IGF CultureWatch

Jamie Kirchick does a masterful job exposing the Human Rights Campaign's inane support for the Jena 6 thugs, "a group of black teenagers who beat and stomped a 17-year-old white boy [Justin Barker] into unconsciousness last December," and who have now become a cause celebre among the pc chic crowd-including our biggest, and always trendy, LGBT lobby. We can now add "Free the Jena 6!" to "George Bush, You're Fired!" among the highlights of HRC sloganeering.

A key observation:

Last week HRC president Joe Solmonese traveled all the way to Jena, La., along with thousands of other supporters and declared that "this injustice cannot stand." By "injustice," he was presumably referring to the prosecution and sentencing of the young men responsible for the beating...

Defenders of the Jena 6 have little to say about the group's mauling of Barker, which no one denies happened, even though the assault could be considered a hate crime and is reminiscent of a gay bashing....

How does HRC square its backing for hate-crimes legislation with its support of the Jena 6, who are themselves guilty of a racially motivated attack?

Of course, they don't even see a need to try.

More. Chris Crain, himself the victim of a violent gay bashing, has pictures of swollen-faced Justin Barker and blogs: "Shame on you, Joe Solmonese. Whatever moral authority you had to lead a gay rights group, much less the movement, you squandered today....Shame, shame, shame."

Ah, but Chris, Solmonese and his ilk have no shame; after all, he's a leftist, and so who are we to question his obvious moral superiority?

There are always those who misguidedly believe that "unity" trumps all else, including justice. Sadly, that is the view now taken by the U.S. Episcopal Church, which has bowed down to Canterbury's demand, on behalf of African Christofascists (who campaign in their home countries to make gays socializing together a crime) that it stop blessing same-sex unions and ordaining gay bishops.

Why the U.S. Church didn't break with Britain in 1776, I don't know. But unless the Episcopalians belatedly declare their independence, it makes no sense for gays to stay with them. This church worships the false idol of "unity" above all. It has chosen the dark side.

More. Have I over-reacted to what is, in effect, a "cooling off period"? Maybe, but it seems to me that gay Episcopalians have shown enormous loyalty to their church through the years. I don't see that being responded to in kind. Anglican Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria is an evil man who corrupts the essential gospel message, and instead of going the distance to placate/appease him, he should be called out for the promoter of hate that he is.

Larry Craig watch. On a much lighter note, catch this video.

"In Iran we don't have homosexuals like in your country." So declared Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as he in effect proclaimed the Islamofascist tyranny over which he presides (and in which known homosexuals are arrested and executed) to be gay-free. Chillingly, Ahmadinejad went on to defend the use of capital punishment against anti-social elements, saying:

Can a physician allow microbes, symbolically speaking, to spread across a nation? We have laws. People who violate the public rights of the people by using guns, killing people, creating insecurity, sell drugs, distribute drugs at a high level are sentenced to execution in Iran, and some of these punishments-very few are carried in the public eye, before the public eye. It's a law based on democratic principles. You use injections and microbes to kill these people, and they are executed or they're hung, but the end result is killing.

Some conservative sites have made much of Iran's murderous state-sponsored homophobia, as for example, on the Wall Street Journal editorial page:

His regime funnels sophisticated munitions to Shiite militias in Iraq, who use them to kill American soldiers. Oh, and by the way, his regime also executes homosexuals for the crime of being themselves. Maybe if Columbia University President Lee Bollinger were aware of the latter fact he would reconsider his invitation to the Iranian president to speak on his campus today.

A cynic might say that this is a tactic to divide the left (where some still feel if you hate George Bush with enough vehemence, it excuses all else). But it's still good to see the right take on gay bashing-even if it's in Iran.

Update. Iran's state news agency has censored all references to gays from the official Farsi-language transcripts of Ahmadinejad's remarks.

More. Right Side of the Rainbow is rightly appalled at left-wing students, "some of whom are surely gay themselves," who cheered and applauded the butcher, and who say they'd rather have him as president than Bush. Blogger Paul provides a video of an Iranian execution of gay teenagers, but don't expect anything to get through to some of these Ivy League idiots.

The Republican mayor of San Diego, Jerry Sanders, has reversed his opposition to gay marriage, noting that his daughter is gay (here's video of his announcement). As the AP reports:

[Sanders] fought back tears as he said he wanted his adult daughter, Lisa, and other gay people he knows to have their relationships protected equally under state laws. ''In the end, I could not look any of them in the face and tell them that their relationships-their very lives-were any less meaningful than the marriage that I share with my wife Rana,'' Sanders said.

So much for the good news from the Golden State. Unfortunately, California Gov. Schwarznegger has said he will once again veto legislation that would give same-sex couples the right to marry, as he did two years ago, and pledges to keep vetoing the measure as long as lawmakers send it to him (so much for those who claim same-sex marriage is always imposed by activist judges superceding the legislative process). Conservative groups, naturally, warned Schwarzenegger to take a strong stand against the bill.

Mayor Sanders is up for re-election next year and the religious right is mobilizing against him. A victory could send an extremely positive message to the party. (Here's more, from the San Diego Tribune, looking at the election implications for Sanders.)

