Gays and Catholic Schools.

The Los Angeles Times has this story about a gay couple in Orange County, informed by the Catholic school their sons attend that they are forbidden to "present themselves as a couple at school functions." Part of me is glad to see gay Catholics take on their church's homophobia. But at the same time, it's a private school premised on propagating the Vatican line, and if that's what the other parents want (which seems to be the case, although given the authoritarian nature of their church, who knows?), then why not send the kids to a nice inclusive private school instead?

I'm not being flippant; freedom of association means that the homophobes get to associate amongst themselves, too.

Beyond Left and Right?

IGF author and Yalie James Kirchick passed along an interesting (if long) analysis by Yale junior Daniel Koffler in the leftwing publication Dissent, titled "On the New Student Politics."

Koffler wants to save the left from its excesses (campus speech codes, for example, and "The transformation of the left into a mouthpiece for every sort of cultural grievance, whether legitimate or not"). But it's worth noting that he finds among today's students (or perhaps it's mainly Ivy Leaguers) that:

Though there are important differences, the struggle for gay rights is something like my generation's version of the civil rights struggle. Left, center, and yes, right as well, the prevailing consensus among college students, if vague and only half-articulated, is the idea that powerful people older than we have perpetuated a gross injustice, and that of the two major political parties, one is contemptible in its cowardice while the other endorses a constitutional validation of second-class citizenship.

And he sees something of a new "alternative politics" emerging:

This politics assumes as its foundation the inherent worth of individual rights and strives toward the maximization of individual freedom. The beliefs that define it and cluster around it - recognition of gay rights, abolition of arbitrary discrimination, the end of the drug war and the legalization of soft drugs, the curtailment of content regulation in the media..., the belief in the inherent worth of classical liberal values, and the willingness to defend them by force against real external threats &#8212 are thus analytically connected to each other as expressions of the principle of liberty-maximization.

Of course, students always think they're hatching a "new politics," but let's at least celebrate the possibility that a sort of new "liberty-maximizing" alignment might be afoot.

Jacko Wacko.

I haven't weighed in on the Michael Jackson spectacle, and really don't want to do so now. Cleary, the guy has got, er, "issues." Whether the prosecution proved its child molestation case wasn't so clear from my (admittedly) cursory tracking of the trial.

But in light of the controversial acquittal, you may want to revisit James Kirchick's article posted last September, Michael Jackson, Yale's 'Queer Theory' Post Boy, about how professors of "queer studies" have lauded Jackson for his "subversion" of traditional gender and sexual roles.

Moving Up.

Republican Congressman Christopher Cox of California has been nominated by President Bush to become the new chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Cox is a fiscal conservative and a federalist. And he not only voted "no" on the constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, but penned an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal titled "The Marriage Amendment Is a Terrible Idea."

Many liberals, however, are gunning for Cox, blasting him as "pro business" (which is about the worst epithet they can think of). Conservative columnist George Will, however, has come to his defense, writing:

The [Washington] Post's headline on his nomination said: "Congressman Has Taken Pro-Business Stances on Issues." Who today, one wonders, is "anti-business"? And what does that mean?

A [New York] Times columnist disapprovingly said Cox "is a big-business advocate." Leaving aside the vacuity of such labels - what might it mean to be an "advocate" against "big business" and its big numbers of employees. . .?

Here's hoping the move to the SEC is just a step for Cox toward even more prominence on the national level, and within the GOP.
-- Stephen H. Miller

A Foundation for a Bigger Tent.

The Republican Unity Coalition (RUC) looks like it may be gearing up again to take on homophobes who think the GOP ought to remain their exclusive club. The RUC just announced that former Republican Sen. John Danforth of Missouri, who cautioned his party recently about the influence of the religious right, has joined its advisory board.

Other RUC advisory board members include former President Gerald R. Ford, David Rockefeller and former Wyoming Sen. Alan K. Simpson, who serves as board chairman. The group, which describes itself as "for gay and straight 'big tent' Republicans, opposes the anti-gay constitutional amendment and seeks to make sexual orientation "a non-issue" in the GOP.

But they've certainly got their work cut out for them - for example, Danforth's own successor in the Senate, Jim Talent, joined 26 other Senate Republicans in co-sponsoring the proposed amendment to ban states from letting gays marry.

Update: The Log Cabin Republicans score a feature story in the Los Angeles Times magazine. The group's Patrick Guerriero suggests that when it comes to the battle for an inclusive GOP, "The drama is only at intermission."
-- Stephen H Miller

More Recent Postings
6/05/05 - 6/11/05

More Marriage: A Conservative Idea.

IGF contributing author Dale Carpenter shares some insights into why allowing gays to marry is a "deeply conservative idea," in an interview with columnist Craig Westover in the St. Paul Pioneer Press (take 30 seconds for the required registration, or read it on Westover's blog).

Dale's key point: "Gay marriage advocates have to do a better job explaining how gay marriage is a deeply conservative cause. And we have to do that by appealing to our fellow citizens, not by running to the courts."
- Stephen H. Miller

Not Texas.

In quite a contrast to the lone star state, the New York GOP has rebuffed a state senator who sees gay Republicans as disloyal. Queens senator Serphin R. Maltese tried to block the Log Cabin Republicans from obtaining greater power within the state party organization, reports the New York Times, but

The move against the gay Republicans was rebuffed by other party members, led by the state chairman, Stephen J. Minarik, and the Manhattan chairman, James Ortenzio, who both argued that the party should have a "big tent" image heading into 2006.

The GOP will have to confront the bigots at some point, and it's good to see some steps in this direction.

Whatever you think about McCain, if he runs it could galvanize the big tenters to try to take the party back from the grip of the evangelicals. But I just hope they don't turn wishy washy and "moderate" (i.e., liberal) on deregulation and limited government but instead offer a fiscally conservative, socially libertarian alternative that could draw support from both the left and the right.

More Recent Postings
6/06/05 - 6/12/05

Get Out of Town: Gay Vets Invited to Leave Texas.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry suggests that gay veterans unhappy with his proposed anti-gay constitutional amendment should move elsewhere, reports the Southern Voice.

The right-wing Texan had been asked what he would tell gay war veterans returning from Iraq. "I'm going to say Texas has made a decision on marriage and if there's a state with more lenient views than Texas, then maybe that's where they should live," Perry declared.

Not all Republicans believe their party should be an auxiliary of the religious right, but those who do clearly have decided that appealing to bigotry trumps the need to give the highest respect to soldiers who have risked their lives in the defense of liberty.

Update: A Washington Post editorial says Perry's remark dishonors Texas.

Grasping Government, Again.

Under the principle of "eminent domain," local, state and federal governments can force property owners to sell their land if the government decides it's in the government's (er, the "peoples") interest that they do so. In Washington, D.C., an outlying area is home to a number of gay clubs that now stand in the way of a new stadium, and the city's liberal mayor and city council are forcing club owners to get out even if it means the loss of their livlihood.

These are successful businesses operating in the one area where the government's draconian zoning laws had, to date, tolerated their existence. But apparently if you're deemed "sleazy" by the state then you're not entitled to any respect for your property rights.

First they came for the strip clubs...