IGF CultureWatch

It was a nightmare-inspiring crime: an individual with a history of antisocial behavior (and a fondness for Nazi regalia) walked into a Massachusetts gay bar and attacked the patrons with a hatchet and handgun, sending three men to the hospital, one with critical injuries. Time to play politics, boys and girls.

From NGLTF: Rhetoric of religious right continues to fuel violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. Excerpt:

Today's attack on men in New Bedford gay bar points to climate of hate created by right-wing obsession with homosexuality. ... The hatred and loathing fueling this morning's vicious attack on gay men in New Bedford is not innate, it is learned. And who is teaching it? Leaders of the so-called Christian right, that's who. ... The blood spilled this morning is on their hands.

I'd describe this rhetoric as, at best, hating the hater, or demagoguery for demagoguery-excerpt at least the religious rightists tend to make some distinction about loving the sinner but not the "sin."

As bad as Focus on the Family, the American Family Association, and the 700 Club are, they are not Nazi equivalents. Most Americans get this, and when gay groups suggest otherwise they simply discredit themselves.

From HRC: Anti-gay hate crime in Massachusetts is enraging reminder of need to pass law. I agree; walking into a bar and shooting people really ought to be against the law. Glad to hear that HRC is on the case.

Let's note a few things: the attack occurred in Barney Frank's district; in a state that has had state hate crimes statutes and gay anti-discrimination protections on the books for years; where the police and public authorities have reacted swiftly and, apparently, without laxity. So how would federalizing hate crime law have helped?

More: It's all over. And there will be no hate crimes trial.

The L.A. Weekly shines a spotlight on Hollywood hypocrisy, with many Academy members refusing to even view Brokeback Mountain, and the Screen Actors Guild shutting out Brokeback entirely, preferring Philip Seymour Hoffman's asexual Capote portrayal (and minstrelsy Sean Hayes) to nonstereotypical portrayals of gay lives.

Writes columnist Nikki Finke:

Frankly, I find horrifying each whispered admission to me from Academy members who usually pose as social liberals that they're disgusted by even the possibility of glimpsing simulated gay sex. Earth to the easily offended: This movie has been criticized for being too sexually tame. Hey, Academy, what are you worried about: that you'll turn gay...

Apparently, Larry David isn't an anomaly. In Tinsel Town, they love gays-as long as they have plenty of swish.
--Stephen H. Miller

In a Tue. Wall Street Journal op-ed (also available here), David Boaz writes of libertarians unrepresented by either politicians or media:

Gallup also found-this year as in others-that 20% are neither liberal nor conservative but libertarian, opposing the use of government either to "promote traditional values" or to "do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses."

[But] Democrats stand like a wall against tax cuts and Social Security privatization. Republicans want to ban abortion, gay marriage and "Happy Holidays." It's not just Congress-in Virginia's recent elections, all the Democrats were tax-hikers and all the Republicans were religious rightists. What's a libertarian to do?

He concludes:

According to [exit] polls, 17 million voted for John Kerry but did not think the government should do more to solve the country's problems. And 28 million Bush voters support either gay marriage or civil unions. That's 45 million who don't fit the polarized model. They seem to have broadly libertarian attitudes. In fact, it's no secret that libertarian voters make up a chunk of America. But you'd never know it from watching TV-or listening to our elected politicians.

The tragedy of our political system is that the two parties and their activists fundraising networks use the worst propagandistic means to keep their respective donor bases whipped into a crazy/angry frenzy. I'm reminded of the words of W.B. Yeats:

The centre cannot hold ...
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

More. We've now posted Paul Varnell's "Neither Liberal nor Conservative," with further insights about polarization.--Stephen H. Miller

I missed this last week, but conservative U.S. News & World Report columnist John Leo ponders the meaning of gay conservatives (and IGF), following Andrew Sullivan's plug.
--Stephen H. Miller

President Bush calls for leaving behind partisan rancor (good), but then picks up the cultural cudgel:

Yet many Americans, especially parents, still have deep concerns about the direction of our culture, and the health of our most basic institutions. They are concerned about unethical conduct by public officials, and discouraged by activist courts that try to redefine marriage.

