IGF CultureWatch

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.

While applauding the House passage of a bill to hike the minimum wage, "11 LGBT organizations urged the quick passage of the accompanying bill in the Senate, and a speedy signing by President Bush," according to this report.

"It is imperative that the LGBT community concerns itself with matters like these, not just because raising the minimum wage is an issue of basic fairness, but also because we know low-wage jobs and stagnant pay are issues that so many in our community face on a daily basis," said Nancy Wohlforth, Pride At Work Co-President.

In other words, some gay people earn the minimum wage, so it's a pressing gay issue (leaving aside whether a minimum wage hike will cost some of them their jobs, and keep even more from ever getting hired). But will we ever see a gay coalition statement that reads, "The LGBT community, which is overwhelmingly made up of taxpayers, calls for a tax cut"? Or even, "The LGBT community, with a large proportion of small business owners, opposes calls for even more burdensome business regulation"? Don't hold your breath.

Meanwhile, as Log Cabin points out, Democrats in the Senate are blocking a vote on a pro-gay amendment to the minimum wage act, sponsored by GOP Senator Gordon Smith, that would ease the tax burden for domestic partner benefits. "The Domestic Partner Health Benefits Equity Act would correct an unfair provision in the tax code that blocks self-employed people from deducting their domestic partner's health insurance premium costs." You'd think that might be the immediate legislative priority for our community, wouldn't you?

Says Log Cabin head Patrick Sammon:

"Democrat leaders should allow a vote on this important amendment. LGBT Democrats gave a lot of money and support to their Party last November."

You also might be forgiven for thinking that this is an argument that a coalition of "progressive" gay groups would be making.

The National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, whose mission is to "build the political power of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community from the ground up," can't help leading off its response to the State of the Union by condemning Bush over Iraq. Here's the lead from a statement by Matt Foreman, NGLTF's executive director:

"Tonight, President Bush told us that he will ignore the central message of the 2006 congressional elections: end the unsupported, unwarranted and utterly unnecessary bloody war in Iraq. The nightmare in the Middle East continues unabated."

Do they think having U.S. helicopters take flight off the Bhagdad embassy roof (as with a former, glorious progressive victory "from the ground up") and leaving Iraq to be partitioned between Iran and Al-Qaida will be a good thing for the U.S.-not to mention Iraqi gays?

Nary a word from the dominant cohort of gay Democratic activists over the choice of freshman Virginia Sen. James Webb to deliver their party's televised State of the Union response. Webb is a firm supporter of the armed services' "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" gay ban, about which he says, "in terms of the military, that that's a policy that's working."

Right, and if you believe that, you'll believe "an immediate shift toward strong regionally based diplomacy," in other words, working with the likes of Syria and Iran, is a good way to move forward in Iraq.

Breaking news... Isaiah Washington has agreed to tape a public service announcement for GLAAD. Hmmm. Here's a possible PSA for him: "Don't call people faggots. Even if they're faggots."

What's interesting about the latest Grey's Anatomy homophobic flare-up is the way the show's creator and executive producer Shonda Rhimes, and ABC, seem quite willing to allow actor Isaiah Washington to get away with using (and then lying about using) the slur "faggot" to denigrate gay cast member T.R. Knight. If an actor used a racist or anti-Semitic slur against a fellow actor, would the response from producer and network be so benign? It's another sign of how acceptable casual homophobia remains, even among Hollywood uber-liberals.

Update. IGF's critique brings powerful to heel? Well, probably not. But according to the AP:

...on Thursday, ABC chastised Washington for using the term "faggot" about Knight in an on-set dustup in October with co-star Patrick Dempsey and then using the slur again at this week's Golden Globes as he denied ever uttering it.

Later Thursday, Washington, who's gotten hold of the biggest role of his career on "Grey's Anatomy," conceded using the invective and issued a heartfelt apology. But it remained to be seen whether it would mollify Knight or co-star Katherine Heigl, who had leaped to his defense.

I wonder if, this time, Washington actually knows what's in the apology being attributed to him.

Still more. I guess now it's a real story , with the NYT giving it major play.

Washington says Chastity Bono made him the "GLAAD poster boy" for his portrayal of a gay man in Spike Lee's "Get On The Bus." Then again, GLAAD can never resist going gaga over "inclusive" representations of gays of color, particularly in leftwing message films.

Still even more. Embattled 'Grey's' Star Now Headed to Rehab... Maybe he'll meet up with Mark Foley.

