IGF CultureWatch

Openly gay Rep. Barney Frank has a strong record in support of what might loosely be called cultural or lifestyle libertarianism (my phrase, and yes, I know sexual orientation isn't a "lifestyle"), on issues such as gay marriage, gambling and medicinal marijuana. But as the Cato Institute's David Boaz blogs, Frank's other causes revolve around support for greater government economic intervention.

"Liberal" used to mean support for free markets, and still does in Europe. But not in America, where liberals remain deeply suspicious of free economic decision-making. As Boaz writes of Frank:

This year, as Financial Services chairman, he's demonstrating his interventionist tendencies as well as his sometime libertarian instincts. He wants to push all workers into government health care, to regulate corporate decisions about executive compensation, to put more obstacles in the way of free trade across national borders, to keep Wal-Mart from creating an internal bank clearinghouse to hold down its costs. Not to mention expanding anti-discrimination rules to include gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.

American liberals' seem to believe that the economy needs the firm guiding hand of highly intelligent, morally righteous officials such as themselves. That's a carryover not from the classical liberalism of John Locke, Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill, but from later European socialist philosophies that were noticeably "illiberal" on the issue of individual freedom as opposed to the "rights" of the collective.

Yet, as Boaz notes, Frank told a journalist: "In a number of areas, I am a libertarian. I think that John Stuart Mill's 'On Liberty' is a great statement, and I was just rereading it." Comments Boaz:

Would that the Republicans who once took Congress on the promise of "the end of government that is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the public's money" also reread (or read) "On Liberty" and take its message to heart. And would that Barney Frank come to realize that adults should also be free to spend the money they earn as they choose and to decide what contracts, with foreign businesses or local job applicants, they will enter into.

A coalition of conservative African American pastors is lobbying Congress to vote against a bill that would extend federal hate-crimes laws to cover gays, the Wash Post reports. I've often heard that homophobia in the African American community is a sign that GLBT groups need to do more "outreach" and be more "inclusive" toward racial minorities, and that we need to start by confessing our own racism. But you never hear that homophobia among white evangelicals is, say, a sign that gay groups need to reach out more to those people. So why are African American homophobes simply misguided while white homophobes are routinely characterized as "evil"?

Speaking of church-inspired homophobia, another Wash Post story looks at anti-gay religious rightist John Arthur Eaves running for governor of Mississippi. The catch: he's a Democrat. In fact, Eaves is wrong about everything, favoring a bigger spending, more intrusive government that also discriminates against gays. The paper reports:

An Eaves victory would also be a shot across the bow to the Democrats' liberal base, raising the question of how far the party is willing to go in jettisoning its support for abortion rights, gay rights and a high wall of separation between church and state for a chance at electoral success [in the South].

With all the money that gays give to the national Democratic party, it will be interesting to see if this new, localized "Southern strategy" is allowed to take hold.

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani continues to have serious difficulty grasping what federalism is all about. First, he finds a right under the U.S. Constitution that requires government-funded (via taxpayers) abortions. Now, he's announced his opposition to New Hampshire's new civil unions law.

As columnist Ryan Sager writes in the New York Sun:

Mr. Giuliani's position on the New Hampshire law puts him in the company of the former governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, the only other major presidential candidate from either party who opposes the New Hampshire law....

Senator McCain of Arizona said the issue was one of states' rights and took no position on the New Hampshire law specifically....

Witnessing how politicos in both parties dance around gay issues, hinting at support one day, backing off the next (with none of the majors daring to favor ending the prohibitation on legal recognition of same-sex marriage) should rev up your distrust of government at all levels. To quote Ronald Reagan (admittedly in another context), "Government isn't the solution to our problems; government is the problem."

More. Writing on the New Republic's The Plank blog, Jamie Kirchick notes:

One of the reasons why Giuliani was so attractive to middle-of-the-road voters was because he did not seem-at least at first-to parrot the anti-gay agenda of the Republican party base. He always seemed genuinely comfortable around gay people....