But revealingly, no call for a federal Constitutional amendment.

Gay Patriot West faults activists' double standards, as the Democrats choose Virginia's Gov. Tim Kaine, fresh from signing and sending to voters one of the most draconian anti-gay marriage state amendments, ever, to deliver their response to the president:

[W]hile the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) faulted California's Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenengger in multiple press releases for his veto of a bill which would have recognized same-sex marriage in the Golden State, the only reference on HRC's web-site to Kaine's support of his state's amendment resolution was a Washington Post article on the Virginia referendum.

GPW also discovered that HRC's mission statement no longer calls the group "bipartisan," as it once did. Score one for truth in advertsing.

I can't say with certainty whether anti-gay Sen. Sam Brownback was in fact making an anti-gay crack when he said, in discussing gay marriage, "You look at the social impact of the countries that have engaged in homosexual marriage. You'll know 'em by their fruits," quoting (after a fashion) Matthew 7:16.

There's plenty to castigate Brownback for (Sweden doesn't even provide gays with full marriage equality) without going overboard over an ambiguous comment. But that's exactly the trap HRC fell into, with this heated response, saying Brownback's "derogatory use of 'fruits' sinks below decency." Of course, HRC is merely (as always) playing to its fundraising base, not trying to sway the wider public, and certainly not reaching out to conservative Christians who might be more familiar with biblical quotations as a part of political discourse-and thus just as likely to give Brownback a pass on the quote as gay activists were to insist it was an outright slur.

More: Would Howard Dean recognize the New Testament if it got up and introduced itself to him? Apparently not.

More Recent Postings
01/22/06 - 01/28/06

Just for fun, the Oprah folks provide a chatty summation, with lots of photos, of Friday's visit with the Brokeback cast. This sort of publicity is priceless.

Dale Carpenter takes a look at what's really motivating some gay activists to oppose Alito (hint: it's not gay rights).

Joe Solmonese's Human Rights Campaign hits a new low by declaring:

A glance at his resume reads like an anti-gay textbook. From striking down a policy that protected gay students from harassment to his view that would threaten Congress' power to enact non-discrimination laws, he's the wrong choice for the court.

As I've noted before, even the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force supports the Alito free-speech ruling that HRC condemns as "anti-gay."
Moreover, Alito ruled to protect a gay student from harassment in another decision that didn't involve draconian restrictions on speech. And he said specifically during his testimony that Congress has the right to pass anti-discrimiation laws that protect gays.

Abortion-rights activist Solmonese should have stayed at Emily's List, where he happily endorsed supporters of the anti-gay federal Marriage Protection Amendment. Abortion over all!

As Carpenter writes, "The national gay groups...have pretty much taken themselves out of any serious debate about President Bush's judicial nominees."

Britain is atwitter over the revelation that Mark Oaten, a leading Liberal Democratic member of Parliament, married with children, has been frequenting male hustlers. Oaten may be an adulterer, but he's not a hypocrite-apparently, he's about as close to a libertarian as you're likely to find in Britain. But like so many others, a la Brokeback, he thought he could live a lie and it eventually caught up with him.

Also from Britain, a look at why libertarians, or at least those who still believe in freedom of association, are sorely needed.

On a happier note, here's some news from the future.

P.S. Thanks, Andrew. Much appreciated.

NBC has canceled "The Book of Daniel," about a troubled Episcopalian priest and his family, but not because it had a gay character (one of Daniel's sons). Religious conservatives were successful in mau-mauing advertisers to flee because of far more controversial plot elements. Foremost among these: Daniel's conversations with Jesus, who gently encourages him to do the right thing ("now would be a good time to stop," he tells Daniel, who is addicted to prescription pills). This wasn't the judgmental storm trooper that fundamentalists like to envision. And so one of TV's rare attempts to deal with spirituality in everyday life, as lived by imperfect men and woman, bites the dust.

More: Some interesting comments, many arguing the show was poorly conceived and quite rightly pulled-and that social conservative activists had little to do with its demise.