IGF CultureWatch

Archbishops of the Anglican Communion meeting in Tanzania sent a message of support to anti-gay members of the U.S. Episcopal Church, and also called on Anglicans to explore uniting with Catholics under the pope (who, as pictured in this Evening Standard account, looks amazing like the evil emporer from the Star Wars flicks). Specifically, American bishops are being asked to state that they will not consent to the election of gay or lesbian bishops and that they will not allow the creation and promulgation of rites for gay and lesbian couples (currently a local pastoral option).

Really, at this point, shouldn't U.S. Episcopalians just declare that the Anglicans, now fully under the sway of arch-reactionaries from the heart of darkness, can have the church of hate they so desire, and then go their own way?

More. Time magazine reports: "Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, Anglicanism's first primate among equals and the man responsible for trying to hold the Communion together, made it clear in a press conference that he supported the communique." Also:

[Episcopalian Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori] appears to have been involved in putting together parts of this solution, which suggests that she is committed to making them work. If so, she will face stiff opposition from many U.S. Episcopalians, who would probably prefer second-class status-or no status at all-in the Communion, rather than retreating from a position on homosexuality that they feel more closely reflects the spirit of the Gospel than the exclusionary position of the majority of the primates.

Public school U.S. history lessons often confuse the difference between the Pilgrim separatists who sought to break with the corrupt Anglican church to better follow the gospel message, and authoritarian Puritans who sought to "purify" a centralized church in order to force their will on others. It's to the Pilgrims that today's Episcopalians should turn for inspiration.

Through drips and drabs of celebrity hate-speak, most recently Isaiah Washington and, now, former Miami NBA star Tim Hardaway, we are beginning to come to terms with an unspeakable topic: that open expressions of gay hatred are far more acceptable in the African-American community than among whites. To quote from Hardaway's outburst:

Well, you know, I hate gay people....I let it be known I don't like gay people. I don't like to be around gay people. I'm homophobic. It shouldn't be in the world, in the United States, I don't like it....I don't condone it. If people got problems with that, I'm sorry. I'm saying I can't stand being around that person, knowing that they sleep with somebody of the same sex.

The topic is "taboo" because to even suggest that black culture is more tolerant of homophobia is to risk being branded as a "racist," the politically correct line being that blacks, Latinos/as and LGBTs are all oppressed by straight white America and thus natural coalition partners, supporting each other's political agendas (which is why many gay groups opposed welfare reform and support race-based preferences). Yet polls show that opposition to gay marriage is much higher among African Americans. Example-Pew Research: A majority of Catholics (53%) and black Protestants (74%), as well as a plurality of white mainline Protestants (47%), also oppose gay marriage."

And really, it's hard to imagine a white TV star assuming it was somehow ok to blast a fellow cast member a "little faggot," or a white celebrity athlete making comments as hate-filled as Hardaway's. Yet, instead of addressing the problem of homophobia in the African-American community outright, our national "leadership" chooses to engage in the kind of cognitive dissonance that refuses to see evidence of what ideology dictates can not exist.

More. And yet another coerced apology.

To clarify a bit, I realize gay groups do crticize individual celebrities who spout bigotry, regardless of color. But what they won't do is confront the issue of homophobia being more acceptable within the African-American community than among people of pallor.

More on Rudy, or How gay is this!

Liberal Garrison Keillor pounces:

Mr. Giuliani should put the issue behind him by answering a few questions: (1) How much did he have to drink that night, and what was he drinking? (2) Whose idea was it--his own or an aide's? If the latter, was there wagering involved and how much was bet? (3) Were the garments new or used, and who picked them out? And was he wearing male or female underthings? (4) On a scale of 1 to 10, how good did he feel in that dress?

Meanwhile, conservative James Taranto defends Rudy:

Whether Keillor is expressing his own prejudices or cynically trying to appeal to the prejudices of others, his effort to smear Giuliani by playing on fears of homosexuality is invidious and unseemly.

The conservative National Review and others on the right have voiced serious doubts about (or outright opposition to) Rudy Giuliani, who is now clearly in the 2008 presidential race, owing in part to his too accommodating stance on gay unions and abortion. In fact, Rudy's position (supports civil unions but opposes same-sex marriage; opposes a federal amendment against same-sex marriage) is the same as Hillary's and Obama's. But more significantly, Rudy would be the first GOP presidential nominee who has marched in Pride parades, addressed Log Cabin events, criticized "don't ask, don't tell" and, in an Odd Couple twist, moved in with two gay guys (a long-term couple) after his divorce. (Southern Voice has a nice wrap-up on all the leading candidates' positions.)

But I doubt that will stop the Human Rights Campaign, now essentially the gay lobby of the Democratic Party, from endorsing their gal sometime during the primary season (in 2000, they endorsed Gore before it was clear whether the GOP candidate would be Bush or, in a possible upset, McCain). If/when they do so, their message to the GOP could be summarized as: "You could nominate the ghost of Harvey Milk and we'd still be loyal Democrats. So don't even bother trying to reach out to us. After all, we favor securing patronage positions for our key activists in a Clinton adminstration much more than we care about moderating anti-gay views in the other party."

