IGF CultureWatch

Anti-Jews and Anti-Gay, Mel Gibson Go Away.

But seriously, Jew-hatred and gay-bashing typically go together like peas and carrots, don't they.

In the grand scheme of things, which has the greater impact: Another judicial defeat for marriage equality, this time in Washington state, or Lance Bass of N'Sync coming out?

Comment sample.
Big Daddy: Lance Bass. People don't follow political discourse, but everyone seems to read People magazine.

I guess they meant well. But publishing this ad in newspapers, showing that the usual gang of leftwing activists, liberal politicians and big-labor leaders (and some progressive religious folks) support marriage equality made me bristle. In my view, if big labor is for it, then it certainly can't be good. I think many who aren't on the liberal left have the same visceral reaction.

I wonder if any Republican or conservative gay people (Log Cabin? Andrew Sullivan?) were even approached. And what about respected libertarian conservative figures, such as Charles Murray, who favor allowing same-sex marriage (as noted here)? Nope, no reaching out across party lines in this ad.

Maybe the aim was to shore up left-liberal support. But if they alienate independents, libertarians and centrists, what's gained? More likely, there was no strategy behind this ad at all.

Comments sample:
kittynboi: There seems to be little evidence that the right wing will support us if we drop the support of the left wing.

Avee: If we continue to present gay equality as part of a broad-based leftwing agenda (unions!), we will NEVER expand the range of our support out to the center, much less to the libertarian right. We will continue to remain a leftwing niche, preaching to ourselves, running ads for ourselves, focused solely on ourselves.

Ryan Sager finds surprising strength for Rudy G. among GOP activists not otherwise prone to support a pro-gay, pro-choice fiscal conservative.

Why we're losing gay marriage cases. Washington Blade editor Chris Crain writes:

The way most judges see it, though they won't ever say it, there is no point to "doing the right thing" if their decision faces a veto from the people in the form of a constitutional amendment. Not only is it pointless to risk prestige and rule one way, only to see it reversed by amendment, but their authority to rule on countless other issues, including other civil rights cases and even gay rights cases, has been irreversibly undermined.

Will die-hard advocates of the judicial strategy get the message?

Stem cell research is supported by more than 70 percent of Americans, but opposed by evangelicals and conservative Catholics. Particularly in light of Bush's veto of a popular stem cell bill, there is an opportunity to push the majority of Americans who reflexively vote in favor of marriage/civil union bans to view the religious right's agenda with deeper skepticism. But if left-leaning gay activists instead attack the theocrats broadly for opposing all things liberal, as they've done-repeatedly-in the past, this opportunity will, sadly, be lost.

More. Ralph Reed loses (big time) in his effort to become Georgia's lieutenant governor. Hurrah! No doubt more due to his corrupt lobbying with Jack Abramoff than because of his leadership of the Christian right, but still another opportunity to reveal the theocrats as blind guides.

Still more. From a July 21 Wall Street Journal article, Stem-Cell Issue: Republicans' Undoing? (WSJ subscribers only):

As the party has grown more socially conservative over the past quarter-century, the suburbs where many Republicans live have become more diverse and politically independent, marked by a mix of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism that is testing Republicans' dominance there.

The party has to decide if it wants to keep placating hard-line social conservative activists and lose the 'burbs. Moderate Democrats, of course, would have a better chance here if their party wasn't also bending over backwards to placate its own hard-line, Daily Kos-inflamed activist base.

As Israel fights to defend the only liberal democracy in the Mideast, James Kirchick asks, in response to an Advocate interview with lesbian Palestinian activist Rauda Morcos, "Is it racist to say that the Palestinian Authority is light-years behind Israel in terms of LGBT equality?" He also wonders why the highest-profile international gay rights organization is boycotting WorldPride in Jerusalem this August.

With the Mideast in meltdown and the stock market tanking, GOP social conservatives have declared that it's to be "values week" in the House, which will focus on a meaningless vote on the federal anti-gay marriage amendment (going nowhere since it was shot down in the Senate), as well a bill to protect the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance from court challenges. They may find that they've gone too far during a time of actual crisis.

On the lighter side, Jeff Gannon hits the mark.

House vote update. The amendment vote in the House failed to get the needed two-thirds majority for passage (which would only have been a symbolic victory). Democrats, to their credit, held firm (although I note that Georgia's leftwing, race-baiting, and frankly crazy Rep. Cynthia McKinney failed to vote, despite her Human Rights Campaign primary endorsement). Meanwhile, 202 Republicans voted for passage while only 27 libertarian, RINO or gay Republicans voted no.

In Massachusetts, the Boston Globe newspaper has told its gay and lesbian employees that:

An employee who currently covers a same-sex domestic partner as a dependent will have to marry his or her partner by Jan. 1 for the employee benefits coverage to continue at the employee rates to get married or lose their domestic partner benefits.

That's the right thing to do. As the rival Boston Herald reports, "Now that gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts, companies that offer benefits to gay employees' partners risk hearing cries of discrimination from unmarried straight couples."

Corporate domestic-partner benefits are a stop-gap to provide a bit of fairness to employees in same-sex relationships until gays can get married. There is no reason to preserve them as a distinct benefit category after marriage (and, arguably, state-recognized civil unions) become available.

Domestic-partner benefits will continue for Globe employees who live in states where gay marriage is not recognized.

I support school choice rather than pouring yet more taxpayer money down the endless rat-hole of union-dominated and bureaucratically mismanaged public (i.e., government) schools. But for the foreseeable future it's in exactly such miserable institutions where the vast majority of American youth will be forced to try to glean whatever education they might be fortunate enough to extract. Given this sorry circumstance, I think public schools should at least have the ability to insist on basic decorum and civility among their captive students.

Yet, in 1969, a liberal dominated Supreme Court, in Tinker v. Des Moines, ruled that free speech rights extended to students and so public schools could not restrict political speech, including arm bands worn in protest of the Vietnam War, unless such symbolic speech caused undue disruptions to school activities. Tinker has been tinkered with around the edges, but basically stands.

This bit of history is relevant because the Ninth Circuit now must decide whether a California sophomore named Tyler Chase Harper was unfairly sent home from his high school for wearing a t-shirt saying "Homosexuality is shameful." The overt sloganeering is certain uncivil, but is it also political speech protected by liberal jurisprudence? If so, then opponents of the t-shirt must prove it is a form of harassment that keeps gay students from learning in order to have it banned.

It would be much easier if schools were still able to simply insist on civil behavior and dress codes that excluded culture-war sloganeering.

Meanwhile, here's another public school culture-war skirmish. At Howell High School in Michigan, when the Diversity Club hung a rainbow flag in a hallway, it was allowed to remain despite a petition by Christian conservatives. That prompted these students to create a Traditional Values Club and produce their own flag. Now, faculty members have voted that both flags should be displayed only in classrooms during club meetings.

That sounds sensible, but let's see if one side or the other sues claiming their right to political speech was unduly infringed.

More. TCS Daily wonders if the 9th Circuit is creating preferential speech rights.