IGF CultureWatch

Not to be overlooked, Connecticut's Republican Gov. Jodi Rell has signed civil unions legislation for her state. "Today Governor Rell becomes the first governor in history to sign civil union legislation without being forced to do so by the courts," said a news release from the Log Cabin Republicans. Proponents of the broad domestic partnership bills passed in New Jersey and California may debate the point, but nevertheless the significance of a victory achieved through elected representatives sends a powerful message.

Governor Rell had signaled her support for civil unions by stating, "I don't believe in discrimination of any sort, and I want people to have equal rights and equal opportunities." Those are words too rarely heard within her party, at least with regards to gay people.

After a bit of reflection, it may be that worse (Ratzinger) may turn out to be, well, if not "better," at least the best of a lot of bad options. After all, it's not as if any of the leading candidates could have been expected to embrace a role for openly gay people in the Roman church. And a 78-year-old German characterized universally for his rigidity exerts a lot less charisma than a (relatively) younger, third-world, ground-breakingly black or Latino pope would.

According to Ratzinger's biographer John L. Allen Jr. (as quoted in the New York Times), "Having seen fascism in action, Ratzinger today believes that the best antidote to political totalitarianism is ecclesiastical totalitarianism," which won't sit well with the broad swath of American Catholics. Moreover, Ratzinger's frequent condemnations of "relativism" (the belief that other denominations and faiths lead equally to salvation) could eventually create a breach with those on the Protestant religious right, which is now having orgasms over his election (just when did conservative American Protestantism become so enamored of popery?).

Decidedly not part of the religious right, it was fun to see Rev. Frank T. Griswold, presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church USA, offer this "congratulatory" note to Ratzinger:

I offer my prayers for Pope Benedict XVI as he takes up the august responsibility of his office. I pray that the Holy Spirit will guide him in his words and his actions and that he may become a focus of unity and a minister of reconciliation in a church and a world in which faithfulness and truth wear many faces.

Take that, Ratzo.

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

A vile, vile selection, but no surprise. The former anti-aircraft gunner for the army of the Third Reich labels gay sexuality a tendency toward "intrinsic moral evil." And that's one of his kinder statements. Here's the Washington Post's capsule profile.

Given the mindless mass media's festival of popery over the last two weeks, let's see if they keep it up for a man who shares JPII's archly reactionary politics, but lacks his charisma.

A not-bad feature in the Times about gay Republicans and conservatives. A couple of interesting points: The number of gays who identify themselves as Republican is growing, "with gays saying that they want to influence a party that is (a) theirs and (b) politically ascendant"; and gay conservatives use a lexicon that conservative politicians understand. As Chris Barron of the Log Cabin Republicans notes, in many places "it's conservative voices - gay conservative voices - who can best lead a fight" against anti-gay discrimination.

Also of note: Martin Duberman, a leading gay academic and author, can't resist cracking that gays who support the administration (presumably speaking here of foreign policy) "are militaristic, they are jingoistic." That's it, Martin, keep broadcasting the message that the gay establishment is united with the Michael Moore/Move On wing of the Democratic left. That's the way to expand support for gay equality among red state Americans!

More Recent Postings
4/10/05 - 4/16/05

In Oregon, Democrats and moderate Republicans are being encouraged to create civil-union legislation following Thursday's state Supreme Court decision rejecting gay marriage (and nullifying nearly 3,000 marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples last year in Multnomah County). Senate Majority Leader Kate Brown said the court's silence on the constitutionality of marriage benefits for gays, "leaves the door wide open" for a civil unions law, which is supported by Gov. Ted Kulongoski.

In Connecticut, the state House approved a bill to provide same-sex couples with the same rights, benefits and obligations of married couples on Wednesday, but added an amendment that defines marriage as between a man and a woman (Connecticut has been one of only nine states that have not passed a Defense of Marriage Act limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples). Gov. M. Jodi Rell will likely sign the bill, although the Family Institute of Connecticut has declared that civil unions are same-sex marriage by another name.

Both these examples highlight continuing advances on the civil unions front via popularly elected state legislatures and governors, and continuing defeats when it comes to same-sex marriage - except in the nation's super-liberal districts. But when a few judges have ruled in favor of gay marriage, it's triggered renewed efforts to change state constitutions (and the U.S. Constitution) to prohibit this, and often sneaking in a constititional bar against civil unions as well.

If it hadn't been decided to make the perfect the enemy of the good, I believe we'd be seeing a civil unions groundswell, much to the chagrin of the religious right.

Update: In the comments area, Alan notes that even moderate, often Democratic-voting states such as Michigan and Ohio have passed amendments barring civil unions - a bad sign for those pushing the judicial strategy. He further observes:

As for comparing marriage suits with classic civil rights suits like Brown v Board of Ed, I think others have suggested that it's a matter of whether the country is near the "tipping point" on an issue, in which case judicial activism can supply a final thrust.

