IGF CultureWatch

IGF contributing author David Link has an op-ed in the Los Angles Times that finds President Bush, in avoiding the word "gay" (or any reference to gay people at all) is trying to define same-sex marriage as a hetero-only issue.

On the other side, conservative columnist Jeff Jacoby opines that calling same-sex marriage opponents "bigots" is uncivil and forestalls, rather than encourages, dialog and debate. It's an interesting question: Are they bigots if they don't know they're bigots? And if they don't know they're bigots, does calling them "bigots" simply fuel their bigotry?

How about when Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) says:

I'm really proud to say that in the recorded history of our family, we've never had a divorce or any kind of a homosexual relationship.

That's not bigotry?

Sarcasm aside, believing that gays should not have the right to marry their life partner, whether founded on deeply held religious beliefs or not, does suggest you aren't exactly viewing gay people as your equal. But I would agree that such folks are not moved to be less prejudiced by calling them "bigots" who seek to perpetuate "discrimination." It would be far better to make a positive case for same-sex marriage, which most of our Washington-based gay leaders, following Howard Dean's talking points, simply won't do.

On a brighter note (kinda, sorta), the conservative Washington Examiner, known for its close ties to the Bush White House, editorializes:

By bringing up the proposal now, when it is certain to be defeated, and making it clear in comments to the media that they are doing it only to "bring out the base" in November, Bush, Rove and company are also laying the groundwork for permanently shelving the initiative after the ballots are counted. Let the marriage amendment fail now and odds are overwhelming that there will be many other "more winnable" goals for Bush and the GOP leadership to push. (hat tip: Right Side of the Rainbow)

See, they're not "bigots," are they?

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

A sad day for a sinking presidency. This anti-federalist amendment which would ban states from recognizing not only same-sex marriage but also "the legal incidents thereof" (i.e., civil unions and probably even domestic partnerships) is going nowhere, which is the good news. But the response of even those Democrats and moderate Republicans voting against it-i.e., suggesting the topic itself is unworthy of debate-is also indefensible. What a display of gay political impotence all round, and a missed opportunity to make a positive case for the principle of equality (or even something closer to equality, such as civil unions).

As President Bush prepares to kow-tow to the social/religious right with a Rose Garden endorsement of the federal "marriage protection" amendment, banning all states from either legislatively or judicially recognizing same-sex unions, let's note more online evidence that it's not only the gay left that opposes the amendment.

Walter Olson chimes in at the excellent Overlawyered.com, citing James Q. Wilson, about as impressive a policy intellectual as the right has to offer, who came out against the amendment in March.

And the libertarian Cato Institute has published IGF contributing author Dale Carpenter's critique of the amendment.

More. The Right Side of the Rainbow blog has an interesting take on nonsense from both sides.

Still more. On Saturday, President Bush used his weekly radio broadcast to call for passage of the amendment. While the Democrats typically use their weekly radio response time to address the same issue as Bush, this week they instead talked about the war in Iraq. That about sums it up, doesn't it?

President Bush has signed a bill aimed at stopping anti-gay protestors from disrupting military funerals. Only in America, folks.

The AP reports that the measure specifically targets:

a Kansas church group that has staged protests at military funerals around the country. The group claimed the deaths symbolized God's anger at U.S. tolerance of homosexuals.

The protestors, of course, are the cult-like Westboro Baptist Church run by the Rev. Fred "God Hates Fags" Phelps.

Anti-gay marriage champion and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee, according to the Baptist Press, said the bill would "preserve the dignity of military funerals" because families "should never have to be harassed by protestors of any stripe as they bury their fallen warriors."

I tend to agree, but the ACLU, in opposing similar state laws and the new federal bill, supports Phelp's right to desecrate private funerals for our fallen military men and women. (Yes, I realize that the ACLU is arguably more or less consistent on free speech, supporting Nazis marching through Jewish neighborhoods and all).

A quick look at some of the leftwing blogs like Daily Kos seems to indicate their readers are more anti-Phelps than anti-Bush on this one (must have been a tough call!). Also, the One Veteran's Voice blog has some interesting thoughts.

More. But blogger Rick Sincere thinks the measure gives Phelps just what he wanted, national attention.

Still more. The father of a Marine whose funeral was picketed is suing the Westboro gang, claiming "You don't have a right to interrupt someone's private funeral."

In Strange Bedfellows: Evangelicals learn to love big government, a Wall Street Journal op-ed, Heather Wilhelm of Americans for Limited Government notes that a big change has occurred in what evangelicals-once reliably wary of big-government social engineering- lobby for these days. For instance, the National Association of Evangelicals (NEA) now favors:

more government regulation of health care, an expansion of welfare benefits, more protections for the environment and various efforts to correct "unfair socioeconomic systems."

If this sounds like it's simply embracing the liberal agenda, keep in mind that the NAE also (according to a statement on its website):

supports the President in his endeavor to protect the institutions of marriage and family as foundational to an orderly society. The NAE will continue to promote a traditional view of the convental relationship of marriage and gratefully welcomes the support and backing of the current administration

Or maybe it's no surprise that a demand for government intrusion in areas regarding "morals" has now been joined by a wider view that government can and should solve all problems.

