IGF CultureWatch

The FDA is preparing to launch a rule recommending that any man who has had sex with another man in the previous five years be barred from serving as an anonymous sperm donor. North Dallas Thirty argues that the media has made this sound much more foreboding than it is. Still, if during airport security searchers you're not allowed to treat young Arab men any differently than Midwestern grandmas, does the public health really demand such a broad brush when it comes to singling out gay men?

Many will claim this is yet another attack by the Bush administration against gays, so let's keep in mind that the same exclusionary policy now proposed for sperm bank donations has long applied to blood bank deposits - and the former Democratic administration thought that was just fine.

Washington Blade editor Chris Crain was gay-bashed in Amsterdam, the gay-welcoming capital of a country where gays enjoy legal equality. But his attackers weren't Dutch. He was spat on and beaten by men with heavy accents, apparently Moroccan immigrants, upset that he was holding hands with his boyfriend. In the wake of the murder of gay politician Pim Fortuyn (who declared Islamic immigration a threat to Dutch tolerance toward gays) and liberal filmmaker Theo Van Gogh (who was making a movie about the treatment of women under Islam), it's a reminder of why anti-western intellectuals preaching multicultural relativism are so wrong.

Rick Rosendall wrote this column three years ago about the Fortuyn murder, reckoning, "There is nothing progressive about refusing to distinguish cultures that persecute gays from those in which we have thrived."

Update 1: Crain published a near-identical version of his story in the current issue of the Blade, except for one changed detail [in the print version]. His description of his attackers now omits the the fact that they were not Dutch natives but had "Moroccan features." That sop to political correctness distorts the account, misinforms readers, and diverts attention from the real problem (anti-gay Muslim immigrants, not bigoted Dutchmen). If we can't name the problem, how on earth can we confront it?

Further Addendum: Rick Rosendall notes, correctly, that the online version of the editorial does now say the attackers had Moroccan features and heavy accents, as the original Blade Blog item did. However, the printed version, in the May 6 issue distributed last Friday, omits this sentence but otherwise is identical. So, why leave it out of the print edition?

Update 2: Friday, May 6, marked the third anniversary of Pim Fortuyn's assassination, remembered in this posting at PeakTalk.

Cincinnati Reds reliever Joe Valentine recently revealed that he was raised by a lesbian couple who have been together now for 30 years - and the response from the public, the media and his teammates has been a resounding "no big deal":

"I've gotten good feedback [from teammates]," Valentine said. "A lot of guys noticed and read it. They said, 'That's pretty cool. That's a pretty awesome thing.' That's really it."

He adds, "At least people know there are different ways to be raised."

There's still a long way to go, but this is another signal of how things are changing.

The military's ban on openly gay enlisted personnel is odious on many levels, as IGF contributing author Paul Varnell reminds us. But is barring the military from recruiting on elite liberal college campuses a productive way to fight the ban? Only in some bizarro politically correct universe. Instead of educating America that gay people want to serve their country but can't, to the country's detriment, broadcasting images of effete ivy academics and their pampered charges, reeking of contempt for the military and dismissive of the war on terror, only sends the message that gays are part of the Michael Moore-Move On (i.e., Moore-on) cultural left.

The Supreme Court has now agreed to consider whether the government can withhold federal funds from colleges that bar military recruiters. Whatever way the court rules, the media coverage will only reinforce exactly the wrong message about gays, activists and our "supporters."

A few months back, IGF contributing author James Kirchick, writing from the belly of the beast at Yale, shared his thoughts on the campus recruiting ban. He wrote:

In addition to the general anti-military sentiment that is so prevalent on this campus, now one may be labeled a "homophobe" if he merely wants to discuss job opportunities with a military recruiter in a law school classroom. ... If gay advocates ever wish to change the military's unconscionable policy, they would be well advised to encourage, and not hamper, military recruitment at a socially progressive campus such as Yale. ... While claiming to be leading the fight for gay equality by snubbing their noses at the military, sympathizers of the gay cause are actually harming the movement's prospects.

It's worth re-reading.

Update 1: A boisterous debate in the comments zone, where "Remy" opines:

to deny that the academic left isn't reeking of anti-military venom is simply absurd. And that's why the whole "killers off campus" thing is terrible for gays to get wrapped up in.

Here's the headline being broadcast Mr. & Mrs. America, thanks to the campus activists and the gay establishment that's gone along with them: "GAYS OPPOSE MILITARY RECRUITING." Put it in a box and label it "Ways to ensure that the military ban against gays stays in place."

Update 2: Michael M. Rosen writes at TechCentralStation:

in order to cultivate change, infiltrating the culture from within is generally more effective than railing against it from without. Can it really be doubted that the presence of Ivy League hearts and minds in the upper echelons of military rank would have a significant impact? Sadly, the Ivory Tower is effectively reinforcing the very policies it abhors.

In the nation's capital, the D.C. attorney general issued an advisory opinion saying same-sex couples married in Massachusetts can file a joint D.C. tax return. Unfortunately, as the Washington Blade reports, Sen Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), a staunch opponent of gay marriage, chairs the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on the District, which must approve the D.C. budget and which has the power to attach anti-gay amendments to D.C. appropriations bills.

Some local activists are urging D.C. to pursue marriage recognition nonetheless (as one puts it, "If Brownback is going to do something bad, then we should come back and do something stronger. At some point D.C. residents have to stand up for their rights"). But the local Gay & Lesbian Activist Alliance - whose leadership includes IGF contributing author Rick Rosendall - is urging Mayor Anthony Williams to resist releasing an opinion stating whether D.C. has legal authority to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.

As I've argued before, spousal rights are best achieved by working in the various states through popularly elected representatives (see, for example, Dale Carpenter's latest, Winning the Right Way in Connecticut).

