IGF CultureWatch

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).

If anti-gay "family values" groups actually do start to focus on curbing heterosexual divorce, as the Washington Post reports, might it limit their support? Probably only if they move beyond rhetoric and support for voluntary options such as less easy to dissolve "covenant marriage," and instead work for actual legal barriers to marriage dissolution-which isn't all that likely (don't expect any proposed state or federal constitutional amendments!).

Not surprisingly, as the Post story indicates, you can leave it to liberal Democrats (in this case, openly gay Virginia house delegate Adam Ebbin) to suggest, in response, that what's really needed to discourage divorce is for the government to force employers to pay higher wages and to further nationalized health care.

Most Americans believe their fellow citizens hold strong biases against minorities, according to a new poll by Zogby International, one of the most comprehensive ever conducted on prejudice. On sexual orientation, it found:

62% said they believe Americans oppose same-sex marriages. Yet 58% would elect a gay person for President-about the same as for an Arab-American (57%), and more than for a person over age 70 (51%) or for an atheist (51%).

Meanwhile, a plurality (47%) believe gays and lesbians should be allowed to adopt children.

Pollster John Zogby said:

Over my years of polling, I've learned that Americans tend to offer socially acceptable responses when questioned on their own views about race and prejudice. That's why in this poll we predominantly asked people about "most Americans'" views on race and prejudice. We believe this provides a far more accurate window into how people really think about these issues. Americans are more forthcoming when discussing the problem in the context of their neighbors' lives than in the context of their own lives.

The upshot: Popular opposition to same-sex marriage remains the prime hurdle to full legal equality for gay Americans.

I'm not a supporter of the proposed federal hate crimes bill, but gay activists tied at the waist to the Democratic Party are, so it's interesting to watch how the congressional Democrats are treating this supposed high priority item-burying it within an attempt at Iraqi war defunding-a measure which, even if passed, Bush has pledged to veto-and how gay "progressives" are providing them cover. Gay Patriot has the run down in his own highly partisan (going the other direction) style. Still, a valid critique on the Democrats' "throw the gays a meaningless bone" tactics. His money quote:

Democrats controlled the U.S. House for 40 years before 1995, and the Senate many times throughout. The only major gay rights legislation or mandate to come from the Democrats when they had the chance in power: Defense of Marriage Act and Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Great record, eh?

More. For those who reflexively dismiss anything from Gay Patriot, here's the independent-minded Chris Crain, a former Washington Blade editor and a hate-crimes bill supporter, weighing in, too. And in a follow-up, Crain takes further issue with "HRC and the Democrats...claiming that the DOD authorization was a good strategic vehicle." Right.

The sophisticated (or merely pretentious) among us loved to mercilessly mock Tammy Faye Messner (formerly Baker), who died this weekend after a long battle with cancer. But as the Washington Post obit notes, she grew up in a house with no indoor plumbing and where makeup was considered a sin-and in a life marked by scandal and renewal, ended up something of a gay icon and a speaker at gay pride rallies.

And it wasn't only drag queens that seemed to take her to heart.

Scoff all you want, but it's Tammy Faye's audience that we need to reach out to and convince if we are to secure gay equality outside the bluest precincts. And she, in her waning years, tried to help do just that.

Think what you will about Scientology (and I don't think about it too much), it hasn't by any stretch been in the forefront of the religious right's political anti-gay campaign. So what to make of the call to boycott Hollywood's latest version of "Hairspray" because it stars John Travolta, a prominent Scientologist? What's next, calls to boycott movies with devout Southern Baptists, Mormons or Catholics (which, if you buy the "logic" of this campaign, would actually make more sense)? In fact, the whole thing smacks of a cheap stunt, or at least narrow-mindedness-which, ironically, is what "Hairspray" is dissing.

Travolta, for his part, vehemently denies he (or Scientology) is anti-gay. And John Walters, gay-camp auteur of the original film, is backing him up.

A more legitimate critique of the newest "Hairspray," made by some critics, is that the original 1988 indie film starring the late, famed transvestite "Divine," and the subsequent Broadway incarnation starring Harvey Fierstein (who also cut his performance teeth as a cross-dresser) were in-your-face transgressive. You never doubted that Divine or Fierstein were drag queens playing big mama Edna Turnblad, which expanded the theme of prejudice against those outside the mainstream. Whereas Travolta, the AP's Christy Lemire writes, plays Edna as a woman, not as a drag queen pretending to be a women. "He plays it straight, for lack of a better word, and with a touch of pathos. The joke is completely lost," she laments.

That may or may not be a legitimate critique, but if gay activists and activist-editors feel that way, their beef is with the film's openly gay producers, Craig Zadan and Neil Meron, and not with Travolta-or Scientology.

I suppose it should come as no surprise that, despite the abolition of sodomy laws, lives are still being destroyed by arrests for soliciting gay sex, as in this sad story about Florida State Rep. Bob Allen. The seven-year legislator is (was?) a Florida co-chairman of U.S. Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign.

A big difference between incidents like Allen's and, say, the exposure that Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) used an escort/prostitution service, is the fact that Vitter wasn't arrested and no one is even remotely considering charging him for soliciting heterosexual sex. Also, Vitter is a married, family-valued promoting hetero seeking hetero sex on the side. Allen, too, is married, but seeking gay sex in a park reeks of the closet, and the closet reeks of internalized homophobia.

Some stories have mentioned that Allen is a former Little League volunteer and has donated time to the Girls and Boys Town of Central Florida. Get the drift. The thinly veiled suggestion that his kind shouldn't be near innocent kiddies is also something never suggested in reporting on hetero transgressors like Vitter.

More. David Boaz blogs:

Vitter's hostility to gay marriage while cheating on his own is a matter of simple political hypocrisy. The more specific issue...is that Vitter (presumably) supports the laws against prostitution. Yet he himself, while a member of the United States Congress, has broken those laws and solicited other people to break them.

Vitter should be asked: Do you think prostitution should be illegal? If so, will you turn yourself in?

The answer, of course, is yes he does, and no he won't.