IGF CultureWatch

New York's affluent gays and lesbians stayed away from Sunday's Gay Pride Parade "in droves, taking with them the money that has kept a 37-year-old tradition alive," reports the New York Observer in "Goodbye, Mr. Chaps."

"Queer" journalist Richard Goldstein opines:

"White people say they experience the parade as being tired and corny.... They'll say it's unattractive to them. The reason it's unattractive to them is because there are all these faces of people of color from all over the world."

Yes, I'm sure that's it, since all successful gay white people simply must be racists. But it also just might be that the parade has to a large extent, and for a long time, become too much of a mix of knee-jerk leftism and arrested-development sexual exhibitionism.

That's the dominant image, unfortunately overwhelming the contingents of civic, religious and professional groups who do participate. And you can't blame the media for focusing on the most outrageous elements while demanding "full and inclusive representations" of the LGBT community. That's why I'd submit that a growing number of gays (who are, as Paul Varnell points out, increasingly bourgeois) simply find pride parades at best useful as part of a coming out rite of passage, at worst an embarrassment, and in any event not representative of our lives.

Increasingly, many of the states that have banned gay marriage are beginning to revoke the domestic partner benefits of public employees. One result: local governments are extending benefits more widely, to anyone that an employee might designate.

Elsewhere, convoluted work-arounds are being tried, such as at Michigan State University, which, in order to ensure that no same-sex spouse-like relationship is even hinted at, is extending benefits to those it labels as "other eligible individuals," defined this way:

a person must have lived with a non-unionized Michigan State employee for at least 18 months without being either a tenant or a legal dependent. They also can't be automatically eligible to inherit the employee's assets under Michigan law, which means no children, parents, grandparents or other close relations.

And no spouses, since they are covered under the traditional benefits package. Needless to say, the recordkeeping and administrative burden on employers is greatly increased. And just how privileging nonspousal relationships above committed same-sex coupledom is meant to "strengthen marriage" is anyone's guess.

In a related development, in Virginia, a state which probably leads the nation in the number of times it has banned gay marriage, a small victory was gained when the University of Virginia was permitted to extend gym benefits to same-sex couples. Thus are the steps by which, in some places, progress is measured.

In "A Conservative's Answer to Wikipedia," Los Angeles Times staff writer Stephanie Simon looks at a religiously rightwing web encyclopedia, Conservapedia.com, created by Andy Schafly (one of Phyllis's three sons, and not the gay one).

Type in "gay" and the search is redirected to "homosexuality," with all the homophobic pseudoscience you'd expect.

But there was something even more disturbing in Simon's article. She reports that:

In recent months, Conservapedia's articles have been hit frequently by interlopers from RationalWiki and elsewhere. The vandals have inserted errors, pornographic photos and satire... The vandalism aims "to cause people to say, 'That Conservapedia is just wacko,'" said Brian Macdonald, 45, a Navy veteran in Murfreesboro, Tenn., who puts in several hours a day on the site fending off malicious editing.

Such aggression has reinforced the view among some Conservapedia writers that left-wingers are out to suppress their free speech.

What the left doesn't get: The cost of living in a free society is to suffer being offended-without trying to silence those you find offensive (another example: campus "progressives" who steal conservative student newspapers from their distribution sites and destroy them). Conservatives have a right to their media; and the answer to arguments we find appalling is to criticize them. After all, it's not as if gay-supportive information isn't also easily available online.

Another recent Stephanie Simon piece, " New Ground in Debate on 'Curing' Gays," examines how some who are involved in "ex-gay" ministries are beginning to admit that being gay is not a "lifestyle choice." Slowly, the truth usually gains momentum and displaces falsehood. But dialog and debate are much more likely to advance that process than are censorship and sabotage.

Mildred Loving issued a powerful statement on the 40th anniversary of Loving vs. Virginia. Excerpt:

not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others.

The Bay Area Reporter has more, and links to the YouTube video of the press conference where Loving's statement was released.

