IGF CultureWatch

In New York City's mayoral race, liberal Democrat Fernando Ferrer is running this ad against moderate Republican Mike Bloomberg. Here's an explanation from SteveSilver.net (hat tip: andrewsullivan.com.)

IGF contributing author Dale Carpenter guest blogs at The Volokh Conspiracy on same-sex marriage. This site is very popular with smart conservatives, so kudos to Dale.

By the way, Dale's posting was in response to an earlier, anti-gay marriage piece by the dreadful Maggie Gallagher. Libertarian Cathy Young has more to say about Gallagher and the debate over at Volokh, here.

First take on Bush's nomination of Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court: he's no John Roberts, unfortunately. The Advocate says that in 2001 he authored a decision that declared unconstitutional a public school district policy that prohibited harassment against students because of their sexual orientation or other factors. If we must force students into these government/educrate mis-run, taxpayer-money down-the-rathole monstrosities (known as "public education"), you'd think that policies prohibiting the bullying of gay kids, even if mostly ineffectual, would be a small positive. But noooo.

This may provide a misleading picture, or it may be an accurate indicator of who Alito is. We'll see. Harriet Miers, you're looking better and better!

Update: Some informative comments. I'm not taking a position at this point, but I do note that some civil libertarians believe the harassment policy Alito struck down was overly broad. He wrote in Saxe v. State College Area School District:

There is no categorical 'harassment exception' to the First Amendment's free speech clause....When laws against harassment attempt to regulate oral or written expression on such topics, however detestable the views expressed may be, we cannot turn a blind eye to the First Amendment implications.

It's also been noted that in another case, Shore Regional High School Board of Education v. P.S., Alito helped reverse a district court in order to uphold the claim of a student regularly called names such as "faggot," "gay," and "homo" that he was not afforded appropriate protection from harassment.

I'm not sure what to think, but I'm not accepting the activists' charges without further evidence. So onward to the hearings!
--Stephen H. Miller

The AP reports that Star Trek's Mr. Sulu, actor George Takei, has come out in an interview with Frontiers magazine. This continues the recent trend of late-in-life (ok, I won't say "over the hill") Hollywood B-list celebs coming clean about being gay-think Richard Chamberlain and Tab Hunter or, a bit earlier, the late Dick Sargent.

But while coming out before time passes by is now easier in the pop music world (from George Michael to Rufus Wainwright) and on reality TV (examples too numerous to mention), few successful young actors are willing to cross the line. More distressingly, while the number of gay roles in movies and TV has greatly increased, they're being played by actors who are either straight (as in Ang Lee's new "Brokeback Mountain") or closeted. Britain's Rupert Everett stands out as such an exception that he helps prove the rule.

Seeing straight actors playing gay, while I appreciate their willingness, always makes me feel queasy-sort of like watching Ricardo Montalban with heavy eye makeup playing Japanese in the film "Sayonara" back in the 50s. It was called "yellow face" and outlived the more obviously racist "black face" period. I guess we remain in the era of "gay face"- and gay actors coming out only when they have no more roles to lose.

More Recent Postings
10/23/05 - 10/29/05

It was probably all over for Harriet Miers once the Washington Post ran the following, which armed social conservatives with more ammunition against her:

In an undated speech given in the spring of 1993 to the Executive Women of Dallas, Miers appeared to offer a libertarian view of several topics in which the law and religious beliefs were colliding in court.

"The ongoing debate continues surrounding the attempt to once again criminalize abortions or to once and for all guarantee the freedom of the individual women's [sic] right to decide for herself whether she will have an abortion," Miers said.

Those seeking to resolve such disputes would do well to remember that "we gave up" a long time ago on "legislating religion or morality," she said. And "when science cannot determine the facts and decisions vary based upon religious belief, then government should not act."

Any Republican that anti-gay snip David Frum would vehemently oppose is probably OK in my book. But the social right has done her in despite her strong history as a pro-business litigator, while liberals actually seemed to hope for a far worse alternative they could more easily demonize for fundraising purposes. They'll probably get their wish.

Update-Hypocrites Alert. NGLTF, which would certainly have opposed Miers' confirmation (and that of any other nominee who did not swear fealty to Roe v. Wade), is shedding crocodile tears over her withdrawal. Ditto HRC, the large abortion-rights lobby that targets gay and lesbian donors.

IGF contributing author Dale Carpenter knows that the gay left chorus which shouts "bigots, bigots, go away" at conservative critics of gay marriage accomplishes little. Instead, he is engaging in an exchange of ideas (what a thought!) with conservatives fearful that gay marriage will irrerparably fray the social fabric. Carpenter argues quite forcefully the opposite is true, in his just posted piece for the conservative National Review Online, "The Bonds of Common Ground: Ten Areas of Agreement Among Conservatives on Marriage."

Carpenter's basic premise:

marriage would benefit gays, generally by encouraging long-term commitment among gays and particularly by settling gay men. It would therefore benefit our whole society.

In this, he echos Andrew Sullivan and Jonathan Rauch, whose take on "A Traditional Gay Wedding" we recently posted. Likewise, IGF contributing author John Corvino has been on the lecture circuit debating marriage with Focus on the Family--which is what GLAAD and other well-funded gay advocacy groups ought to be doing, but aren't.

