In Another Blow, New York Court Say No.

A New York State appellate court has struck down a lower court ruling that found a right to same-sex marriage under the state's constitution. The appellate court held that there was no such right and that the lower court had overreached into the realm of the legislature.

I wonder if the case had been about the rights of marriage, instead of marriage itself, if the outcome might have been different. In Vermont, most famously, the state's highest court found gay couples to be entitled to the state-granted rights and obligations that married couples enjoy, while leaving it to the state legislature to devise a means to grant those rights (which it did, via the then-novel idea of civil unions). But in New York it was all about the "M" word.

Yet progress rarely comes in such big steps, and we pay a price for the rejection of incrementalism (which, despite initial lesbigay activist opposition, recently brought statewide marriage rights to gay couples via civil unions in Connecticut as a result of legislative action not forced by a court ruling). The enactment of Britain's new Civil Partnership Act is another example.

Not a Step Forward.

Washington Blade editor Chris Crain rightly takes aim at a Washington, DC, partnership bill just passed by the city council that would extend partnership rights and obligations to any two people, including brother and sister, so as to be "nondiscriminatory." The problem: instead of offering gay couples a limited step forward toward equality until such a time as marriage is accessible, it fulfils the worst nightmare of our critics by creating a "marriage lite" for straights that's a step down in terms of the traditional legal commitment (plus introducing a weird incest kind of blood relationship thing).

Sounds like Crain might have read this column of mine from back when, arguing that domestic partner benefits for gays are at best a stopgap measure (I'd now say incremental step), and offering such benefits to unmarried heterosexuals might in fact contribute to family breakdown by discouraging fully committed relationships.

Placating the Devil, Again.

You have to feel just a mite sorry for Ford Motor Co., which is trying to assert that it just happened to decide to pull ads for its Jaguars and Land Rovers from the gay press after meeting "several times" with the anti-gay American Family Association (which was threatening a boycott over the company's "support for the homosexual agenda"). The AFA wanted Ford to go a lot farther and, for instance, stop sponsoring gay pride events. So you can see how the company sort of said, "We won't do that, but we'll give you something." The fact that its Volvo brand will continue to advertise in the gay press shows just how finely they were trying to split hairs.

Now, the Human Rights Campaign and its allies are threatening counter-moves against Ford. That's fine. But the fact is that the AFA claims "3 million supporters" and the HRC claims "600,000 members," and both figures are wildly inflated. However the AFA managed to get to Ford dealers in the South and scare them a bit, which is why Ford (which is about to eliminate some 30,000 jobs to stave off bankruptcy) felt the need to capitulate just a little.

But if you're a company whose founder urged Hitler to find a final solution to the problem of world Jewry, you might take a bit more care about even symbolic acquiescence to organized bigotry.

Update: I may have let Ford off too easy. WardsAuto.com (as cited by the Washington Blade) reports that as part of the agreement between the AFA and Ford, Volvo ads will no longer be tailored to gay consumers and Ford agreed not to sponsor any future gay events. The worst thing about such cave-ins is that they embolded the bigots to go further and up the ante next time.

Update: Ford relents, at least on the ads.

No Way to End the Ban.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on Tuesday about whether it should overturn a law allowing the federal government to withhold grants from universities whose law schools bar military recruiters from their campuses. Opponents of campus recruiting argue that that (take a breath) just because their schools accept federal money does not give the federal government the right to withhold that money if the schools discriminate against the federal government's military recruiters because those recruiters discriminate against gays.

Interestingly, the anti-recruiters and their gay activist allies cite the Supreme Court's ruling in Boy Scouts vs. Dale (which they strongly condemned at the time), holding that a private organization has the right to exclude those deemed contrary to the organization's values. Another case cited allowed organizers of a St. Patrick's Day parade to exclude a gay-identified contingent.

Reportedly, even some of the liberal justices seem dubious of the claim that the federal government could not chose to withhold its grants, although the libertarian Cato Institute argues that expressive rights shouldn't be curtailed by a limited degree of government support, for either Harvard, the Boy Scouts, or St. Patraick's Day organizers.

But regardless of the merits of the legal arguments, gay opposition to military recruiting is awful politics, sending a message that gays seek to weaken the military during a time of war.

I can't think of a less effective way to achieve an end to the military's anti-gay ban. And I have no doubt that officers drawn from Harvard, Yale and other elite universities (particularly their law schools) would be the most likely to move the military to a more accepting position. But then, many who oppose recruitment on campus, I firmly believe, are using the gay angle as a pretext-if the military accepted gay recruits, they'd still be fighting against recruitment because they see Iraq as Vietnam and America as the enemy of world peace and oppressor of third-world peoples. And gay activists who don't share those leftwing views have none the less proved themselves willing dupes for that cause.

Update: George Will notes, correctly, that "Schools eager to ban military recruiters from a few hours of access to students who want to meet them have faculties that expose students to a one-sided bombardment of political views." And other liberal campus hypocrisies.

