IGF CultureWatch

Mark Pietrzyk's study critiquing the Family Research Council et al. on the alleged homosexuality/pedophilia link is now on the web. In "Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse: Science, Religion, and the Slippery Slope," Pietrzyk writes:

In response to the scandal involving former Congressman Mark Foley, a number of conservative religious groups have claimed that homosexuals pose a substantially greater risk of committing sexual abuse against children than heterosexuals, and have issued papers citing a number of scientific studies to support these claims. However, when one examines the studies cited in these papers, one finds that the religious right has engaged in some serious distortion of the works of others. The scientists who authored the studies made no such claim about homosexuals posing a greater threat to children, and in fact in many cases argued the opposite.

In other Foley news (All Foley, All the Time, Until Nov. 7), yes, it really is completely about politics and manipulating the electorate in the most cynical fashion.

And the Democrats have known about the emails for months, waiting, waiting, waiting for October.

More.

Via Gay Patriot: Screenwriter Nora Ephron gets it right. She told the Huffington Post:

And yet when I watch the liberal punsters on television, I can't help suspecting that they're taking advantage of the homophobia in the culture in order to make slightly more of this episode than it may in fact turn out to be worth. When I watch the Democratic politicians smack their lips, I can't help wondering whether they've forgotten that this is the sort of scandal that can happen to either party, and there's no evidence that Democrats would have handled it any better. In short, I can't help thinking that the homophobia is catching.

More Democrats are running ads claiming GOP leaders allowed Foley to "molest boys," while social conservatives are making their gay=pedophile claim all over the blogosphere.

Via Right Side of the Rainbow: "The media are trying to sex up another gay Republican, this time with nothing but cheap innuendo." How low can they go? Pretty damn low.

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force has rightfully condemned "emerging attempts to shift responsibility for the Foley scandal by blaming gay Republican congressional staffers for supposedly covering up prior reports of predatory behavior by former Rep. Mark Foley." A release from the group further states:

Discussions of a supposed network of closeted gay Republicans working on Capitol Hill have swept the blogs and been raised on MSNBC and CBS. There are allegations, for example, that gay former Foley aide Kirk Fordham, the recently resigned chief of staff for Tom Reynolds (R-NY), worked to play down complaints about Foley's behavior. Fordham has said that more than three years ago he had "more than one conversation with senior staff at the highest level of the House of Representatives asking them to intervene. ...

The parallels to McCarthyism are chilling. Here it is gays, not communists, "operating at the highest levels of government." ...

While many Democrats may be taking real pleasure in watching the GOP twist and turn, it's long past time for them-and other leaders-to denounce these shameful, gay-baiting, responsibility-evading tactics.

I'd go much further: Both Democrats and social conservatives have quite openly been fanning the flames of homophobic panic in an attempt to secure political advantage.

More.

Gay Patriot cites a blog posting by David Corn, a columnist for The Nation, here, describing how some gay Democrats have been sending to social conservatives copies of "The List" of gay staffers working for Republicans on the Hill, in an effort to get them fired.

The WSJ's Daniel Henninger looks at the political/media circus, noting, "I have an idea: Let's fire the Members and replace them with the pages. We could do worse. We are."

National Journal calls the Foley scandal "A Calamity for Gay Republicans."

From the Drudge Report:

According to two people close to former congressional page Jordan Edmund, the now famous lurid AOL Instant Message exchanges that led to the resignation of Mark Foley were part of an online prank that by mistake got into the hands of enemy political operatives, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal.

According to one Oklahoma source who knows the former page very well, Edmund, a conservative Republican, said he goaded an unwitting Foley to type embarrassing comments that were then shared with a small group of young Hill politicos. The prank went awry when the saved IM sessions got into the hands of political operatives favorable to Democrats.

It's all politics, of course, in the era of the October Surprise (an "unkown source" first gave the Foley e-mails to ABC News). And here's how the game is played out (from a campaign press release):

Richard Wright, Democratic Party nominee for the House of Representatives in the 4th Congressional District [in Washington state], will hold a press conference Tuesday morning in Pasco to demand that Congressman Doc Hastings explain why he is not investigating House leaders who were aware of the sexual predatory activities of a Florida Congressman but did nothing about it for months.

The Democrats: Our best hope against the forces of perversion!

More. Gay Democratic activist Mike Rogers brags about his role.

As one of our commenters, "Guy," suggests, the scandal is causing a huge anti-gay political backlash that's likely to ensure passage of all the anti-gay amendments. I've also heard that it's leading to a purge of gay/gay-friendly GOP staffers on the Hill, now seen as "pedophile protectors."

Also. If the House leaders had moved earlier to censure Foley, as high-horse Democrats declare they should have, based on the evidence they had at the time - overly solicitous e-mails to male pages (and not the IMs) - can you imagine the cries of "homophobia" for Democrat/gay activists!

I received the following provocative query on the Foley scandal and thought some readers might find it worth discussing:

The Democrats are totally on the warpath about Foley and the GOP leadership-what did they know and when did they know it? It's outrageous not to have kicked him out way back when! And the media are reacting the same way.

But the Democrats (except Lieberman) never wavered in their insistence that Clinton's actual sexual contact with a young intern was completely irrelevant, and the media largely agreed, after they got the thrill of reporting the salacious story.

So-is it just partisanship? or homophobia? or truly the distinction between a 16-year-old former page and a 22-year-old intern that makes the difference in the reaction?

It's fair to say that Monica was an adult and the page wasn't. But I can't believe that people who are SO outraged over this would be totally indifferent to a 55-year-old married man bagging a 22-year-old who worked for him.

I think homophobia plays some part in this (the anti-gay Family Research Council makes that explicit), and much of the expressions of outrage convey that there is no possibility, ever, that a 16-year-old guy could be sexually interested in an older man.