The New York Times reports on the controversy over IGF contributing author Bruce Bawer's nomination for a National Book Critics Circle award, for his book "While Europe Slept," a condemnation of European appeasement of Islamic fundamentalism. While lefty critics accuse Bawer of "racism," the article notes that:

he does not fit the typical red-state mold. An openly gay cultural critic from New York who has lived in Europe since 1998, Mr. Bawer has published books like "Stealing Jesus," a harsh critique of Christian fundamentalism. "Some people think it's terrific for writers to expose the offenses and perils of religious fundamentalism-just as long as it's Christian fundamentalism," he wrote on his blog.

The Times further quotes from Bawer:

"One of the most disgraceful developments of our time is that many Western authors and intellectuals who pride themselves on being liberals have effectively aligned themselves with an outrageously illiberal movement that rejects equal rights for women, that believes gays and Jews should be executed, that supports the coldblooded murder of one's own children in the name of honor, etc., etc."

But for too many on the left, the enemy of my enemy (America, George Bush, globalization...) must be my friend.

More. Jamie Kirchick writes:

Bawer has long been a thorn in the side of the American literary left, which likes its gays "queer," adherents to left-wing gay orthodoxy and unquestioningly loyal members of the Democratic party.

And it's not only the left-wing that has a weak spot for Islamic fundamentalism's traditional values. Here is Bawer's new broadside against a strain of the anti-gay American right that thinks Islamic gay-hatred is just peachy.

This Super Bowl Snickers ad has unleashed a storm of criticism from activists. Examples: GLAAD, Matthew Shepard Foundation Condemn Anti-Gay SNICKERS Campaign and Human Rights Campaign Condemns Violent and Homophobic Marketing Campaign by Mars, Inc.).

But I've heard several accounts regarding gay guys gathered to watch the game who reacted to the ad with hoots of laughter, seeing it as lampooning homophobia rather than homosexuality. So, was Snickers stoking the fires of intolerance in order to foster sales, or are gay activists manufacturing controversy for PR and funds from their provoked donor base?

Or could the ad in and of itself be innocuous, even good-natured fun, but still allow those squeamish about homosex to feel validated?

More. Some of the negative responses were provoked by these "player reaction" spots (here and here), which ran on the Snickers website (they're gone from there now).

Comments Roy:

If you want to see something truly funny, read this thread on Free Republic. Some of them have been calling in complaining that the ad seems to endorse homosexuality. Mars, Inc. must be spinning.

Indeed!

Still more. IGF contributing author James Kirchick offers his take: "what do gay rights groups with tons of money on their hands spend their time doing? Fighting against anti-gay ballot initiatives? No, condemning supposedly homophobic television commercials."

Kirchick includes a link to gay Democratic activist/outer John Aravosis at AMERICAblog:

The Mars family, that produced the violently homophobic ads, is one of the top billionaire Republican activist families in the country.

See, it's all part of the great rightwing conspiracy!

And more still.. USA Today, which scored the spot highly at 9th in its ranking of Super Bowl ads, finds an activist who breaks ranks:

Cyd Zeigler, co-founder of Outsports.com, a website for gay sports enthusiasts, says he saw it at a Super Bowl party with 30 gay friends-and no one had a problem with it. "I simply wasn't offended by it," Zeigler says. "I just don't see how a couple of mechanics pulling out chest hair because they kissed is offensive."

Still, the paper reports that "marketing experts" advise, "They might want to develop some very positive program to show they're progressive and inclusive" or "run an apologetic national newspaper."

See 'em all. Chris Crain has posted on his blog all four versions of the ad (the one that ran and the three alternate endings once available on the Snickers webste), as well as the two "player reaction" clips. He comment, in response to HRC's offer to put Snickers in touch with "any number of GLBT Americans who have suffered hate crimes," that:

Well I, for one, am a gay American - how, exactly, can one person be G, L, B and T anyway? - who has suffered a hate crime, and I am more disturbed by the gross overreaction of these overly earnest gay rights groups.

The Washington Post Magazine provides an extensive look at the Janet Jenkins vs. "ex-gay" former partner Lisa Miller custody battle over Miller's biological child, Isabella, born after the two women had entered into a civil union in Vermont (but never adopted by Jenkins).

Law-wise, thanks in part to Miller's legal missteps, Jenkins may have good standing to demand joint custody that would take Isabella from Virginia (where she now resides with Miller) to Vermont for extended visits. But as the Post reports:

that's only part of the larger battle. Janet's lawyers are pondering how to win a legal victory without losing in the court of public opinion. News footage of deputies wresting a sobbing Isabella from her biological mother to give to her former lesbian partner would set the cause of gay rights back just as surely as any loss in court....