But in the case of D.C., which is only a "semi-democracy," I don't much see the point in poking the congressional lion and risking the rollback of gains that have already been made. Right now, this battle is better fought in the states.

Update: Rick Rosendall has more on D.C. developments, in the comments zone.

More Recent Postings
4/24/05 - 4/30/05

This report from Maggie Gallagher's anti-gay marriage website analyzes data from the latest Gallup polls, which show a drop in support for same-sex marriage:

After eighteen months of intense public scrutiny, polls show strong and increasing opposition to same-sex marriage. Between June 2003 and March 2005, opposition to gay marriage rose from 55 percent to 68 percent in Gallup polling. In the last 18 months, the proportion of Americans who support a constitutional amendment defining marriage has also risen seven points from 50 to 57 percent.

I know, the website is not exactly unbiased, but I've seen reference to these Gallup numbers elsewhere and no counter-explanation on any of the gay sites. A knowledgeable poll-watcher tells me Gallagher, unfortunately, seems to have it right. If that is in fact the case, then the silence from gay groups in the face of bad news is just as worrisome as their to-date less than successful efforts to garner public support for the cause of marriage equality.

Update: The numbers get debated, as does the wording of the poll questions, in the comments zone. Also noted: GLAAD did weigh in on Gallup's findings.

It turns out the anti-gay Seattle minister who met twice with Microsoft officials and threatened the company over its support for a gay rights bill is black, as presumably are at least some members of his congregation/Microsoft employees whom the company cited as lobbying against its pro-gay stance. Why does this matter (and why was the press amiss in leaving it out of earlier reports)? Because it could help explain Microsoft's decision to shift into "neutral" on the legislative issue - with executives feeling pulled between two minorities, both with "diversity" claims.

Update 1: In the comments area, "Remy" writes:

While Gates and Ballmer would have had no truck whatsoever with a white anti-gay bigot, they let Microsoft have two meetings with this guy. Why? Because they are very sensitive to being perceived as a group of privileged whites who don't pay enough respect to blacks. The far right has become very shrewd about using the race card against gays, and MS fell right into the trap.

As for the media not reporting the preacher was black, that's certainly true of the gay media reports. I understand they don't want to be seen as inflaming prejudice, but they missed the story on the role that "the race card" played. How can we respond to the race card if we're not allowed to be informed that's it part of the game?

I agree.

Update 2: Microsoft now backs the gay rights bill. Notes the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

some say Microsoft's recent indecisiveness could hurt the company's image or - worse yet - make it susceptible to future attacks from special interest groups.

Angry gays, in this case, trump angry anti-gays. For now...

IGF contributing author David Boaz, who wrote the book on libertarianism, provides an astute and provocative look at how anti-libertarian the government of Virginia was, is and likely will remain, in a new article posted at Reason Online.

As evidence of the state's century-long heritage of interfering with love and marriage, Boaz cites - among other examples - Virginia's former law barring mixed-race couples from marrying (only struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1967) and its current fixation on nixing even private contractual relationships that might smack of gay unions. All of which adds up to, in Boaz's words, "an arrogant desire by the state to control private relationships." Old habits, apparently, die hard in the Old Dominion.

Microsoft is drawing fire for withdrawing support for proposed Washington state legislation that would ban discrimination against gays and lesbians in employment, housing and insurance. The company, which supported the bill last year, has changed is stance to neutral, citing conflicting views among its employees and shareholders. Others cite a boycott threat by a local religious rightist minister, whose Seattle congregation includes many company employees.

Microsoft was one of the first to provide domestic partner benefits, and has long included sexual orientation in its own anti-discrimination policy. Those internal policies will not change, and both chief executive Steve Ballmer and chairman Bill Gates say they personally support the bill. Nevertheless, the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center called on the company to return a prize it received from the group in 2001.

The libertarian in me has always felt that the gay movement placed too much emphasis on anti-discrimination laws targeting the private sector, as opposed to fighting discrimination by the government, whose military gay ban creates exponentially more "job discrimination" against gays than the few hidebound private employers who might want to keep gays out. And I'm not sure shareholder-owned companies ought to take positions on social policy issues, thus becoming the targets of social-issue advocates on both sides (as, apparently, has happened to Microsoft).

But for several years now anti-discrimination laws have been the key item on the movement's political scorecards, and nothing is likely to change that. Given this dynamic, the company's flip-flop, even if only to a "neutral" position, can only seem like a loss to "the other side." So Microsoft -- whose exemplary internal policies would otherwise set it apart as a model for others -- has stumbled into a position where its likely to receive only scorn from both sides.

Update: Mr. Gates goes to Washington. I think he wanted to keep his lobbying activities focused on already controversial issues like opposing new immigration limits, and was caught offguard by the brouhaha over his firm's shift into "neutral" on the statewide gay rights bill (which failed in the state senate last week by one vote).

One of the first official acts of the Ratzinger papacy, as reported by the BBC:

The Vatican, under the new leadership of Pope Benedict XVI, has condemned a Spanish government bill allowing marriage between homosexuals.... A senior Vatican official described the bill - which is likely to become law within a few months - as iniquitous. He said Roman Catholic officials should be prepared to lose their jobs rather than co-operate with the law.

The fact that Spain will shortly not only allow gay couples to wed but also to adopt has particularly enraged the pontiff.

Julian Sanchez weighs in over at Reason's Hit & Run, and also comments on a Texas bill that seeks to ban gays from becoming foster parents (in the words of Texas state rep. Robert Talton, "if it was me I would rather [leave] kids in orphanages as such....At least they have a chance of learning the proper values"). A statement with which the Vatican would no doubt concur.

More Recent Postings
4/17/05 - 4/23/05