That's not to say this was appropriate behavior by a congressman toward a page (it was not) or to deny it was outright sexual harassment (though that case hasn't been proved). It's just to recognize that gay-predator tropes are in full flower.

And the Democrats are fanning the flames, hoping to alienate the GOP base and keep 'em home on Nov. 7. My, what a surprise that this all hit the presses just weeks before the election!

It's often said of popular representatives (like Foley was) that the only way to bring them down is to catch them with a dead girl or a live boy. How true that's turned out to be.

More still. A video re-enactment.

In California, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a bill that allows registered domestic partners to file joint tax returns and have their earned income treated as community property for state tax purposes. There is now virtually no distinction between the rights of married couples and those of domestic partners under state law.

DPs, however, are denied the federal spousal benefits, and must file separate federal tax returns. The same also is true of same-sex couples legally married in Massachusetts, thanks to the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

Last year, Schwarenegger vetoed a bill that would have provided for same-sex marriage outright in the Golden State, citing the defeat of same-sex marriage when the electorate voted on this issue. But if the domestic-partner route becomes virtually the same as marriage (at least at the state level), then the cultural shift that deflates popular opposition to the "m" word is well underway.

I had missed this watching news coverage of the Wisconsin high school student who shot his principal dead:

[Eric] Hainstock said that a group of kids had teased him by calling him "fag" and "faggot" and rubbing up against him, the complaint said, and the teen felt teachers and the principal wouldn't do anything about it.

So Hainstock decided to confront students, teachers and the principal with the guns to make them listen to him, according to the complaint.

So Friday morning, he pried open his family's gun cabinet, took out a shotgun and then took a handgun from his parent's bedroom, the complaint said.

If true, it of course dosen't excuse murder. But the blind eye that educrats give rank homophobia in their schools is also inexcusable.

Much of my weekend time (and much during the week) is still being taken up with an ongoing parental health issue, so I'm a bit behind getting to the Mark Foley brouhaha. Anyhow, Gay Patriot does an able job of providing further links.

I agree that this "scandal" is fairly tepid [update: not! see below]. But closeted politicos, get a clue! Lying and hiding makes you do really stupid things, and will often lead you to wholly inappropriate targets of your affection. And your enemies are just waiting to pounce, given the opportunity.

More. OK, now with the news of Foley's more explicit IMs to several male pages, it's a bit bigger scandal, with John Kerry declaring of Foley's come-ons, "Every parent in America is disgusted and disturbed by it."

Query: We rightly distinguish between pedophiles and gays; should we do the same with ephebophiles (those primarily attracted to adolescents)?

Foley was a moderate Republican who, while never "out," appeared at Log Cabin events. It's interesting that his Palm Beach district is now expected to go Democratic, as is the Tuscon, Ariz., district of retiring, openly gay Rep. Jim Kolbe.

It's not surprising that debate over an anti-gay-marriage amendment in Wisconsin turned violent:

Videotape shows a man in a suit pushing one opponent of the amendment and then punching another. The tape shows the man walking out and then returning and throwing ketchup bottles and other objects.

Opposition to same-sex marriage is based on a visceral reaction, characterized by gut emotion rather than reason. Which is why changing minds requires persistent appeals to the heart as well as the head. Either that, or training for fisticuffs.

Meanwhile, in California, Gov. Schwarzenegger faces a political test.

The increasinly dubious Duke lacrosse rape charges have a gay angle, but it's not what you might think. From the blog Durham in Wonderland (via Instapundit), we learn that prosecutor Mike Nifong, who persists in what increasingly seems like a witch hunt against the students (accused of raping a black stripper), is in league with black Christian-right activist Victoria Peterson, known for her fierce antigay rhetoric. Blogger KC Johnson relates:

In August, the district attorney announced that he was "very pleased" that Peterson had agreed to found and co-chair his citizens' committee, a development that "made me feel good."...

The state and Duke Democratic parties are fully aware that the Nifong/Peterson axis contradicts the party's basic principles, but don't care enough about those principles to stand up for them in this instance, lest doing so risk alienating the party's African-American base....

Regional and campus GLBT organizations likewise proved unwilling to challenge Peterson. Gay rights groups have an (appropriate) reputation for sensitivity to anything resembling homophobic statements, especially by figures in power or those with access to figures in power. Equality NC didn't reply to my questions; Triangle Community Works responded that because of its non-profit status, "We don't have a statement regarding Ms. Peterson."...

What happens when political realities and ideological commitments appear to clash? The pairing of Nifong's flagrant violations of civil liberties in the lacrosse case and Peterson's outrageous homophobic statements struck me as irreconcilable with the principles laid down in the state party's platform....

Neither N.C. Democrats nor the state's gay rights groups will be well-served by fair-weather fidelity to their basic principles. I suspect that these organizations will look back with shame at their silence regarding the Nifong/Peterson axis.

Once again, left-wing coalition-building with feminists and racial activists trumps all.

The IRS's attempted crackdown on a liberal church that in 2004 preached Jesus would support Kerry over Bush could have broad ramifications, as reported in the Washington Post:

Religious leaders on the right and left have expressed fear that the dispute could make it more difficult for them to speak out on moral issues such as gay marriage and abortion during the midterm election campaign. …

Under federal tax law, church officials can legally discuss politics, but to retain tax-exempt status, they cannot endorse candidates or parties.

I think Americans are taxed too much for nonproductive (and, often, counterproductive) government schemes. And I'm ok with truly charitable organizations, whether faith-based or not, getting a break for serving the public good (such as operating soup kitchens and otherwise helping those in need who are not being helped by behemoth government bureaucracies). But why should organizations that want to take part in partisan political battles get special treatment just because they are religiously oriented?