IGF CultureWatch

Camille Paglia on the Foley scandal:

Foley is obviously a moral degenerate, and the Republican House leadership has come across as pathetically bumbling and ineffectual. But the idea that this is some sort of major scandal in the history of American politics is ludicrous. This was a story that needed to be told for, you know, like two days.

. . .The way the Democratic leadership was in clear collusion with the major media to push this story in the month before the midterm election seems to me to have been a big fat gift to Ann Coulter and the other conservative commentators who say the mainstream media are simply the lapdogs of the Democrats. Every time I turned on the news it was "Foley, Foley, Foley!" -- and in suspiciously similar language and repetitive talking points.

. . .I was especially repulsed by the manipulative use of a gay issue for political purposes by my own party. I think it was not only poor judgment but positively evil. Whatever short-term political gain there is, it can only have a negative impact on gay men. . . . Gay men through history have always been more vulnerable to public hysteria than are lesbians....

Not only has the public image of gay men been tarnished by the over-promotion of the Foley scandal, but they have actually been put into physical danger. It's already starting with news items about teenage boys using online sites to lure gay men on dates to attack and rob them. What in the world are the Democrats thinking? . . . You'd expect this stuff from right-wing ideologues, not progressives.

And she's absolutely right.

Libertarian-leaning columnist Cathy Young writes in the Boston Globe on why the New Jersey decision (equal legal rights and civil protections to same-sex couples, but stopping short of endorsing a right to marriage) "may be best suited for this complicated moment in our social history."

I'm no fan of the so-called "judicial strategy" for same-sex marriage, but Arthur Leonard scores some good points on how what was meant to be a carefully honed approach, selectively applied, got so out of hand.

And David Boaz adds his voice to what's so wrong about Virginia's broadly expansive anti-gay marriage/anti-civil unions/anti-partnership-contracts amendment.

Republicans like Virginia Sen. George Allen wasted no time in twisting and exploiting the New Jersey ruling, although some like New Jersey senate contender Tom Kean Jr. aren't sure how far to go in risking their moderate image. Meanwhile, from a pro-same-sex-marriage standpoint, Democrats like N.J. Gov. Jon Corzine haven't exactly been profiles in courage.

More. Bush, of course, has been shamefully pandering to the base as well.

On a more positive note: A good piece from the Philly Inquirer, Living before the Law: Gay Couples Yearn for Rights that Marriage Conveys.

The New Jersey marriage decision is handed down:

Denying committed same-sex couples the financial and social benefits and privileges given to their married heterosexual counterparts bears no substantial relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose. The Court holds that under the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, committed same-sex couples must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples under the civil marriage statutes.

The name to be given to the statutory scheme that provides full rights and benefits to same-sex couples, whether marriage or some other term, is a matter left to the democratic process.

Looks like a Vermont solution! We'll soon see how this plays out in the political process.

More.

Time magazine asks, Will the Gay Marriage Ruling Rally the Base?

Rick Sincere blogs from Virginia, a state facing a fierce ballot initiative over a state amendment to ban same-sex marriage, civil unions, and even contractual same-sex partnerships. Wanting to make sure that the anti-gays don't spin the decision to their advantage, he weighs in with New Jersey Court Rejects Same-Sex Marriage Rights.

Those with the luxury of living in true-blue states where such amendments aren't conceivable may have wished that the N.J. court had, like in Massachusetts, mandated full marriage equality delivered on a platter the legislature be damned now. But the rest of us would have paid dearly for such a fiat.

Prior posting:

The liberal-learning New Jersey supreme court announced that on Wednesday at 3:00 pm eastern time it will hand down its decision on the question: Does the New Jersey Constitution require the State to allow same-sex couples to marry?

Sadly, if the ruling finds that the state constitution grants gays full marriage equality, we can say goodbye to any slim chance of winning anti-gay-marriage referendums in Virginia and Wisconsin. If the court rules that same-sex couples are entitled to the rights, benefits and obligations that the state grants/expects of married couples, but allows for these to be accomplished through civil unions, the immediate political repercussions could, arguably, be less severe. And if the court finds no right to spousal equality, it could bolster the argument that we don't need to keep amending state constitutions to defend against so-called "activist judges."

But why, oh why, couldn't the New Jersey court just wait till after the election to hand down its ruling?

