protect gay people from discrimination based on sexual orientation but not gender identity. If the inadequacy of sexual-orientation protections were a real problem-as opposed to a hypothetical or theoretical one-we should expect to see many such cases. But neither Lambda nor any other organization has yet produced a single instance in which an employer successfully argued around a gay-only employment protection law by claiming that it really fired the person for gender non-conformity.

The ENDA "T" or not-to-"T" debate, and the wider assertion about the existence of a progressive "LGBT community," is mostly about gay cultural politics and whether the activist/academic-inspired focus on gender-identity will prevail over the "assimilationist" goals that are of actual concern to most gay people.

Log Cabin has a nifty TV ad reminding primary voters that Mitt Romney, a social-issues liberal when running for office in Massachusetts, has turned on a dime as he panders to the GOP's socially conservative base. I think this is appropriate, since Romney is now the most vocally anti-gay GOP candidate in the race, relentlessly beating the anti-gay marriage, traditional "family values" drum.

And by the way, this ad is very different from the leftwing YouTube attack on Rudy Giuliani, which used anti-gay stereotypes to gin up opposition to Giuliani's pro-gay record. The key distinction: Giuliani is the GOP candidate who is pushing the envelope, relatively speaking, toward gay inclusion within his party. The gay lefty YouTube activists want the GOP to nominate the most homophobic candidate; Log Cabin is hoping the party will nominate the least.