I'd submit that the country was ready to banish Jim Crow in the 1950s (even if the deep South wasn't), and thus Brown did not result in a federal constitutional amendment protecting segregation. But the country is nowhere near ready to embrace gay marriage, and so judicial activism may well result in a federal amendment (as it has already resulted in so many state amendments).

That's certainly the worst-case scenario, but we shouldn't dismiss the risk.

GOP consultant Arthur Finkelstein, who is openly gay and married his long-time partner in Massachusetts, was denounced as "sad" and "self-loathing" by Bill Clinton, whose remarks followed reports that Finkelstein is helping raise funds to unseat Sen. Hillary Clinton.

Finkelstein, who helped elect pro-gay Republicans like New York's Gov. George Pataki but has also sold his services to anti-gay Republicans, is not beyond reproach. But I think the Log Cabin crew score points regarding Clinton's own hypocrisy. As the New York Sun reports:

"What is sad here is that President Clinton, the same president who signed the Defense of Marriage Act, implemented the military's discriminatory 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy, and encouraged John Kerry to support anti-gay state constitutional amendments, thinks he has any credibility passing judgment on the like of Arthur Finkelstein or any other gay and lesbian American," a national spokesman for the Log Cabin Republicans, Christopher Barron, said.

The flip side of the Clinton mindset is that Democrats can get away with doing nothing (or worse) on gay issues, because gays who don't support them unequivocally are (in unison now, "self loathing").

Update: Brian Holmes of the Cornell Daily Sun adds his two cents on Clinton's "self-loathing" comment.

More Recent Postings
4/3/05 - 4/9/05

Openly gay GOP Congressman Jim Kolbe is co-sponsoring a bill that would scrap the 12-year-old "don't ask, don't tell" policy. It's a long shot, of course, but glad to see an effort is being made.

And speaking of "puritans" new and old, the death of feminist anti-porn crusader Andrea Dworkin is a reminder of the period when Dworkin, Catharine MacKinnon and Gloria Steinem sought to pass ordinances banning pornography (until the Supreme Court struck these down), and placed themselves on the same side as Phyllis Schlafly in supporting the censorious efforts by then-Attorney General Ed Meese's Commission on Pornography.

That unholy alliance showed the truth in the old cliche that the far right and far left do, in fact, mirror each another.

Note: For those who were wondering, I am not the Stephen Miller who writes for the New York Sun (and penned this Dworkin obit), though we are both cursed with an extremely common name.
-- Stephen H. Miller

Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot by dismissing concerns about media vulgarity, charges Dan Gerstein in Why the Democrats Are Losing the Culture Wars, from Monday's Wall Street Journal (alas, apparently only available to WSJ Online subscribers).

Gerstein, former communications director for Joe Lieberman, takes aim at New York Times columnist Frank Rich, who recently railed against "New Puritans" who want to "stamp out" all that is "joyously vulgar" in American culture."

Counters Gerstein, "vulgarity, joyous or otherwise, is hardly in retreat." Moreover:

[T]he implications of this mindset and the battle lines it establishes are clear.... [I]f you're not exactly enamored of watching titillating stunts and ads at the Super Bowl with your six--year-old, you're part of the TV Taliban.

But:

Not all parents who are concerned about the avalanche of crud crushing their children every day are obsessed with SpongeBob's sexual orientation. Nor are they seeking to shred the First Amendment.

And he points to what he calls "the nub of the values problem for Democrats today":

We don't hesitate to judge people's beliefs, but we blanch at judging their behavior. That leaves us silent on big moral issues at a time of great moral uncertainty, and leaves the impression that we are the party of "anything goes." Even worse, it creates a "values vacuum" that gets filled by the SpongeBob gaybashers of the world.

The result, says Gerstein, is that "heartland residents are tuning out our party." I think that's on target. Too often gays, "progressives," and (especially) progressive gays dismiss all concerns about morality and values as motivated by intolerance. That merely results in ceding the values mantle to those who really are motivated by anti-gay animus.
--Stephen H. Miller

It's very touchy-feely to support bringing the world's religions together as urged by the late Roman Catholic pontiff, but we should be wary of the dangers of accommodating faith traditions that sanction bigotry under the guise of religiosity. For instance, Washington Post columnist Colbert King notes that Anglican bishop Nzerebende Tembo in Uganda:

suspended all activities between his diocese and the Episcopal Diocese of Central Pennsylvania, including his request for $352,941 to support an HIV-AIDS program, financial assistance for orphans' education and a visit by a U.S. medical team. Tembo based his decision on news that the Central Pennsylvania diocese had supported election of an openly gay bishop in New Hampshire.... [T]he Pennsylvania group had collected more than $350,000 to send to Uganda.

[Tempo claims no money had been pledged but] acknowledged withdrawing his request and said he also asked that the U.S. medical team not visit Uganda.... The money sought from the Central Pennsylvania Diocese, Tembo observed, "is not the only money in the world."

Comments King: "Thus ecumenism on the Anglican front."
--Stephen H. Miller