It's interesting to see the principles shared among conservatives (straight and gay) who believe marriage is the bedrock of social stability and as such must be defended and promoted. In contrast, too many arguments advanced by gay activists deal with expanding "equal rights" and obtaining access to "government benefits." Those aren't irrelevant concerns, but the heart of the matter must firmly be on recognizing the value of marriage per se, and strengthening the institution by bringing gays under its fold.

In 2000, Matt Limon, an 18-year-old Kansas youth, received a 17-year prison sentence for having consensual sex with a 14-year-old friend. If his friend had been a girl, the maximum sentence would have been 15 months.

After five years suffering in prison, Limon will soon be free, thanks to a Kansas Supreme Court decision which (after many delays) ruled that the federal Supreme Court's 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision forbids disproportionate sentences for gays based on "moral disapproval" and anti-gay animus.

Why has the legal process taken so long to grant justice to Matt Limon? After Lawrence, the Kansas intermediate court that rendered the Limon verdict was ordered to revisit its conclusions. However, the intermediate court ignored Lawrence because it had been decided on "privacy" grounds, whereas the Limon case involved equal protection. The Kansas Supreme Court eventually reduced Lawrence to its facts and struck down the disproportionate sentencing.

As you may recall, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, in her Lawrence concurring opinion, rejected the privacy contention and, instead, based her decision on equal protection. I felt then that equal protection, especially if it had been the majority's basis, would better serve gays in future cases. Even non-gay specific sodomy laws could have been overturned under this standard on showing they were disproportionately applied to gays (as they were). But many, in the thrall of the need to defend abortion rights premised on the privacy contention behind Roe v. Wade, felt otherwise.

The Kansas ruling for Matt Limon is simply more evidence that equal protection, not privacy/Roe, will be the way forward.

More Recent Postings
10/16/05 - 10/22/05

Groups on the religious right have gone on the offensive against one of the leading lights in the campaign for limited government and lower taxes-Grover Norquist, the influential president of Americans for Tax Reform. Norquist's crime: speaking at a Log Cabin fundraiser. Reports the Christian right's CNSnews.com, Norquist

was the featured speaker at a fund-raising event for a group of homosexual Republicans last weekend. One pro-family leader called Norquist's appearance "an act of utter betrayal."

More than one religious right group is now demanding that he cease such activity across the board or risk their ongoing wrath (and a campaign to stymie his fundraising efforts).

This isn't the first LCR event Norquist has spoken at, and he has been explicit about saying that LCR and gay conservatives have a place in the large "leave us alone coalition" that he has been working to bring together. Which makes sense, since Norquist's single-minded focus is to achieve smaller government and lower taxes-a goal his group ostensibly shares with LCR.

Many Christian conservatives, however, don't seem to have a problem with big government, as long as it's used to force their moral code on the rest of the citizenry while channeling them large chunks of cash for their "faith based" social-welfare projects.

How all this plays out in Washington, where a group of Republican senators has risen in revolt over out-of-control spending, remains to be seen. But I believe the next presidential election cycle will be a real test: If Rudy Giuliani or John McCain (both of whom handily defeat Hillary in recent polls) do well running as gay-inclusive fiscal conservatives, it could be the first real opening to reclaim the GOP from the religious right in years.

McCain's unfortunate support for draconian limits on political speech/campaign financing makes him anathema to many libertarians and conservatives, but Rudy could be the man.

Dig down deep enough at Advocate.com and you can occasionally find something that's not totally lockstep lefty (ok, the ethnic discrimination angle probably did get this commentary in). It's by a gay Cuban-American deemed by some gay establishmentarians as "too butch" for the International Mr. Leather competition (which, foolish me, I had thought was all about "butchness").

Will Castillo, who won the title of Mr. Florida Leather 2005, calls himself a "passionate, masculine gay man" and notes that he has been "addressing gay male audiences who feel disenfranchised from the gay world due to not identifying with the dominant gay culture: feminized gay men." He says he was advised, when competing for the International Mr. Leather (IML) title, to be "less Fidel Castro and more Carmen Miranda" if he wanted to win, and that experienced IML hands:

cajoled me into swinging my hips, moving my arms, exaggerating my walk, and beaming a huge smile while waving wildly. I thought I was losing my mind. They told me, "It's a fag contest, honey! Queen it up!"

Castillo, who placed fourth in the IML contest, concludes, "Carmen Miranda can have her basket of fruit back to place firmly on her head. She looks better with it in high heels than I do."

While Castillo sees the criticism of his "machismo" as anti-Hispanic, it actually points to something far broader - the internalization of the feminist critique of masculinity to the point that even leather contests, apparently, aren't safe.

Look Back: My article "Masculinity Under Siege," although a bit dated (it was written in 1993), explores "the feminist critique of manhood" and its embrace by certain gay theorists on the cultural left.

The oh-so politically correct (in print) Village Voice is being sued by Richard Goldstein, defamer of gay nonlefties everywhere. Goldstein, who was fired last year, alleges sexual harassment and age discrimination, reports The Smoking Gun. Among his charges, the VV editor "forced plaintiff to sit in on private meetings held with another male manager while they made salacious comments concerning the heterosexual prostitution ads in the paper." Oh, the humanity.