The Classical Values blog ponders why sexual liberation for gays and others got tied to the nanny state left. Blogger Eric writes:

I don't think it is rational for Republicans to declare war on sex and to appear to embrace erotophobia, because of their traditional "leave people alone" philosophy, but there's not a damned thing I can do about it except write posts like this. As to the Democrats, they see sex not as a form of freedom to be embraced, but as something to be manipulated to gain power.

He continues:

I think that the anti-sex wing of the GOP is colluding with the Democrats to make other Republicans afraid. Not merely afraid of sex, but afraid to talk about sex unless they condemn it.

Of course, civil equality for gay people is not the same as "sex," but it may be true that "erotophobia" is as much responsible for anti-gay animus as the nebulous "homophobia." In any event, the "right" has become a coalition of libertarian/small government "leave us alone" types, capitalist free marketers, pro-trade globalizers and social reactionaries who don't mind using the state as a cudgel, while the "left" conjoins civil libertarians with anarcho-nihilists, enviro-Luddites, union reactionaries, redistributionists and total-statists. So why expect coherence?

Dale Carpenter on Maryland high court's rejection of a gay marriage claim:

SSM [same-sex marriage] has lost in every state high court to consider the issue since the stunning success in Goodridge in Massachusetts in 2003... When you consider that SSM legal advocates have carefully chosen the most sympathetic venues since Goodridge, this record of losses is especially significant. It means that strong anti-SSM precedents are being created in the friendliest states, making pro-SSM rulings in other states even more unlikely in the near future... If SSM is to advance much in the near future, it will probably have to come legislatively.

Which is where advocates should have focused their efforts in the first place.

Larry Craig Watch: The ACLU has filed a brief on behalf of Sen. Larry Craig, arguing (correctly, in my view) that arresting someone for signaling a desire for sex is unconstitutional. Public sex is a crime, but that's too far a leap from merely expressing an interest in sex (which may or may not take place in public). Also correct: The aim of the police in conducting restroom stings "is to make as many arrests as possible-arrests that sometimes unconstitutionally trap innocent people."

Of course, this is not the defense that Larry (not signaling anything) Craig himself is putting forth.

Syrupy singer Barry Manilow canceled a scheduled appearance on ABC's "The View" after ABC refused his request not to be interviewed by co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck (he dislikes her conservative politics). "Unfortunately, the show was not willing to accommodate this simple request, so I bowed out," his statement said, adding "I strongly disagree with her views. I think she's dangerous and offensive. I will not be on the same stage as her... I cannot compromise my beliefs."

Now, just imagine the outcry if a conservative entertainer canceled because the network refused his "simple request" to push aside a liberal interviewer? The cries that he was asking the network to discriminate on the basis of the interviewer's political beliefs would be heard throughout the land.

The U. of Michigan's Daily reports that the school's Office of Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Affairs plans to pick a new name in an effort to be more inclusive:

"Part of it is that the letters are more exclusive than inclusive," [Gabe Javier, an LGBT affairs assistant] said. "There are lots of people who are part of the LGBT community that may not identify as a lesbian, bisexual or gay person."

How does one begin to communicate the irrelevance of "LGBT" (often followed by an even more unmanageable string of consonants). Suffice to say that outside of the activist/academic milieu, no one has a clue what it means. Alas, it's likely that the Michigan group may end up turning to an even worse moniker, the offensive and ugly "queer." But here's a novel suggestion; unless a case can be made for a better alternative that's easily understood, not demeaning and has historic resonance, how about "gay"?

In brief: Gay bars are closing across the country, perhaps because "as gays gained greater acceptance in society, older gays became more monogamous, and younger gays gravitated toward nightclubs that cater to a mixed crowd," per the Orlando Sentinel. (Andrew Sullivan takes note with a posting he calls "End of Gay Culture Watch.")

Small signs can sometimes hint at substantive cultural shifts. The fact that hardcore anti-gay activists on the right are concerned that Fox News took at an ad in the program guide of the recent National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association conference in San Diego-honoring NLGJA, no less, for its "Commitment to Fair & Balanced Reporting"-is perhaps one such indication. Consternation that the GOP might be "Drifting 'Gay'-Ward" is another.

And on a lighter note: It's funny, but it's true; it's funny 'cause it's true.... It's "Gayliens!."

It will be interesting to see what happens as Sen. Larry Craig fights to withdraw his guilty plea in the now notorious airport sex sting. Will it (a) shed light on the ongoing petty harassment practiced by local police anxious to make their arrest quotas by targeting gays, (b) further convince an ignorant public that being gay means hooking up in men's rooms, (c) drive fellow conservative Republicans to distraction by continuing to make the party look like a bunch of sleazes? Maybe a bit of all three.

Ok, enough of Craig. Let's turn to something a bit more serious, the Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) snaking its way through congressional subcommittees. If passed by Congress, which seems probable if it reaches the floor of both House and Senate, it's still likely Bush would veto it-Republicans can't afford to further displease their social conservative base, which is already livid over the Mark Foley and Larry Craig shenanigans, and threatening to sit out the next election altogether given the prospect of a presidential nominee, Rudy Giuliani, guilty of tolerating gays.

Given that the next president, whether Hillary or Rudy (the two front-runners) would likely sign the thing, would it be prudent to wait? Maybe, but the Democrats want to get the GOP on record as still being the anti-gay party, in order to shore up their own liberal base. That's politics, and along with lust (for power, but sometimes for sex), it's what drives this town.