IGF CultureWatch

Blogger Jonathan Rowe looks at the case of a man fired by Allstate for posting an anti-gay-rights missive (that quoted the discredited statistics of Paul Cameron) on a socially conservative website. The fired guy is now claiming religious discrimination.

I think that, in general, companies shouldn't fire employees for away-from-work activities that don't break any laws unless the activity is truly egregious. Like being a Ku Klux Klan "Grand Kleagle," as was Robert Byrd, the still-intensely homophobic West Virginia senator. And while I'd argue private employers should have the legal right to fire employees if they feel they're just not working out, as a general principle discriminating on the basis of off-site political activities sets a bad precedent.

Liberals like to raise the "scandal" of the Hollywood blacklist, when in fact most (some argue all) of those blacklisted were active members of the Communist Party defending Stalin's party line - speaking of which, Cathy Young has a nice review, here, of the new book "Red Star Over Hollywood." I'd agree that blacklisting communists, dupes that they were (and many still are), only serves to make totalitarians appear as martyrs. Let's not do the same for homophobes.

Rowe, by the way, goes on to look at the larger issue of conservatives who claim that being gay should not be a protected class under anti-discrimination law but that religion should be, when in fact sexual orientation is far less of a "choice" than religious affiliation. He quotes an article of mine, which quotes, in turn, IGF contributing author David Boaz, on that matter.

More Recent Postings
6/19/05 - 6/25/05

The liberal bloc on the Supreme Court (joined, regrettably, by swing vote Kennedy), ruled the government is entitled to seize and bulldoze your home or business without your consent, in exchange for whatever it feels is a reasonable price, if well-connected private interests who covet your property can convince the government to issue the order (can you say "ka-ching").

Commented dissenter Sandra Day O'Connor: "Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner."

There are plenty of nightmare cases of homes and businesses being seized for ill-thought out corporate-welfare boondoggles. But as in the recent medical marijuana case, the liberal justices (joined then by big-government conservatives) would rather see consequences they disapprove of than risk suggesting that government power is subject to limits (because, hey, eventually they'll be back in power and calling the shots).

For some time now, Justice O'Connor (who was right on limiting the government's overreach and violation of personal rights when it came to prohibiting sodomy, overriding state medical use of marijuana laws, and now on property seizures) is the only High Court member who consistently recognizes that the constitution puts limits on how far government can go.

As Americans, we should be concerned about protecting all of our rights, in addition to "gay rights."

Update: As columnist George Will notes:

Liberalism triumphed yesterday. Government became radically unlimited in seizing the very kinds of private property that should guarantee individuals a sphere of autonomy against government.... Those on the receiving end of the life-shattering power that the court has validated will almost always be individuals of modest means. So this liberal decision...favors muscular economic battalions at the expense of society's little platoons, such as homeowners and the neighborhoods they comprise.

And in the comments zone, IGF contributing author Rick Rosendall reminds us that in Washington, D.C., this very type of government seizure is being used to wipe out the one area zoned for gay adult-entertainment clubs, which will now be bulldozed for a new taxpayer-subsidized stadium.

Islamic militants ("Your Terrorists Are Our Heroes") show up at NYC-area gay pride parades where they call for the castration of gay men, reports the New York Observer. Comments lesbian conservative Kristine Withers, "To me, it's synonymous with the Nazis recruiting on 42nd Street during World War II."

The paper quotes IGF contributing author Bruce Bawer, who comments on the European scene, "For liberals, the violent anti-gay hostility of their fundamentalist Muslim allies may be the first thing that really makes them realize they're not on the same page."

But if standing by gays means abandoning their blame the West, blame America, and blame the U.S. military mentality, I think you'll hear European lefties and American left-liberals saying, "Gays who...?"

Rick Sincere blogs about the case of "Zach," a 16-year-old from Bartlett, Tenn., who was sent to an "ex-gay camp" where young homosexuals are subjected to a rigorous discipline in an attempt to turn them straight.

If this is all on the level and not an elaborate hoax (note: Zach's last name isn't known), then it is indeed pretty gruesome. On his own blog, Zach writes that "I've been through hell. I've been emotionally torn apart for three days... I can't remember which days they were...time's not what it used to be," and he describes the camp's exhaustive set of rules, which include "No hugging or physical touch between clients. Brief handshakes or a brief affirmative hand on a shoulder is allowed."

No, it's not really equivalent to the death camps of the gulag, either, but since Zach is truly an innocent victim, the description is more appropriate than using the term to refer to a military prison for captured combatants in an ongoing war.

Update 1: via The Washington Blade. Tennessee to investigate the ex-gay camp, but "emotional abuse is difficult to prove in the state."

Update 2: Tennessee has "investigated" and finds "no evidence of child abuse at the camp," predictably.

More Recent Postings
6/12/05 - 6/18/05

Libertarian lawyer and college professor Jonathan Rowe agrees with Andrew Sullivan that Jews are a better analogy to gays than blacks. He argues that "although there certainly are similarities between blacks and gays, comparing the two in the context of a pro-gay argument often can be rhetorically ineffective."

