IGF CultureWatch

California lawmakers on Tuesday became the first in the country to approve a bill allowing full same-sex marriages. Now come the real battles. Gov. Arnold is under big-time conservative pressure to veto the measure. That would be a shame. But even if he does allow it to become law, California voters will likely face two ballot initiatives next year, to ban gay marriage, or to ban both gay marriage and domestic partnerships.

The betting money, unfortunately, is that voters will keep DPs but scrap marriage equality. Nowhere have voters, to date, failed to ban gay marriage when given the chance, and when initiatives have included DPs, they've been banned as well.

The worst case scenario: voters scrap existing domestic partnerships, which in California confer virtually all state rights and benefits associated with marriage.

In 2000, California voters roundly approved Prop. 22, which altered the Family Code to limit marriage to a man and a woman, by a vote of 61.2 to 38.8, and the legality of that measure is now in the state courts. If there's a Schwarzenegger veto, he'll probably cite the voters' expressed opinion. Coming up, we'll see how things go when a full-blown constitutional ban is on the initiative table.

We know that relying on liberal courts to push through marriage equality is a recipe for backlash. But will a liberal state legislature's approval fare better with voters?

Update: Gay Patriot blogs:

I'm torn between the will of the people and the will of the elected representatives. I think this is an important step. But what do the 61% of Californians who voted against same-sex marriage in the year 2000 think about their elected representatives? I don't know. I admit I struggle with it.

And one of his commenters, Joe, writes:

I fear their move is an overreach-one that will be repudiated at the polls (initiative process). It was a purely symbolic, unnecessary move because they already passed strong civil unions last year. Led by Democrats, they did it basically to say "screw you" to conservatives (and California voters) who don't like gay marriage. I would rather they hadn't done it at this time. I say this as a longtime supporter of gay marriage. Most of society (in your state) has to be on board with you, for the new law or institution to work.

If things turn out badly regarding next year's referendum, we'll recognizes these, in hindsight, as valid concerns.

It's disappointing to read that John McCain is supporting a state constitutional amendment in Arizona to bar gay marriage. But could McCain, running for the GOP presidential nomination, be expected to fall to the left of the "progressive" Democratic presidential nominee on gay marriage? Remember, Kerry/Edwards supported anti-gay-marriage amendments in Massachusetts, Missouri and elsewhere. If the party of the left, backed by national gay activist groups and receiving copious amounts of gay dollars, endorses anti-gay amendments, how high a bar is set for moderate Republicans to do the right thing?

Dale Carpenter's newly posted column takes a look at the attacks by certain gay groups against Supreme Court nominee John Roberts-now nominated to be Chief Justice-who helped gay attorneys win a landmark Supreme Court case. He writes:

The unofficial reason for gay groups' opposition has nothing to do with Roberts' record on gay rights and everything to do with the politics of abortion and progressive "coalition building." The left has decided to oppose anyone President Bush names to the Court. . .

I'd add that having surrendered their credibility by going ballistic over Roberts, a nominee moderate senate Democrats are poised to support, what cachet do these groups expect to have if Bush nominates a real, gay-unfriendly social conservative to fill the newly vacant opening?

More "bandwidth attacks" on our server, knocking us out again for a few days. We're back now, and trying to erect adequate defenses. Stay tuned.

More Recent Postings
8/21/05 - 8/27/05

Jonathan Rauch, who in his spare time volunteers as IGF's co-managing editor, focuses his column in National Journal on why Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), one of the senate's leading advocates against gay marriage (and against sodomy law repeal, for that matter) is "the anti-Reagan" at odds with his party's Barry Goldwater/conservative legacy (note to our left-liberal readers: that's meant as a critique). Writes Rauch of Santorum's new book, It Takes a Family:

Where Goldwater denounced collectivism as the enemy of the individual, Santorum denounces individualism as the enemy of family. . . .

In an interview with National Public Radio last month, he acknowledged his quarrel with "what I refer to as more of a libertarianish Right" and "this whole idea of personal autonomy." In his book he comments, seemingly with a shrug, "Some will reject what I have to say as a kind of 'Big Government' conservatism."

Which, as Rauch points out, is exactly what it is.

Also taking a look at Santorum's new opus, blogger Tim Hulsey comments that Santorum uses Reagan's rhetoric to destroy Reagan's smaller-government legacy, and that:

Reagan in his prime would have had the perfect four-word review of Santorum's book: There you go again."

More Recent Postings
8/21/05 - 8/27/05

Ideological activists on both the left and right aren't shy about using gut-wrenching human tragedy to advance their zealotry. Witness those on the anti-gay religious right who blame gays for the destruction of New Orleans, and those on the climate-alarmist left who blame "global warming," which even the New York Times initially couldn't swallow, although its anti-Bush-at-all-costs editorialists seemly could. (Hat tip: James Taranto's Best of the Web -- take a look.)

Back after a week's vacation, so I'm a bit late commenting on this story - about a gay Iraqi lamenting that life was better under Saddam's absolute dictatorship. But I think it raises an interesting point. Iraq has its first democratically elected governing assembly, which may enact a constitution that, by recognizing Islamic law, leads to persecutions of gays. (Of course, under Saddam, if you were a Kurd or Marsh Arab, you were subject to organized genocide, and any dissidence, even among the favored Sunni, would get you and your family - small children included - imprisoned, tortured and executed, but that's another story).

Here in the U.S., too, some gays may worship at the altar of the Democratic Party, but fear and loathe democratically elected governments that are against expanding legal equality for gays (and hence, they favor a strategy focused on achieving judicial decrees from left-leaning judges that can be enforced against the intransigent electorate).

So, is democracy good for gays?

More Recent Postings
8/14/05 - 8/20/05

Four leading Democratic Party front groups that specialize in targeting gay donors have come out against a Supreme Court nominee who helped gays achieve one of our seminal victories of the last decade.

If Roberts is sunk, one thing I can assure you, the next nominee won't be as good on gay issues -- but then again, do you honestly think that matters one bit to groups that see their real mission as advancing a broad-based, big-government "progressive" left-liberal agenda via the Democratic Party?

Updates: The Washington Post's account. John and Jane Q. Moderate must be scratching their heads, wondering why "the gays" are against a judge who volunteered his efforts on behalf of their cause. Or maybe the public is more savvy and understands what most (not all) "gay" activists actually are.

I note that Lambda Legal Defense did not sign the anti-Roberts statement, and neither did GLAAD, which has a new moderate-Republican executive director.

A good letter on abortion and activists' hypocrisy, in our mailbag.

And some thoughtful comments (and others less so) in the comments zone.

In our mailbag it's suggested that the religious right is beyond the pale of debate because "bigots [aren't] capable of dialogue." I respond that "to refuse to confront the ideas of your opponents is a great, big cop-out," and that "The religious right is not some splinter, Nazi sect; millions of hard-working, salt-of-the-Earth Americans find spiritual solace in its rituals and worldview. I don't believe we should simply give up on trying to reach them (the religious right's adherents, if not its leadership)."

Yes, we were down for nearly a full day, starting Thursday evening, after our server was attacked - again. Our team of wonderful unpaid volunteers took many, many hours away from their lives to get things up and running. We owe them a great, big THANKS.

We're hopeful things are now stabilized (if not, I guess you won't be reading this). For those who saw the message "Access Denied," it was nothing personal.

I'll be traveling for the next week out of country, but will try to post if the laptop can manage it. If not, see you next week!
--Stephen H. Miller