IGF CultureWatch

When it comes to the laws against prostitution, anti-sex moralism, enforced arbitrarily and often vindictively and corruptly by the state, is the order of the day. But in a free society why shouldn't adults be able to enter into these transactions? How many more lives and careers must be ruined until Americans (probably on a state by state level) at long last decriminalize consenting sexual relations between adults that involve an exchange of filthy lucre (as opposed to perfectly legal exchanges of expensive gifts and such)?

Karl Rove, Bush's key political adviser, is resigning. Good. As the Washington Blade reports:

Rove is widely seen as having masterminded the 2004 campaign against gay marriage. That effort, which resulted in gay unions being banned in 11 states, was designed to drive conservative voters to the polls and increase Bush's popular vote tally....

Patrick Sammon, president of Log Cabin Republicans, said such campaign strategies were proven ineffective two years later, when vehemently anti-gay voices, such as Republican Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, were defeated. He said a majority of Americans now support certain gay rights and protections, and the 2004 campaign might mark the final time any "anti-gay strategy" is used on the national stage.

"It's disappointing and unfortunate that Karl Rove pursued the strategy he did in 2004," Sammon said. "He went down that course and divided the country and it was a mistake, and I think history will judge him harshly because of it."

To gay "progressives" who place fealty to the Democratic Party above all, the GOP is basically unredeemable (and the more homophobic all the better for keeping gay voters on the correct political reservation). But, in fact, there can be no widespread victory for gay equality without moving the GOP to accommodate statewide moves toward same-sex unions/marriage and turn against enshrining discrimination at the federal level.

Early in his administration, it seemed that Bush was willing to be more open on gay issues, but when the going got tough he opted to listen to Rove and pursue an appeal to prejudice (much as Nixon had done a generation earlier with his "Southern strategy").

But Log Cabin's Sammon is essentially right; as gay openness increases and we and our families are seen as part of the "normal" fabric of society, ginning up bigotry for political gain becomes less effective. Which is why this is no time to embrace the "one party" strategy. Not only will that never ensure gay rights ("Hey Democrats, free votes from gays; nothing required") but it's an affront to the 25 percent of gays who routinely tell exit polls they vote for Republicans, and who aren't going to abandon their beliefs that confiscatory tax rates, government-controlled healthcare and anti-trade protectionism are disasters that must be averted-and that gays deserve full equality from their government.

If you actually believe it's pro-gay to use anti-gay stereotypes to gin up opposition to pro-gay Republicans among anti-gay conservatives, then you need a brain transplant. And why am I not surprised that the Advocate is having orgasms over this self-styled YouTube auteur/provocateur?

More. From the Washington Post, about the despicable anti-Giuliani/anti-gay "Gays for Giuliani" video created by a liberal gay New York artiste:

Davis is thinking about starting a political action committee to raise money to buy a television spot in South Carolina, a key primary state where some bloggers have complained that he is "gay-baiting" and "using Republicans' fear of gays to undermine Giuliani's candidacy."

You think?

In Chicago, a national assembly of Evangelical Lutherans urged its bishops to refrain from defrocking gay and lesbian ministers who violate a celibacy rule, but it rejected measures that would have permitted the ordination of gays churchwide.

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America's standards require ministers to "abstain from homosexual sexual relationships." But in the resolution, the assembly also "urges and encourages" bishops to refrain from or "demonstrate restraint in disciplining" ministers who are in a "mutual, chaste and faithful committed same-gender relationship."

So why not just accept, or even bless, such "faithful committed" relationsips? Because, as with the Democratic candidates who endorse civil unions but oppose same-sex marriage, it's a step that's still seen as too far to go.

At least the Evangelical Lutherans get credit for not being this hidebound!

I was underwhelmed and agree with many insta-analysts that the questioning by rock singer (she called herself a "rock star") Melisa Etheridge was at best vapid (hey, Ellen or Rosie at least would have had talkshow interviewing experience). Making Etheridge a panelist for what was billed as an historic, first-ever, nationally televised (via cable station Logo) LGBT presidential candidates forum was an embarrassment-especially when she all but endorsed Dennis Kucinich!

Much babble about the LGBT community, which helped the candidates to avoid saying "gay" (although, eventually, they do). An inconvenient truth: there is no "LGBT community," but that's another posting.

Some have noted that the big three (Obama, Clinton and Edwards), who favor civil unions and are against the Federal Marriage Amendment, but oppose "gay marriage," actually have the same or even a weaker position than Dick Cheney (but are better than Bush, who supports the FMA).

I don't have much to add to the live blogging comments by Ryan Sager, here, or Dan Blatt, here. If you missed it, they convey the feel of the nonevent.

John McWhorter, an African-American policy analyst who, among other positions, supports school choice (and thus gets damned in some quarters as a race-betraying conservative) has a column in the New York Sun about Mitt Romney, Mormons and gays. Deeply moving, whether you agree with his conclusion or not.