But having gotten burned with an indefensible abortion position, he's apparently trying to make "amends" with the base via a little gay bashing. Note to Rudy: Flip-flopping on gays didn't help Mitt Romney, and it won't help you, either. You're not going to win over the social conservatives, but you will drive away independents and libertarian-leaners who are among the majority of Americans who favor civil unions (as long as they're not called "marriages") and who just might have voted for you.

More again. To be fair, Giuliani doesn't seem to have said that he would use federal power to reverse the state law, just his bully pulpit. Still, the lesson is clear: Place not your trust in politicians!

Still more. Right Side of the Rainbow offers some pertinent observations.

Witness the LGBT/"queer" left at play, as New York's Gay City News looks in while Larry Kramer's "Gay Army" wraps itself into a politically correct pretzel.

Meanwhile, savvy opponents of gay legal equality like David Blankenhorn continue arguing against gay marriage with sophisticated sophistry (Blankenhorn likes to make references to evolutionary biology, psychology, history, anthropology, and sociology). Thankfully, he is being challenged by such worthies as IGF contributing authors Dale Carpenter, here, for example, and Jon Rauch, here and here, as well as Jon Corvino, here.

And unlike so many of our friends on the lesbigay left, they actually are engaging in debate rather than tantrum-throwing or denunciation by press release, as they seek to prove to those who actually care about ideas that our opponents conceits are built on intellectual sand.

And neither Carpenter, Rauch nor any of our other IGF-affiliated policy analysts and writers feel obliged to engage in race/gender/class self-flagellation before taking a stand.

More. Carpenter vs. Blankenhorn, round 3. Plus, what Blakenhorn said then, and what he says now.

Jonathan Rauch, IGF's co-managing editor, is described as a "radical incrementalist" in a Q&A over at reason.com, here. Excerpt:

I've come to have a lot of respect for institutions that have evolved in society over time.... I'm very anti-radical. It puts me in an odd position because I'm a big advocate of gay marriage, but I square that circle by saying the right way is to try it in a few states, to do it slowly. Remember, we're messing with an age-old institution. I'm very much in that square.

And more:

To me, the gay revolution-and it has been a revolution in the culture-is Exhibit A in what a good job the culture can do changing itself when people appeal to persuasion, to try to better their lives and change the world mostly from the bottom up because that's what happened there....

[A]t least in the long term, not always in the short term, the compassion and reasonableness of the American public never ceases to amaze me.

Just don't try telling that to Larry "Everybody Hates Us" Kramer!

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force blasts the U.S. Supreme Court's decision upholding a federal law restricting partial-birth abortions. Surprise, I also think it was a bad ruling, but that's not because I support the right to "choose" to suck out your healthy baby's brain moments before his or her birth when the mother's life isn't at risk. There's a reason civilized society doesn't sanction infanticide.

So what's my beef with the ruling? I don't think it's a federal matter to regulate abortion, just as it shouldn't be a federal matter to regulate marriage. Similarly, I don't see where the U.S. Constitution gives the federal government power to set penalties for criminal acts (so I'm against federal murder statutes).

NGLTF supports partial-birth abortion, I don't. But I wish abortion advocates had left the battle for legal abortion (which I'd advocate states keep accessible at least through the first trimester) to be decided by state legislatures. And I wish partial-birth abortion opponents also had left the matter with the states. Which is where these decisions belong.

The Washington Post ran a nice piece on how SoulForce is taking its message-that there's nothing contradictory about being gay and Christian-to anti-gay fundamentalist colleges: An excerpt:

The riders filed out of the bus and stood in a line. Some held signs: "Open Dialogue" and "All at God's Table." They had all taken care to dress professionally, but "professional" is a relative term.... [Robin] Reynolds looked neat, but by Patrick Henry standards boy neat, in a pinstriped button-down shirt and slacks.