Worth noting. Glenn Reynolds, the Instapundit, on Democratic politicos' quite obvious nonsupport of gay marriage.

The political process is where the battle for marriage equality should be fought, not the courts. Through the political process, the public could be educated, and hearts (and minds) changed. But one party is actively hostile, and the other is missing in action.

Flashback: In 1989, on ABC's thirtysomething, the hint of intimacy within a relationship between recurring gay characters Russell (David Marshall Grant) and Peter (Peter Frechette) was enough to trigger an advertiser boycott, led by the anti-gay American Family Association, which in turn led ABC to pull the episode from its re-run schedule. Russell and Peter, although once shown lying in bed together, were not allowed to share a romantic kiss (a later episode did feature a quick peck on the cheek at a holiday party).

Flash forward: This week, on ABC's Brothers and Sisters, Kevin (Matthew Rhys) was allowed a full mouth-on-mouth kiss with his boyfriend. That this kiss seemed entirely unexceptional (there have been other prime-time same-sex smooches over the years) brings home just how far things have progressed on TV and in American culture generally.

Also a plus for Brothers and Sisters: Kitty (Calista Flockhart) is a pro-free-market pundit constantly at odds with her liberal, anti-business mom, Nora (Sally Field), and it's liberal Nora who intolerantly can't abide the thought that anyone in her family might have a right to disagree with her leftwing politics.

Still another sign of the times: T.R. Knight, who plays George on ABC's Grey's Anatomy, has become the first actor to publicly come out while appearing on a top-rated television show.

Udate: Some background comes to light:

In a statement of apology jointly issued to Entertainment Tonight and People Magazine, Grey's Anatomy star Isaiah Washington is clearing his conscience after an on screen fight with co-star Patrick Dempsey in which he allegedly referred to co-star T.R. Knight as a faggot.

He issued his apology to People and ET! Got to love Hollywood.

From the Oct. 19 Wall Street Journal story, "Uphill Hike for Republicans in Colorado":

In the Fifth District, retiring Rep. Joel Hefley refuses to endorse the Republican running for his seat. And in the vast rural Fourth. . .the national party is spending heavily to save [anti-gay stalwart] Rep. Marilyn Musgrave. . . .

Ms. Musgrave, a star to the Christian right but a lackluster campaigner, is proving to be costly. Not only has she required sizable aid form the national party, but her actions helped to jeopardize the race for the seat from the neighboring Fifth District, by aggravating the divide between traditional Western conservatives such as Mr. Hefley and a more aggressive type of conservative identified with her national campaign against same-sex marriage.

"I wonder if they are going to get tired of saving Marilyn and look at somebody they don't have to save every time," Mr. Hefley says.

The Journal reports that Musgrave was instrumental in lining up money and support for fellow wingnut Doug Lamborn, who took the August primary in Hefley's district, accusing GOP rivals of "supporting a radical homosexual agenda." Hence, Hefley's declaration "I will not vote for Doug Lamborn, I will not."

A couple of welcome GOP House losses (starting with Musgrave and Lamborn) along with senators such as Rick Santorum (R-PA), is sorely needed to flush these toxins out of the party.

More. OK, maybe pollution metaphors are a bit too much like the fascistic and dehumanizing slurs often thrown our way. Maybe Rick Santorum really is a nice guy who actually fears that gay marriage will lead to man-on-dog sex. Could be (though I'd argue Musgrave and some others do, in fact, come across as haters seeking political gain by scapegoating a vulnerable minority). In any event, the GOP would be better off without them.

Ohio's top court must decide if the state's gay-marriage ban negates protection for unmarried couples, according to the Dayton Daily News.

Two years ago, Ohio voters approved a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage by nearly a 2-to-1 ratio. Now, the Ohio Supreme Court will hear a case that argues the state's 27-year-old domestic-violence law conflicts with the new gay-marriage ban. If the state Supreme Court strikes down part of the domestic-violence law, "t could wipe out longstanding legal protections for unmarried Ohioans in abusive relationships."

Cincinnati-based Citizens for Community Values, which worked to pass the marriage amendment, filed an amicus brief arguing that the marriage amendment should be broadly applied and part of the domestic violence law that applies to unmarried couples ruled unconstitutional.