Not all evangelicals embrace the NAE program (its alliances on issues such as global warming "may raise eyebrows of a few purists," Ms. Wilhelm says), but the fact that a large and growing segment is amenable to so much of the liberal social agenda, minus gay equality, may explain Howard Dean's pitch to Pat Robertson's audience.

As President Bush again panders to the religious right on the Federal Marriage Amendment, in the conservative Washington Times Bruce Fein chides his fellow conservatives for supporting an amendment that nationalizes marriage regulation in order to ban not only state courts, but democratically elected state legislatures, from favoring same-sex marriage. It's a viewpoint that honest federalist conservatives should take seriously, but many won't.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops again endorsed the amendment, while a coalition of liberal religious leaders weighed in against it.

John McCain, who has called the amendment un-Republican, was very impressive-and sharp as a whip- Wednesday on Larry King. He spoke movingly about why he gave the same speech about reconciliation at both Liberty U. and the New School, and on the need to restore civility among those with whom we disagree politically (as he does with the religious right). McCain also said, sadly, that when he spoke about the death of an old friend with whom he had reconciled, some of the protesting students at the New School laughed. He lamented how they would be the poorer for refusing to listen to those with whom they disagree.

When Larry asked if he "supported gay rights," McCain answered "Yes, sir" but not gay marriage (no, he's not going to go to the left of Clinton and Kerry). But he affirmed he will vote against the FMA because "I believe the people of Massachusetts should make their decision, and others. I think it's up to the states to make those decisions. And by the way, that's the federalist approach." To which I can only reply, "Yes, sir."

More. Conservative pundit Maggie Gallagher, a vocal opponent of marriage equality, takes aim at McCain, writing, "McCain leaves himself with a position on gay marriage that is virtually indistinguishable from Hillary Clinton's."

That's close to the mark, but judging from some of the McCain-bashing comments to this item, don't expect gay "progressives" to give the senator any credit. Sadly, a gay-welcoming GOP appears to be the worst nightmare of some gay Democrats.

Washington Blade editor Chris Chrain on Howard Dean's "gay lapdogs":

Rather than actually defend gay families and make the case for gay marriage, [the Human Rights Campaign] is stuck in a three-year strategy of arguing that the American people don't-and shouldn't!-care about marriage equality for gay couples.

"Voters want candidates focused on soaring gas prices, a health care crisis and national security," [HRC head Joe] Solmonese says in the release, "not putting discrimination in the United States Constitution."

What sort of gay rights strategy is it, when the attention of Americans is focused on our issues, to argue that our rights aren't important, and refuse to engage our opponents in the debate over our equality?

It only makes sense if your foremost mission is to be Democratic Party operatives, and certainly not to advance the fight for gay equality on a nonpartisan basis.

In response to Crain, the Blade ran an op-ed by Mark Kvare of the National Stonewall Democrats, who warns that we by gosh better not make Howard mad:

If I'm Dean, chair of the party, I just got a lot less interested in putting myself out there in the future for a community that turns on me...the moment I enter hostile territory in an attempt to expand our electoral chances.

I guess all those gay dollars and hours of volunteer labor don't actually count for much, do they? Criticize Dean for sucking up to Pat Robertson and you risk being punished like the ungrateful uppity outsiders you are.

John McCain may have called Liberty University Chancellor Jerry Falwell an "agent of intolerance," but students there lent a respectful ear when McCain recently addressed them. Yet when the senator spoke at the opposite end of the political spectrum, at New York's New School University, the students threw a tantrum and did their utmost to express their contempt-which is, of course, what they do best.

What more can one say about the smug, superior, privileged denizens of the campus left, who most clearly don't believe in open debate, since their favorite tactic is either to bar alternative opinions from their campus fiefdoms or, if that fails, to drown them out with catcalls? It's the intolerant, infantile behavior that keeps the heartland voting for cultural conservatives.

Unlike my partner, I haven't been a fan of NBC's "Will & Grace" for many a year. Sidekick Jack McFarland (played by Sean Hayes) was, to me, the ultimate gay Stepin Fetchit, despite his accolades from the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. And the show's fawning before pop celebrity guest stars made my skin crawl.

But W&G was once kinda sorta ground-breaking for network television, successfully featuring a gay character in a title role. The Washington Post's Hank Stuever presents some interesting parting shots, including his observation that "Marcia Brady got more on-screen action in five seasons of 'The Brady Bunch' than Will Truman got in eight."

In a widely reprinted AP story, Laura Bush says of the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment:

"I don't think it should be used as a campaign tool, obviously. ... It requires a lot of sensitivity to just talk about the issue-a lot of sensitivity."

But the same article quotes Sen. Bill Frist as claiming, once again, that "marriage is under attack in this country," and saying he will defend the amendment to Dick Cheney, who opposes it. I guess Frist thinks he has more influence with the veep than Cheney's own daughter. So much for family values!

Let's hope and work toward the day when more Republicans with stand with the first lady and vice president, not the president or, especially, foot-in-mouth Frist.

Update. HRC has a press release trying to play Laura against Frist. But it wasn't too long ago the HRC was criticizing Laura and taking issue with her call for a national discussion on gay marriage-which others righitly recognized as a hint she wasn't with the president on this one.