Reynolds made a brief statement calling herself a "child of God, a follower of Christ and a lesbian." Jarrett Lucas and Josh Polycarpe, both 21-year-old African American activists, walked past a "Private Property, No Trespassing" sign. They were politely arrested and driven away.

I've long felt that witnessing (and, when necessary, getting arrested for doing so) is far more effective than shouting (or, worse, shouting obscenities, or throwing communion wafers on the ground, or other not exactly useful tactics deployed by some gay activists in the past as they acted up against the spiritually benighted).

Another excerpt:

Soulforce visits often bring gay students and alumni out of hiding, and this was no exception. Three alumni contacted Reynolds during the visit; she said one told her he was gay and that his time at Patrick Henry had been the "hardest four years of his life."

David Hazard, a friend of [Patrick Henry College founder Michael] Farris who had edited one of his books, also told Reynolds he was gay. When Farris heard that during an interview in his office, his jaw fell open, and he stared for a long time. "Oh. I'm so sorry for David," he said. "I think he's deluded." The place for someone like that, he added, "is on their knees repenting of their sin.

"But here's a good reaction for you: I still like him."

Make of that what you will.

Now that Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., has introduced a bill in the House to equalize the tax treatment of health benefits for domestic partners, the HRC is singing its praises. But when Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., the measure's lead senate sponsor, tried to introduce it in that chamber as an amendment to the minimum wage bill, gay groups did the bidding of their party and were resolutely opposed (Log Cabin aside). Even now, notice that the HRC release makes no mention of Smith or any Republican supporters.

This bill is important because while the heterosexual spouse of any employee can get employer-provided health care without being taxed, a same-sex domestic partner (or spouse in Massachusetts) must pay full taxes on the value of the health benefit, typically amounting to over $1,500 in taxes annually just for average benefits. Too bad some LGBT advocates think partisanship is more important than passage.

Chris Crain looks at Out magazine's cover story on the gay celebrity glass closet. Writes Crain:

Clearly the celebrity treatment of homosexuality has trended along with society's acceptance of gay people. The days of Ellen (and even Rosie's) big coming out party already seem dated. The ho-hum reaction to T.R. Knight ("Grey's Anatomy"), Lance Bass (N Sync) and Neil Patrick Harris ("Doogie Howser, M.D.") isn't just due to their B-list status. As America cares less, so will celebrities.

And someday, both Jodie Foster and Anderson Cooper will ride that wave, and no doubt receive courage awards from gay rights groups when they finally do so.

While pampered U.S. celebrities worry about the career ramifications of being honest, in Saudi Arabia "sodomy" is punishable by death, as noted in the Atlantic's interesting report on gay life in the fundamentalist kingdom (where, yes, gay life does exist). Even there, "Vibrant communities of men who enjoy sex with other men can be found in cosmopolitan cities like Jeddah and Riyadh. They meet in schools, in cafes, in the streets, and on the Internet."

At The New Republic, IGF contributing author James Kirchick blogs in praise of IGF contributing author Richard Rosendall, who is working to shed light on the politically correct hypocrisy and mind-numbing ineptitude of blame-America-first international LGBT watchdog groups.

The New Hampshire House has approved a bill recognizing "spousal unions" for same-sex couples. If the measure becomes law, the Granite State would be the sixth to give gay couples state-recognized marital benefits and responsibilities, and the third to do so legislatively without a court decree forcing their hand.

IGF contributing author Dale Carpenter, blogging at The Volokh Conspiracy, ponders:

Some interesting questions to ask presidential candidates campaigning in New Hampshire and who've said they favor "civil unions," but not "marriage": Do you favor "spousal unions" for gay couples that give them all the rights and responsibilities of marriage but aren't called "marriages"?

And what if we take it the next step and called them "marital unions" but not "marriage"? This will test just what it is people think is at stake in the use of language to describe gay families.

Here's the AP on Where states stand on same-sex marriage.