IGF CultureWatch

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.

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 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."

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...

An excellent column by Debra Saunders of the San Francisco Chronicle takes aim at the lesbian lawsuit against eHarmony.com. Writes Saunders:

[Walter Olson, editor of overlawyered.com] noted that [Linda] Carlson has "a much better chance with existing dating services." But she is suing, Olson noted, because diversity and tolerance have come to mean, "It's not just that you get the choices you want, but also choices you don't approve of have to be taken away."

And: "Diversity in theory is the enemy of diversity in practice."

The very term harmony evokes the sound of differing chords coexisting and making interesting music. As for Carlson's lawsuit, it could result in a world where all dating services must serve the same people. It's one note.

More at overlawyered.com and from Rick Sincere, who writes:

If [Carlson] prevails in her suit-and, given that she filed the suit within the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals geographic reach, she may well do so-then gay-oriented dating and matchmaking services (like gay.com or myPartnerPerfect.com) will have to accept straight clients on an equal basis with gay clients. That will dilute their purpose and make them less safe and inviting for the very people they are intended to serve.

Pioneer gay activist Frank Kameny says in this week's Washington Blade that DC's "Capital Pride" event should be called "Gay Pride." How proud can you be if you can't say what it is you're taking pride in?

See how closely you have to read this Washington Post story to realize the weekend has to do with gay people. This is, to a large extent, fallout from the activists' insistence that "gay" excludes and so either the cumbersome and confusing LGBT must be deployed, or no signifier used at all.

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.