A damning critique of the now fully partisan Human Rights Campaign, via Chris Crain, referencing this laudatory Boston Globe story. Comments Crain:

How has the hijacking of HRC by Democrats worked out so far? For one, HRC took money out of the fight against ballot initiatives to ban gay marriage, even when they would amend state constitutions. "[HRC leadder Joe] Solmonese said the group decided after the losses of 2004 that they could be more effective by focusing on candidates instead of ballot initiatives," the Globe reported.

So instead, HRC sank money and support in favor of Democratic Party priorities, like winning a majority in the New Hampshire state Senate. In fact, the Globe reports, HRC was the single largest donor on New Hampshire state Senate races. How exactly does that move gay Americans closer to equality?

The effect of the new HRC strategy is to put all the gay movement's marbles in the Democratic Party basket, even though from Bill Clinton and John Kerry on down, the party has almost never taken a political risk for its gay constituents. The Globe story compares the new HRC strategy as akin to that of labor unions. We can all see how powerful they aren't, after sinking themselves into a one-party, no message strategy.

Some lessons need to be learned over and over, it seems.

With a MLK Day hat tip to Gay Patriot West, here's another interesting take on gay culture, by way of a conservative gay student at Stanford responding to the assertion that acceptance of homosexuality will open the floodgates to sexual anarchy (e.g., polygamy and bestiality).

Writing in the conservative Stanford Review, Yishai Kabaker notes that gays are not politically and ideological monolithic (as social conservatives like to assert), but also advises:

"if the LGBT community wants to eliminate the irrational fear of opening the deviant sex floodgates...., it should vigorously show that it desires the responsibilities of marriage along with the rights."

Many might say it's not our responsibility to prove we're worthy of legal equality, and there's truth to that. But in the real world, pragmatism sometimes requires demonstrations of human dignity in the face of irrational bigotry, not just turning to the courts for judicial solutions. Dr. King, I believe (though quite skilled at pursuing judicial remedies), also understood that.

That's the new line enunciated by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Left Coast), who suggested that Secretary of State Condi Rice's lack of children meant she lacked standing to support continued military action in Iraq (and, by extension, to help direct war policy generally).

While some see an insinuation of lesbianism in Boxer's attack (heavens, Democrats using homophobia to advance their aims? Who could imagine!), I see it more as yet another round of feminist hypocrisy.

Here's an interesting piece from the San Francisco Chronicle on A deepening challenge for America's gay men; New movement looks for more in identity, relationships. Excerpt:

Meet the new players in the great American debate about values: Ryan, a 25-year-old newlywed, who is helping other men find husbands; Doug, 50, who is helping gay men in San Francisco create their ideal community; and Chris, 36, whose pursuit of happiness has switched from chasing New York hotties to seeking down-home enlightenment.

They and others across the country are engaging gay men in conversations about their goals and values-both personal and collective-and challenging the sense of who gay men are and what makes their community....

"Gay men are standing in the middle of a tornado, with the pope and the president on one side telling them one thing and 'Will & Grace' and 'Queer Eye' telling them another thing and the gay culture telling them another set of issues," [author Christopher Lee Nutter] said. "I think that very tornado is what has directed a lot of men to say, 'OK, who ... am I going to believe?' "

While many of those quoted urge moving beyond the hedonism of modern (urban) gay life, I suspect others are mostly critical of their fellow gay men not being "progressive" enough politically. Still, the piece does include a reference to IGF as an alternative resource that "aims to elevate the discussion of gay issues."

A new study of "Generation Next" (aged 18 to 25) by the Pew Research Center shows that today's young adults are the most supportive of any generation on social and legal issues relating to gay people, and lead the way in their support for gay marriage:

Nearly six-in-ten (58%) say homosexuality is a way of life that should be accepted by society. This compares with 50% of those over age 25. On balance, the public opposes allowing gays and lesbians to marry, but young people are evenly split on the issue. Nearly half of Gen Nexters (47%) favor gay marriage, and 46% are opposed to it....

The public is more open to the idea of gay people adopting children, and here too young people take a more liberal position. About six-in-ten Gen Nexters (61%) favor allowing gays and lesbians to adopt, compared with 44% of those over age 25.

Bad news for Republicans: 48% of Gen Nexters identified more with the Democratic Party, while just 35% affiliated more with the GOP. This makes Gen Next the least Republican generation according to Pew Research, and should serve as a wake up call for the party's hidebound leadership-that is, unless they want the GOP to end up marginalized as a party of elderly religious rightists.