A cautionary tale on American liberalism run amuck-the death of Antioch College. Writes former public radio correspondent Michael Goldfarb:

Antioch College became a rump where the most illiberal trends in education became entrenched. Since it is always easier to impose a conformist ethos on a small group than a large one, as the student body dwindled, free expression and freedom of thought were crushed under the weight of ultraliberal orthodoxy. By the 1990s the breadth of challenging ideas a student might encounter at Antioch had narrowed, and the college became a place not for education, but for indoctrination.

It's a telling account of what passes today for "progressive liberalism."

Reuters on "The growing confidence of polygamists and their willingness to go public...." Fundamentalist Mormon multi-wifers are, in fact, using our rhetoric, as they understand it: "As consenting adults, which is the key, we ought to have that choice to live that lifestyle."

Yeah, but don't hold you breath waiting for LGBT+P.

A 2004 court ruling led Massachusetts to become the first state to recognize legal marriage for same-sex couples. In many other states, less sweeping court rulings (requiring spousal rights through civil unions, but not marriage) provoked backlashes leading to passage of anti-gay marriage amendments to state constitutions. But the Massachusetts state legislature has now voted down an attempt to place an anti-gay marriage ballot initiative before the voters in November.

On Reason magazine's Hit & Run blog, David Weigel shares former Massachusetts Gov. (and current GOP presidential candidate) Mitt Romney's response:

Today's vote by the State Legislature is a regrettable setback in our efforts to defend traditional marriage. Unfortunately, our elected representatives decided that the voice of the people did not need to be heard in this debate. It is now even more important that we pass a Constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage. Marriage is an institution that goes to the heart of our society, and our leaders can no longer abdicate their responsibility.

Does Romney actually think it's the legislature's duty to allow any proposed referendum to go on the ballot? As Weigel writes, "Seven months ago Massachusetts voters had the chance to elect a legislature and governor who would have opposed gay marriage or supported a vote on the ban. They chose to elect a bunch of pro-gay marriage Democrats."

In any event, the legislature's action should weaken arguments that same-sex marriage is just a plot between gays and overreaching judges. It also shows that once people have time to adjust to the idea of same-sex marriage and even live with it for awhile (or with civil unions, as an introductory step), popular opposition evaporates.

In this video clip, Johann Hari, a columnist for Britain's The Independent, talks with gay and human rights activist Peter Tatchell. Hari discusses why multiculturalism is divisive, patronizing, oppressive and often leads to a shameful betrayal of women's and gay rights.

David Boaz notes that Tuesday is the 40th anniversary of "Loving vs. Virginia," the U.S. Supreme Court decion ending state bans on interracial marriage. He writes on the Cato@Liberty blog:

in our own times, Virginia has been repeatedly banning same-sex marriage, not worrying excessively about how much collateral damage it does to wills, custody agreements, medical powers of attorney, or joint bank accounts.

Boaz references "the state's tradition of interfering with private choices," which "flowed from an arrogant desire by the state to control private relationships."

More. Virginia's Supreme Court has just affirmed 18 as the age of consent for "sodomy," whereas 15 is the age of consent for vaginal intercourse. As New York Law School Prof. Arthur S. Leonard writes, the result is "making oral or anal sex illegal for gay teenagers while vaginal intercourse is legal for teenagers of the same age, a patent inequality." The more things change...

I don't always agree with Andrew Sullivan, but he's absolutely right to pick up on the way that liberal Democratic pols and pundits still think it's the 1990s when it comes to "don't ask, don't tell," the ending of which they support in principle at some future date when it seems safe and appropriate.

And yes, the GOPers are much worse (expectedly so, since the big gay national lobbies have become fundraising arms of the Democratic party), while a few principled libertarian-conservatives like George Will get it.

More. Former Congressman Bob Barr (R-Ga.), no friend of gay legal equality (he was a prime sponsor of the Defense of Marriage Act), comes out against DADT.