IGF CultureWatch

There's more than a little disingenuousness here:

[Anti-gay Sen. Sam] Brownback wanted to know if Alito believed that the Federal Defense of Marriage Act which says states do not have to accept same-sex marriages from other states is counter to the full-faith-and- credit clause of the Constitution. Without directly answering the question Alito said that the issue is the subject of disagreement by constitutional scholars.

"Its unfortunate that Alito has given completely non-answers to questions," Laura Schwartz, chief legislative counsel for the Human Rights Campaign told 365Gay.com.

Sounded like an appropriate answer to me.

Note: liberal judicial nominees also refuse to publicly prejudge issues likely to come before them, as everyone in Washington knows.

More: In response to Democrats' charge that he never stands up for the "little guy," Alito pointed to his 2004 decision protecting a high school student from anti-gay bullying by letting him go to the school of his choice. The Advocate reports:

This was a case in which a high school student had been bullied unmercifully by other students in his school because of their perception of his sexual orientation, Alito said. He'd been bullied to the point of attempting to commit suicide, and his parents wanted to enroll him at an adjacent public high school. And the school board said, 'No, you can't do that,' and I wrote an opinion upholding their right to have him placed in a safe school, in an adjacent municipality.

Of course, standing up for gay kids against government educrats isn't what the Democrats had in mind. Which is why PFLAG and others ignored this decision in their anti-Alito screeds. (hat tip: gay patriot)

The ACLU argues, correctly, that his arrest was unconstitutional. I hope this experience leads Rev. Latham to come out.

According to Reuters, the top court of the Cherokee Nation has declined to strike down a marriage between two women performed in May 2004, before tribal law was changed to ban the practice. A lawyer for the tribal council says it's possible the U.S. government will have to recognize the marriage because of the sovereign status of Indian tribes, which could, in theory at least, make them eligible for federal tax benefits denied to date to gay couples.

DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act) vs. tribal sovereignty. We'll see how this one plays out.

IGF gets mentioned in an anti-gay marriage op-ed, from the Jan. 8 Minneapolis Star-Tribune. Charles H. Darrell of Minnesota for Marriage/Minnesota Family Council takes note of Dale Carpenter's argument that civil unions are an incremental step that will help pave the way for full marriage equality. Now, if only we could convince more gay activists of this!

More. Guess there's some confusion on ends and means. Commenter "Mickie" gets it, though:

[I]n many (not all) states, demanding full marriage through the courts has breed a backlash that led to state constitutional amendments that ban both marriage and civil unions. Whereas states that have instead gone the legislative route for civil unions, such as Connecticut, have not faced such as draconian backlash. And before too long their electorates will be poised to pass full marriage for same-sex couples.

The United Kindom has civil partnerships that are not marriage, but everyone is now calling them marriage. That's smart strategy. Not dumb politics.

Hope that helps clarify things. For more, read Steve Swayne's latest.

Ok, here's one more excellent Brokeback column, because it's by Pulitzer Prize winner Leonard Pitts Jr. and it backs up my take on Larry David's op-ed (which some commenters insisted was nothing but satire). And I'm very, very petty about such things.

Also, a very moving letter in our mailbag.

Most high school seniors support further restrictions on abortion, but are twice as likely as adults to support legal recognition of gay marriages. Those findings come from a highly regarded national poll by researchers at Hamilton College and Zogby International. It's further evidence that (1) we'll win the gay marriage fight in time, and (2) abortion and gay legal equality are not linked concepts except in the minds of certain activists.

The anti-gay right's latest bit of dangerous nonsense gets dissected by Jon Rowe over at Positive Liberty. At issue: a new book by David Kupelian titled The Marketing of Evil. In the section on gay rights, Kupelian suggests that the gay movement is following a "master plan" that was spelled out in a book by gay PR strategists back in 1990. That long-since out of print work is After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the '90s, by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen.

The funny thing is, while After the Ball was a smart book about using the mainstream media to counter negative stereotypes and promote honest representations of gay lives, it was dismissed by many self-styled progressive gay activists at the time as a "sell out" that advocated "assimilation" and substituted a "marketing strategy" for radical, grass-roots coalition building on the left. That right-wing conspiracy buffs think it was some sort of master plan would actually be funny if it weren't so hateful.

More Recent Postings
01/1/06 - 01/7/06

I'm not going to keep posting what are likely to be gazillions of interesting pieces on the film, but here are two before I sign off.

Gene Shalit's pan calls the film "wildly overpraised" and labels Jack Twist, played by Jake Gyllenhaal, a "sexual predator." What's the Today show got against this movie, anyway? Actually, Shalit has written supportively about his gay son, but clearly he still has issues with what gay men do under the covers. (Here's a link to view his review.)

On a more positive note, New York Daily News columnist Jack Mathews writes:

Like "Curb Your Enthusiasm's" Larry David, who voiced his tongue-in-cheek objections to "Brokeback" in a recent New York Times op-ed piece, I felt that "cowboys would have to lasso me, drag me into the theater and tie me to the seat" to make me watch a pair of range riders steam up a pup tent.

But I've now seen the movie three times (twice with my wife, if you have to know) and it is one of the most devastating Hollywood love stories of all time.

No word on whether Larry David was ever lassoed into the theater, though.
-- Stephen Miller

I don't get this protest. The AIDS Healthcare Foundation of Los Angeles is decrying this Viagra ad. "What are you doing on New Year's Eve?" a smiling gray-haired man asks in a full-pager that ran in the Wall Street Journal on Dec. 29. The text reads: "Fact: Viagra can help guys with all degrees of erectile dysfunction-from mild to severe."

"Not only does sending this reckless message contribute to the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, but it is also part of a pattern of irresponsible direct-to-consumer advertising by the drug industry," said Michael Weinstein, president of the AIDS group.

Either they're anti-sex on New Year's Eve, or just reflexively anti the drug industry (or the Wall Street Journal, or capitalism, or fun, or...). I'm sure Viagra is misused, by gays and others, as a party drug. But it has also enabled up to millions of older men to enjoy sexual relations again. The AIDS activists merely seem churlish.

Yet another religious conservative exposed. Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive! Yes, Pastor Latham is a sad hypocrite (or at least a lost soul mired in fear and self-loathing ). But why should anyone be subjected to a night in jail (prior to release on bail) and face up to a year in prison just for asking another male to join him in his hotel room for sex?

I guess trying to engage a prostitute is the alleged "crime," but I don't think it's routine for males soliciting sex from females (even if they turn out to be plainclothed cops) to face such draconian treatment. Welcome to supposedly post-sodomy law America!

And yes, I realize that Pastor Latham no doubt supported anti-prostitution and anti-sodomy laws, too.

More: The arrest occurred outside a gay resort, as noted in more detail in the posted comments.

Update and clarification: From the AP account, it seems the matter isn't about allegedly soliciting a male prostitute, just soliciting oral sex to occur in a hotel room. Welcome to Oklahoma, where apparently the Supreme Court's Lawrence ruling (voiding sodomy laws) doesn't hold.

Pastor Latham, a member of the Southern Baptist Convention's executive committee, claims the police are lying about the sex request. If that defense doesn't seem plausible, will his lawyers rely on Lawrence? Stay tuned.