Meanwhile, Newsday looks at Rudy Giuliani's support for gay rights. Expect gay "progressives" to send this to GOP conservatives (see our earlier posting), perhaps adding a video of a lisping gay stereotype to introduce it, in their efforts to keep anti-gay Republicans in control of the GOP (it's the kind of logic that only a morally superior "progressive" could appreciate, I suppose).

Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania are three states that lean toward social conservatism even if (at least in the case of Ohio and Pennsylvania) they sometimes combine this with leftish economic populism. Now, a new Quinnipiac University poll in these "Big Three" electoral swing states shows that voters are, by large margins, more likely to see the endorsement of a gay rights group as a reason to vote against, rather than for, a candidate.

Based on their religious upbringing, I'd wager that a majority of these voters reflexively answer that they believe homosexual behavior is "morally wrong." But at the same time, more than half in each of these states say they favor some form of legal recognition for gay couples.

Make of this what you will, but I'd say there is clearly room to advance gay equality here-but not if gay rights comes across as socially antinomian ("anything goes" abandonment of moral foundations) or part of a wider agenda that undercuts personal religious conviction.

And knee-jerk, government-mandated political correctness-such as forcing uniformed, municipal firefighters to participate in gay pride parades-certainly diminishes the argument for gay legal equality and makes gay rights look like part of a lefty movement that puts The State and The Collective above an individual's right to choose the political views they wish to express, based on their individual beliefs and conscience.

Actually, an endorsement by the Human Rights Campaign, the big gay fundraising lobby, doesn't necessarily make me more likely to vote for a candidate, either, given that HRC's support requires a commitment to abortion on demand and other positions that I personally find questionable (and which are net negatives in states such as Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania).

A gay liberal is promoting his anti-Giuliani YouTube video. Despite some self-justifying rhetoric about exposing hypocrisy, the clear intent is to hurt the GOP presidential front-runner among conservatives by hyping his support for gay rights while mayor of New York. And it deploys some truly offensive stereotypes to accomplish its mission. The whole enterprise says so much about what "progressive" gay politics is about these days.

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has struck down an Oklahoma law described as being so extreme it had the potential to make children adopted by same-sex couples in other states legal orphans when these families are in Oklahoma.

Think about that: If a same-sex couple from New York were changing planes at the airport in Oklahoma City and their child took ill and had to be rushed to the hospital, the state of Oklahoma would not recognize their parental rights and might, instead, appoint a state agency to make critical medical decisions. So much for family values, and individual liberty against intrusive government, in the OK state.

But all is not rosy. The Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit upheld Florida's ban on adoptions by same-sex couples in that state, so it looks like this is an issue headed for the U.S. Supreme Court. If so, Justice Kennedy-author of the Lawrence decision striking down anti-gay "sodomy" laws (and, by extension, calling into question laws that deny to gays the same rights enjoyed by heterosexuals if that denial is based on anti-gay animus and prejudice)-could again play a pivotal rule.

One thing you can bet on: The arguments that will be put forward in defense of statewide adoption bans, "for the sake of the children," will get ugly.

No, seriously. UPS says it will offer health care benefits to all civil union partners of its Teamster-represented hourly workers in New Jersey. According to a statement from UPS:

We are taking this step based on discussions and input over the last few days from several state officials, including the attorney general and governor."

Our policy in this regard has been clear from the start: UPS offers same-sex benefits to all non-union employees now and our intent is to offer these same benefits to all unionized workers. In the case of union workers, however, we cannot unilaterally extend these benefits without going through the collective bargaining process.

The only exception to collective bargaining is when an individual state recognizes same-sex partners as married spouses. New Jersey has enacted a law recognizing the right of same-sex partners to join in civil unions. Based on an initial legal review when this law was enacted, it did not appear that a "civil union" and "marriage" were equivalent.

Over the past week, however, we received clear guidance that at least in New Jersey, the state truly views civil union partners as married. We've heard that loud and clear from state officials and we're happy to make this change.

In other words, state officials put the screws on UPS to treat civil unions like marriage when it comes to benefits for employees' spousal-equivalents. Fine for UPS's gay and coupled Teamsters (an unknown number, apparently). But many other Garden State employers still don't see the equivalence, or at least choose not to.

More. The New York Times chimes in:

The couples now eligible for benefits may celebrate, but their success is seen in some circles as evidence that the civil union law can be leveraged to force equality, undercutting at least some of the argument that nothing short of marriage is adequate.

But it looks like a confusing hodge-podge among employers, many of whom are not offering spousal benefits to their civil unionized employees.

In our comments, questions are raised about why, if UPS was offering partner benefits to nonunionized workers, the Teamsters failed to press for the same treatment for their dues-payers during contract negotiations (and why pro-union gay activists aren't mentioning this).