Let's hope it doesn't come to that. If it does, it will be fair to ask whether Jenkins and her attorneys should be held responsible for the backlash that follows.

Over at Overlawyered.com, Walter Olson has a post on gay inns in the U.K that are concerned over a proposed British anti-bias law. It's an interesting question: If you can't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, including in your advertising messages, do gay-specific accommodations become illegal?

Back in the U.S., discrimination initiatives involving gays seem to have less to do with infringing on private employers (for good or ill), and more to do with allowing the federal and state governments themselves to discriminate by treating gays as unequal citizens. Last week, for example, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that the state's constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage prevents public institutions from providing employees' same-sex partners with healthcare and other benefits.

During the campaign to pass the anti-marriage amendment, proponents assured voters it would not affect domestic partner benefits, then immediately upon passage spun round and claimed that for the state to grant DP benefits would unlawfully constitute recognition of "a union similar to marriage."

Of course, this isn't really an unintended consequence of the amendment, just a consequences hidden from the public through social conservative deceit.

More. As Overlawyered.com noted in March 2005:

a spokeswoman for Citizens for the Protection of Marriage, a group heavily backed by Michigan's seven Catholic dioceses, told the Detroit News "nothing that's on the books is going to change. We continue to confuse this issue by bringing in speculation." However, with the amendment now in effect, the state's attorney general-to cheers from most of the amendment's organized backers-has issued an advisory opinion stating that it does indeed prohibit the city of Kalamazoo from providing DP benefits to its employees after the expiration of their current union contract....

Don Herzog of Left2Right, who has assembled plenty of links on the story [see here and here], aptly labels the sequence of events "Bait and Switch."

On a related note: Wash. [State] Initiative Would Require Married Couples to Have Kids. It's a stunt, but I kind of like the idea as "agit-prop."

IGF contributing author David Link has just completed a four-round debate about same-sex marriage at a new website called PublicSquare.net. One interesting argument came up in the final round, when he asked his opponent, Mary Jo Anderson, whether she actually believed homosexual people exist, and she said, candidly, that the answer was No. Comments link, this kind of thinking underlies much of the debate on the fringes of the other side, and

"it goes right to the heart of what kind of conversation such people are engaged in. They are not so much having a debate as an intervention, doing their very best to convince those of us who are homosexual that we are wrong about ourselves."

He also notes, pertinently, of his opponent that:

"Her citations to Michaelangelo Signorile and Judith Levine and the signers of the Beyond Marriage manifesto suggest she may wish she were having this debate with them rather than me. For the record, I find their arguments every bit as problematic as she does, which is why I have never either made such arguments or in any way endorsed them. I will stand side by side with Anderson when it comes to opposing polygamy or the imposition of some "queer value system," whose parameters I can't even begin to imagine. I'm here to argue for the equal rights the Constitution of my country promises and not much more. I don't want to change the family; I want to make sure lesbians and gay men who come after me will not have it used against them the way it is now being used.

Again and again, gays not on the left have to wage a two-pronged struggle: against anti-gay rightwingers who would deny us fundamental human rights, and against activists on the antinomian-chic "queer" left whose views of socially engineered, government-decreed "liberation" actually do suggest the nightmare nihilism that the right otherwise equates with basic equality for gay people.

Over at The Volokh Conspiracy, Eugene Volokh writes, "the big picture is both the left and the right [are] calling for some speech restrictions, and opposing other speech restrictions." Examples over time include this from anti-gay neo-con Irving Kristol (from the summer of, appropriately enough, 1984): "I don't think the advocacy of homosexuality really falls under the First Amendment any more than the advocacy or publication of pornography does."

Volokh adds, "The advent of the left-wing feminist calls for restricting sexually explicit speech in the 1980s has evened the matter somewhat," and then tallies support for censorship ranging from politically correct speech codes (the left) to anti-flag burning efforts (the right).

Speaking (while we can) of loony rightwing speech, Maggie Gallagher's Institute for Marriage and Public Policy reposts an article from the religiously right journal First Things by Ryan T. Anderson, who opines:

Living a chaste life on a college campus is difficult. Defending your commitments to chastity, whether to your friends in the dorm room or to your professors in the classroom, is even more difficult. If you haven't been a university student for a while, think back to what the sexual climate on campus was like when you were in college. Now imagine what it's like with official university LGBT offices pushing for same-sex marriage and gay rights. ...

Think about that: Advocating the mutual commitments and responsibilities of same-sex marriage makes it more difficult for heterosexuals to remain chaste, somehow.

I suppose the thinking might be that fiddling with sexual barriers of any kind regarding homosex will open the floodgates (the Rick Santorum view), or that some LGBT activists actually do advocate the elimination of marriage and related behavioral norms as oppressive and patriarchal (thanks again, guys and gals).

But still, you have to gasp at the gall behind the assertion that exposure to the mere advocacy of gay marriage will tempt innocent straight co-eds to go, as it were, straight to hell.