IGF CultureWatch

My only reaction to the Harriet Miers nomination is to be underwhelmed but not to see any obvious red flags. But I was amused by the Exodus Ministries flap. When President Bush mentioned the voluntary organizations that Miers is affiliated with, one was Exodus Ministries, which caused some blogosphere commotion until it was clarified that Exodus Ministries is a Christian outreach program that helps prisoners get their lives together, and has no relationship with Exodus International, the so-called "ex-gay" group. The other interesting factoid is that because she is middle-aged and unmarried, she is already, without any evidence, being labeled a closet case by some "liberals."

Update: Andrewsullivan.com passes along a tidbit from the online New Republic that Meirs apparently submitted a report to the American Bar Association's House of Delegates that including this recommendation:

Supports the enactment of laws and public policy which provide that sexual orientation shall not be a bar to adoption when the adoption is determined to be in the best interest of the child....

But no matter; she will refuse to promise to support Roe v. Wade, and so gay activists will oppose her.

More Recent Postings
9/25/05 - 10/1/05

Opines social conservative pundit Rod Dreher: "We are losing the gay marriage fight, and, in fact, have lost it already, though not all of us know it yet. When the acceptance of civil-unions protections for gay couples is the conservative position, then we have been defeated." (Hat Tip: RichTafel.com)

Further: As the Washington Post reports, the advent of civil union ceremonies in Connecticut, granting all the state (but not federal) benefits/responsibilities of matrimony, "seemed too low-key to be a milestone in a cultural fight that has divided the nation." That's in marked contrast to the protests that ensued when Vermont instituted civil unions and Massachusetts provided for same-sex marriage.

Unlike domestic partnerships elsewhere, civil unions are more akin to marriage in that the state issues licenses, and the unions are solemnized by a justice of the peace who pronounces the couple "partners in life."

The National Gay & Lesbian Task comes completely unhinged as it "deplores" John Roberts' "outrageous" confirmation. That this is one of our leading national organizations should be a deep embarrassment to anyone who is gay.

Arnold says:

I am returning Assembly Bill 849 without my signature because I do not believe the Legislature can reverse an initiative approved by the people of California.

I am proud California is a leader in recognizing and respecting domestic partnerships and the equal rights of domestic partners. I believe that lesbian and gay couples are entitled to full protection under the law and should not be discriminated against based upon their relationships. I support current domestic partnership rights and will continue to vigorously defend and enforce these rights and as such will not support any rollback.

California Family Code Section 308.5 was enacted by an initiative statute passed by the voters as Proposition 22 in 2000. Article II, section 10 of the California Constitution prohibits the Legislature from amending this initiative statute without a vote of the people. This bill does not provide for such a vote.

The ultimate issue regarding the constitutionality of section 308.5 and its prohibition against same-sex marriage is currently before the Court of Appeal in San Francisco and will likely be decided by the Supreme Court.

This bill simply adds confusion to a constitutional issue. If the ban of same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, this bill is not necessary. If the ban is constitutional, this bill is ineffective.

That certainly won't please critics, and shouldn't (Log Cabin issued a statement expressing its "deep disappointment"). But it's not the traditional Republican gay-baiting, either, and will help take the wind out of the sails of the proposed anti-gay marriage/anti-partnership constitutional amendment(s) when it/they come up for a vote.

We've posted two new pieces on the latest edict from Rome. Want more? Ex-Catholic Rick Rosendall weighs in with his insights, here.

Further: Columnist James Carroll writes in the Boston Globe on "A Catholic Moment of Truth," and that:

the coming instruction is regarded as a catastrophe in the making. With boards of Vatican-appointed investigators poised to swoop down on American schools in which new priests are trained, interrogations of candidates and loyalty tests for teachers already betray a nostalgia for the bygone era of thought-control and snitching. A formally licensed obsession with homosexuality will push the investigation into a realm, as one senior priest put it to me, more of Joseph Stalin than Jesus Christ.

--Stephen H. Miller

As recounted in this Detroit Free Press editorial:

Gay couples scored a big victory Tuesday in a judge's ruling that last fall's [Michigan] constitutional amendment barring marriage between two men or two women does not jeopardize health care benefits afforded such couples. Even though Michigan is a long way from recognizing marriage equality, it cannot outlaw equitable health coverage.

In other words, the state and local governments-as well as private-sector employers-can extend health benefits to employees' partners.

That's good; but permitting (or at least not constitutionally prohibiting!) civil unions or marriage would be much better. As often noted on this site (see here, for instance), if conservative marriage defenders really wanted to safeguard the institution, they'd realize that letting gays wed would do more to strengthen marriage than a prohibition that, by necessity, leads to providing spousal benefits to the unwed, both straight and gay.

Still, at least one of the most pernicious aspects of these overly broad anti-gay amendments (none of which, to date, has ever failed to pass when put to a popular vote) was dealt a major setback.

Al-Qaida has purportedly launched a news program via the Internet. According to the Washington Post account:

The anchorman, who said the report would appear once a week, presented news about the Gaza Strip and Iraq. . . . A copy of the Koran, the Muslim holy book, was placed by his right hand and a rifle affixed to a tripod was pointed at the camera.

Then came this weather report:

"The whole Muslim world was filled with joy" [after Katrina], the anchorman said. He went on to say that President Bush was "completely humiliated by his obvious incapacity to face the wrath of God, who battered New Orleans, city of homosexuals."

Pat Robertson, met Bin Laden.

Blade newspapers editor Chris Crain penned this editorial defending ideological diversity - that is, inclusion of gay conservatives - in his papers. At issue: a flood of negative pushback from rather illiberal gay "liberals" after he ran viewpoint columns such as this.

More Recent Postings
9/18/05 - 9/24/05

I rather like Connecticut's suggested wording for the pronouncement of civil unions, which become legal in that state next weekend. At the end of ceremonies justices are advised to pronounce couples "partners in life" rather than "husband and wife."

To date, as the Washington Post story notes, Connecticut is the first state, without court pressure, to pass a civil union law conferring the same state (but not federal) rights as marriage. Vermont is the only other state that allows civil unions; Massachusetts is the only state that allows same-sex marriages.

Dale Carpenter's newly posted take on the governator's pending veto of California's marriage bill is here.

Jeff Cook, a gay small-government Republican, is challenging Rep. Sue Kelly, a GOP big spender, for New York's Hudson Valley congressional seat. Good for him! Kelly not only supported the pork-laded transportation boondoggle and favors expanding federal government funding for "the arts," but she also voted for the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment. Wrong on everything, she is (as Yoda might say).

"I have become really concerned in the last couple of years about the direction of some of the leaders in our party," Cook told The Hill. "If the Republican Party is unwilling . . . to stand up to the trappings and the temptations of big government, then who will? We've got to have a dividing line."

Cook opposes "larger and larger government" in both the fiscal and social realms:

he opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment on the grounds that it's unconstitutional and contrary to his small-government philosophy.

Striking a careful ideological balance, Cook said families, not government, should make life's most important decisions - about schools, for instance- but offered an expansive view of "family" including adoption by gay couples.

Beating an incumbent is a tall order, but I'm glad to see someone advocating a consistent view of limited government and calling the GOP home to its roots (as the anti-slavery party, remember?).

More on Cook from Boi from Troi and Rick Sincere. And here's the campaign's website.

Further: A commenter notes this item on the race from the conservative RedState.org site