Remembering the Past.

I've been out of town attending to family matters over the past several days, but did catch this moving piece from the Washington Post on the life and recent death of Pierre Seel, one of thousands of gay men imprisoned and tortured by the nazis (he was forced to watch his lover being ripped to pieces by attack dogs), who later spoke up against clerical homophobia.

Shifting gears, I received an email titled "from gay hustler to pope." Hmmm. But alas, it was in reference to John Voight first making his mark in "Midnight Cowboy" and now playing John Paul II in an ABC TV flick.

More Recent Postings
11/27/05 - 12/3/05

Good for the Gander…

Madam Heidi Fleiss is reportedly planning to open a Nevada bordello "stud farm" featuring prime male beef, but catering to women. However, some are crying foul, alleging discrimination if men aren't also serviced:

Nevada lawmaker David Parks, who is gay, plans to ask for a legal opinion this month on whether Fleiss would be violating the state's anti-bias law by letting only women hire her studs.

Seems fair. (Note to libertarians: I fully support business owners' rights to establish the type of service they desire to provide, free of government coercion.)

The Left’s Rock and the Right’s Hard Place.

Gay conservatives/libertarians at Harvard don't exactly find themselves embraced by either the BGLTSA student "queer" group or by the local GOPers (who, as the Harvard Republican Club, use the moniker "HRC"). As quoted by the Crimson, one non-leftie opines, quite sensibly:

I don't think there's any reason being gay should lead you to support bigger government and high taxes. These are issues that have nothing to do with being gay.

But I guess it's not easy finding support for personal autonomy, limited government, property rights and voluntary (non-coercive) association on a lib-left campus with a smallish conservative opposition. Nor in the wider world polarized betwixt a highly partisan left and right. (hat tip: Rick Sincere)
--Stephen H. Miller

A Bit of Inclusiveness.

In his remarks commemorating World AIDS Day, President Bush included a sentence calling attention to the gay community's role in addressing AIDS:

Yet America still sees an estimated 40,000 new infections each year. This is not inevitable-and it's not acceptable. HIV/AIDS remains a special concern in the gay community, which has effectively fought this disease for decades through education and prevention. And the demographics of this disease continue to change. AIDS is increasingly found among women and minorities. Nearly half of the new infections are found in the African-American community.

The gay-inclusive statement is also included in a White House fact sheet. For a Republican conservative, that's a step forward. Will there be any supportive feedback to the president from our national organizations?

Also, in California, Gov. Arnold has appointed a lesbian former abortion-rights activist to be his new chief of staff. I'm sure that will go over big with social conservatives! And Daniel Zingale, former political director of the Human Rights Campaign, now serves as chief of staff to first lady Maria Shriver.

Meanwhile, in Dubai.

According to this report:

More than two dozen gay Arab men-arrested at what police called a mass homosexual wedding-could face government-ordered hormone treatments, five years in jail and a lashing, authorities said on Saturday....

On Friday the minister of justice and Islamic affairs, Mohammed bin Nukhaira Al Dhahiri, called on parents to be vigilant for "deviant" behaviour in their children.

... [A spokesman] said the Interior Ministry's department of social support would try to direct the men away from homosexual behaviour, including treatment with male hormones. "Because they've put society at risk they will be given the necessary treatment, from male hormone injections to psychological therapies," he said.

Isn't the United Arab Emirates supposedly one of the more "advanced" Arab countries?

Update: The U.S. State Department, reports the Washington Blade, issued a statement saying that "The United States condemns the arrest of a dozen same-sex couples in the United Arab Emirates and a statement by the [UAE] Interior Ministry spokesman that they will be subjected to government-ordered hormone and psychological treatment." The Blade reports further that "Last year's State Department human rights report chronicled several anti-gay abuses." A good sign of incremental but important progress.

Vatican Follies.

The document on gay priests has been released. It's not an outright ban, as some expected, but the decree holds that men with "deep-seated homosexual tendencies" or who fail to reject "gay culture" may not become priests. Men who have "overcome" tendencies that were "transitory" and who have remained celibate for three years before joining the seminary are still eligible.

The language is just ambiguous enough to allow it to be used, or not used, in an arbitrary and cruel fashion. But judging from this silly L.A. Times headline, "Vatican Document Bans Active Gays as Priests," you might think that prior to the document noncelibate gays had been deemed ok.

The Human Rights Campaign weighed in with a call for gay Catholics to speak out, which is fine, but their statement refers to the Vatican "Decision Banning Gays," which is not quite accurate (and if you're opposing a policy, you really should understand what that policy is). [Update: A subsequent HRC release got it right, correctly noting the policy is a "restriction of gays in the priesthood."]

To add insult to injury, the Vatican then came out with another official statement, charging that homosexuality risks "destabilizing people and society," has no social or moral value and can never match the importance of the relationship between a man and a woman. The more things change...