More on 'judicial strategy.' In Virginia, 53% of likely voters said they would vote for the amendment. According to the Washington Post:

The lower numbers in Virginia reflect a national trend of weakening support for state efforts to ban same-sex marriage, several experts said. Twenty states have passed similar measures since 1998, many with about 75 percent support. The lowest level of support an amendment received was 57 percent in Oregon in 2004.

But this year, poll results in several states with similar ballot measures show weaker support than in 2004, when 11 states passed constitutional amendments. Polls in Colorado and Wisconsin show results similar to Virginia's; poll results in South Dakota are mixed.

John C. Green, a senior fellow at the Pew Forum for Religion and Public Life, said the momentum for such amendments at the ballot box has been hurt by recent court cases that have upheld bans on same-sex marriages.

Which is another sign of the wrong-headedness of activists who prefer judicial decrees to winning popular support. Unless, of course, their strategy was to lose their legal suits.

And on the diversity front: "The only group to significantly cross party lines was blacks. In the poll, blacks supported [Democratic senate candidate Jim] Webb by 81% to 11%, but they favored the amendment 61 percent to 34 percent."

The Foley hysteria continues to be fanned by Democrats and the liberal national media at one end and social conservatives at the other. And, as with all politically generated hysteria, the consequences are not good.

Example: According to the Washington Blade, as of a few days ago: "Some Arizona gay rights advocates say the increased opposition among state residents to a constitutional ban on gay marriage, as reflected in recent polls, is attributable to Rep. Jim Kolbe (R), the state's retiring gay congressman, who is a vocal opponent of the amendment."

Now, of course, the unholy left/right alliance is fueling a rush of attack stories slandering Kolbe, based on politically motivated allegations by our old friends "unidentified sources." The likely result: to ensure passage of the Arizona amendment.

Gay Patriot has more.

Democrats are in a bit of a bind, praising the late Gerry Studds as the first out gay Congressman while downplaying the fact that, unlike Foley, he actually had sex with a page. Fortunately for them, outside of the obits the media is pretty much ignoring Studds' passing.

The Cato Institute has published a new paper by David Boaz and David Kirby titled "The Libertarian Vote," analyzing exit poll data. A finding of interest:

The common story line these days is that there are conservatives who support lower taxes, less regulation, gay marriage bans, and the war in Iraq and voted for President Bush in 2004, and liberals who support bigger government, national health insurance, gay marriage, and withdrawal from Iraq and voted for Sen. John F. Kerry in 2004-and not many true independents or swing voters who cross those categories. But it's not so hard to find counterexamples if you look. ...

According to the [2004 exit] poll, for instance, 25 percent of respondents support same-sex marriage, of whom 22 percent voted for Bush, with 77 percent perhaps understandably for Kerry. Another 35 percent support civil unions, and 52 percent of those voted for Bush. That means that 28 million Bush voters support either marriage or civil unions for same-sex couples-not your stereotypical "red" voters. ...

Why would gay-union supporters vote for Bush? Presumably because they don't like Democratic positions on such issues as taxes and regulation (or, of course, on terrorism and national security ...).

Meanwhile, our leading GLBT lobbies insist on promoting a broad leftwing "progressive" big-government agenda-and only supporting candidates who do the same.

More. Yes, I agree that there are too few politicians willing to put both economic and personal liberty ahead of special interest political pandering. But it doesn't help when GLBT groups commit only to "coalition building" on the left. How about a pro-liberty agenda: school choice, flat taxes...and marriage equality. Now there's an idea!

The U.S. Supreme Court turned down an appeal by a gay California gay couple who wanted the court to mandate that California (and presumably every other state) permit them to wed. It is the first time the issue of same-sex marriage has been offered to the high court.

If the Supremes had taken the case, it could have had only two possible outcomes. The court definitively rules against a constitutional right to marriage (which would have overwhelmingly been the likely outcome, and could have had negative effects in other non-marital areas), or the court rules in favor (highly unlikely, but absolutely certain to trigger passage of the federal marriage amendment).

The deeply misguided "judicial strategy" (as opposed to working for enough electoral support to pass same-sex marriage legislatively) is bad enough on the state level, where it has succeeded in ensuring passage of numerous state-constitutional amendments banning gay marriage for generations to come. Why on earth would anyone pursue it at the federal level?