IGF CultureWatch

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?

Newly published promotional excerpts from former New Jersey Gov. Jim McGreevey's autobio detail how he "forced himself to take on girlfriends" while having anonymous gay encounters of the seedier kind. It's all very sad, but McGreevey's choices (including his two marriages) were to a large extent fueled by his relentless political ambition.

You can only wonder how many other closeted gay men still choose to make these sorts of "compromises" each and every day.

More. Golan Cipel gives his side of the story in the Daily News:

"I wasn't his lover," Cipel, 37, said. "I didn't have sex with him. I never heard anything from him saying that he loved me. The only things that happened were sexual harassments. And unwanted sexual advances and assaults." ...

In his book, McGreevey writes: "I took Golan by the hand and led him upstairs to my bed. We undressed and he kissed me. It was the first time in my life that a kiss meant what it was supposed to mean. ... I pulled him to the bed and we made love like I'd always dreamed: a boastful, passionate, whispering, masculine kind of love."

So, who is telling the truth? (Or, alternatively, why should anyone care?)

The Commonwealth Coalition of Virginia, organized to oppose the anti-same-sex-marriage/plus state constitutional amendment on the ballot this November, has released its first video ad (web-only, for the time being). Rick Sincere has posted it (via YouTube) on his blog.

Looks like a strong, professional effort that rightly makes the point that an assault against the civil liberties of one group can spill over to others (watch out, unmarried heteros!).

Gay political lobbies should stand by the incumbents who stand by them (that is, us). So without doubt Log Cabin was right to vigorously support Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island in his successful but bruising GOP primary battle against Cranston Mayor Steve Laffey.

On the other hand, Chafee's opposition to pro-investment tax cuts is a point on which fiscal conservatives can reasonably take issue, so it's not surprising that the Club for Growth lobby backed Laffey. And, while the campaign was brutal, I'm not sure what's accomplished when Log Cabin, in a post-election release, called the Club for Growth's attacks on Chafee "a vicious effort," thereby poisoning the waters further between the two.

Club for Growth is not an anti-gay group, although (and alas) many candidates who most strongly support letting people keep more of their own money are often conservative on social issues. But for those of us who would like to see more candidates with libertarian/limited government views on both social and fiscal matters, leaving the door open for LCR and CFG to work together on future races would seem like a good idea. Here's hoping.

More. GayPatriotWest reaches a very similar conclusion, uring that "When Log Cabin's new leader takes office, he (or she) needs to reach out to mainstream Republican groups like the Club for Growth."

Ryan Sager's new book, The Elephant in the Room, persuasively argues that:

as the nation's population and electoral map shift South and West, the current Republican Party increasingly favors southern values (religion, morality, and tradition) over western ones (freedom, independence, and privacy). The result? The party is in danger of losing crucial ground in the interior West - specifically in "leave-me-alone" states such as Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, and Montana.

Wake up, Republicans!

Another interesting report of bigots against business. In this case, two gay partners are trying to run their successful barbecue establishment in the struggling town of Rockaway Beach, Mo., where the mayor and the president of the Chamber of Commerce seem intent on driving them out.

The article is from the Jewish Daily Forward (one of the partners being Jewish), and recalls how prejudice against the "other" - especially when they happen to be more successful than some native locals - is a recurring motif among those who don't cotton to capitalism, whether on the left or right.

Governor Schwarzenegger has vetoed SB 1437, a bill that would have prevented any "adverse reflection" on gays in California curriculum, saying it provides no protections that don't already exist under California law. Since school textbooks aren't exactly brimming over with anti-gay venom, it's unclear to me why this bill mattered except as an exercise in political correctness (and easy symbolism to shore up gay votes for Democrats).

Here at IGF, contributing author David Link opposed the bill (the final measure was watered down from the original, and thus of even less significance). But we were not all of one mind, and Paul Varnell wrote favorably about it, arguing that the mandate for inclusion (in the original, not the weaker version that Arnold vetoed) would help bring gay history out of the textbook closet.

Some Democrats are making hay over reports that Karl Rove had a gay stepfather, now deceased, accusing Rove of hypocrisy. I agree with those who are appalled by Rove's promotion of the anti-gay federal marriage amendment and otherwise carrying water for the religious right to get them to pull the GOP lever. But if the guy he called "dad" abandoned Rove's mom to lead the gay life in Palm Springs, and his mom then committed suicide, wouldn't you expect that might make him more hostile toward gays, not less?