And, quite interestingly, he notes:

Ironically, this notion that religious right posits - that gays aren't real minorities because they aren't economically impoverished - has strong leftist overtones. It was Mary Francis Berry who once infamously said, "Civil rights laws were not passed to protect the rights of white men and do not apply to them." ...

The conservative/libertarian view on the other hand thinks discrimination should be forbidden regardless of the economic status of the "group" in which a discriminated-against person is a member. . . . And that's because the conservative-libertarian view on this matter tends to be more individualistic as opposed to collectivistic. Sure whites and Asians as groups may be better off. But such discrimination occurs on an individual basis. And many whites and Asians who may be discriminated against are anything but economically privileged. The same thing can be said of gays.

Social conservatives are willing to veer left, it seems, if it serves to help inflame blacks against gays.

Update: Jonathan Rowe clarifies that libertarians are likely to be opposed to public (governmental) rather than private discrimination, but if there are going to be such laws, they should be interpreted to apply equally to all.

Remember when evangelists would preach the Gospel of personal redemption rather than promote the politics of anti-gay discrimination? Well, Billy Graham does. At age 86, here's how he's described in a Washington Post profile:

Cautious even in his more active years, Graham now seeks to shun all public controversies - preferring a simple message of love and unity through Jesus Christ. Asked about gay marriage, for instance, Graham replied that "I don't give advice. I'm going to stay off these hot-button issues."

Here's hoping his legacy will eventually be an inspiration to future evangelists.

Despite what some Democrats claim, ending government discrimination against gays requires making inroads in the GOP. And it can be done. The Washington Post recounts that U.S. Rep. Wayne Gilchrest, a Maryland Republican and former Marine sergeant, originally voted for "don't ask, don't tell" in 1993. But he now rejects that policy and is seeking to life the ban on gays in the military.

Gilchrest is only one of four Republicans who have joined with Democrats in co-sponsoring repeal legislation, but his strong record on veterans' affairs give his endorsement added significance. The repeal won't pass anytime soon, but its ultimate victory will depend on more GOP inroads being made.

This Wall Street Journal editorial hits the nail on the head in its analysis of the Democratic Party's current leadership, "which has arguably never been more overtly hostile to free markets, deregulation, tax reform and free trade than it is today."

And let's not forget, the party's current leadership "has made Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo its main policy touchstones for the war on terror." This week's outburst by Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., comparing U.S. military terror-prison guards with Nazis is only the latest incident.

Which is a very bad thing, given that this is also the party that - at least rhetorically - favors gay rights. Unless the Democrats can be drawn back toward the center and away from reflexive obstructionism, they will become increasingly marginalized - with their support for gay rights being seen as just more evidence of their capture by the left.

A Republican Party dominated by cultural reactionaries, and a Democratic Party dominated by appeasement-minded, anti-market reactionaries does not bode well for anyone's future.

Update: This isn't new, but political columnist Michael Barone (of U.S. News & World Report) makes some good points on how blogosphere politics have driven the Democrats to the left - and into an electoral cul de sac. He writes:

Now the big money comes from the left blogosphere and Bush-hating billionaires like George Soros. Dean gives them what they want. As Dean says, "I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for." Hate. But Bush hatred was not enough to beat Bush in 2004-while Democratic turnout was up, Republican turnout was up more-and doesn't seem likely to beat Republicans in 2006 and 2008.

An op-ed in Friday's New York Times, Onward, Moderate Christian Soldiers, is by John Danforth, an Episcopal minister and former Republican senator from Missouri - and recent addition to the Republican Unity Coalition's advisory board. He writes that "People of faith have the right, and perhaps the obligation, to bring their values to bear in politics, but:

Moderate Christians are less certain about when and how our beliefs can be translated into statutory form, not because of a lack of faith in God but because of a healthy acknowledgement of the limitations of human beings....

For us, religion should be inclusive, and it should seek to bridge the differences that separate people. . . . Christians who hold these convictions ought to add their clear voice of moderation to the debate on religion in politics.

It's a nice sentiment, but really, given the decline in the mainstream Protestant churches (due to, in large measure, a too-frequent celebration of secular leftism over spiritual substance), it's unclear how many moderate Christian soldier there actually are.

The original "Gay Patriot" has returned -- feisty as ever.

I envy the wide-ranging comments the GP site gets (helmed solo these past few months by "GP West"). This blog's comments zone is dominated by vitriol-spewers, and more than a few readers tell me they now avoid commenting because of it. I don't blame them, but I'm not sure what to do about it. As reader "Remy" said in explaining why he will no longer comment, "it's the tragedy of the commons" -- the destroyers ruining what's publicly accessible.

I guess one reasons our comments are so disparaging is that the GP site is clearly branded as a home for conservative gay thought, whereas many find their way here hoping for some kind of "independent" leftwing analysis, and are shocked, shocked to find a site that gives voice to center-right, conservative, and libertarian viewpoints. But it's the blog that truly sets them off - some visit every day to denounce whatever I write, often in multiple comment postings. Often, I don't even bother to read their latest round of insults, and I sympathize with those of you who don't, either.