IGF CultureWatch

A federal district court judge has struck down Nebraska's state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and civil unions, passed overwhelming by the voters of that state, saying it violates the U.S. Constitution.

In all likelihood, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals will reverse the decision; and if it doesn't, the U.S. Supreme Court will have its shot. And then there's the issue of whether the whole brouhaha will invigorate the now-stalled federal marriage amendment push in Congress.

I say this not to wallow in pessimism, but because it's vital to understand that actions breed reactions, and if we're not prepared to deal with the consequences, we'll continue our record of initial judicial victories followed by a tsunami of defeats.

IGF contributing author David Boaz has penned an insightful commentary taking aim at the GOP for abandoning its commitment to federalism on marriage and other issues:

Perhaps most notoriously, President Bush and conservatives are pushing for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in all 50 states. They talk about runaway judges and democratic decision-making, but their amendment would forbid the people of New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, California or any other state from deciding to allow same-sex marriage.

Democrats, on the other hand, bear some responsibility for this situation:

Liberal Democrats...spent 50 years eroding federalism and expanding the power of the federal government at every turn. ... For decades, liberals scoffed at federalist arguments that the people of Wisconsin or Wyoming understood their own needs better than a distant Congress. ... Now those chickens have come home to roost.

Reader Tom Scharbach commented (on the item below) about the GOP, "pandering out of cynical self-interest cost the party it's soul, it's reason for being, it's genius. The party no longer stands for Constitutional conservatism..." I'll add that it's certainly an opening for the opposition, which unfortunately remains frozen in time. As Boaz notes, "most liberals can't give up their addiction to centralization."

The Log Cabin Republicans break with the Bush administration and oppose the nomination of William Pryor to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. As they note in their press statement, Pryor:

authored an amicus brief in the United States Supreme Court defending Texas's discriminatory [sodomy] statute.... Mr. Pryor's brief compared same-sex relationships to pedophilia, bestiality, and necrophilia.... In Lawrence v. Texas, Justice Anthony Kennedy - who was appointed by President Reagan - dismissed as "demeaning" the arguments that Mr. Pryor made before the Court.

Once again, LCR (the only gay political lobby that refused to endorse a presidential candidate who supported constitutional amendments banning gay marriage) shows more independence than the slavishly partisan Democratic gay lobbies, among which I include the Human Rights Campaign.

On the other hand, one Bush judicial nominee who doesn't deserve the bad rap she's getting from "progressives" (gay and otherwise) is California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown. As I've argued before, her ruling in a gay adoption case has been so willfully distorted it's slanderous. Now, columnist Nat Hentoff (who is no Republican) takes a look at how the NAACP and others are misrepresenting her record on racial equality in the same manner.

The one thing liberal advocacy groups can't abide is a black or Latino (or gay) Republican, even those who, unlike William Pryor, are not intolerant bigots.

The Washington Post reports (scroll down) on the bashing of Washington Blade editor Chris Crain in Amsterdam, mentioning the "ongoing culture wars between Moroccan immigrants and Dutch natives" (a bit of information, I've noted, absent from the printed version of the account in Crain's own paper).

An interesting story in the L.A. Times about the outing of closeted (as of last week), homophobic Spokane mayor James West. While I'm in no way condoning West, who is at best deeply disturbed and at worst just plain evil, the tactics of the mayor's antagonists at the Spokane Spokesman-Review are also disturbing, and none too gay friendly.

The Spokane paper claims it wanted to investigate charges - made by two men with criminal drug records - that West molested them years ago when he was a Boy Scout leader. So the paper created a fictional 17-year-old to entice West on a gay chat site. [Note: other stories have said the phony flirt was 18 years old.] Well, excuse me, but if they wanted to investigate alleged pedophilia, shouldn't the paper have created a fictional 10-year-old? Do the editors care about the distinction between homosexuality and pedophilia?

The reason this matters is because the story is being played not as "closeted mayor persecuted gays" but "gay mayor could be pedophile." In this respect, it's like those who outed Jeff Gannon (a conservative who, unlike West, did not engage in anti-gay polemics) by demonizing his consensual, adult sex life and claiming it made him unworthy of the refined company of White House reporters. Our straight liberal friends seem quick to repeatedly play on anti-gay (and, specifically, anti-gay sex) prejudices to destroy their target, as gay liberals cheer them on - and then wonder why so many Americans view gay marriage equality as beyond the pale.

John Kerry, failed Democratic presidential nominee who still harbors White House aspirations, has declared it would be a mistake to include a statement of support for gay marriage in the platform of the Massachusetts Democratic Party.

Now, I'm on record advocating civil unions as a progressive step toward spousal equality that's less likely to be overturned near-term by a voter backlash, but unlike Kerry I don't encourage Democrats to vote in favor of state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. And, unlike Kerry, I didn't take millions of dollars from gay and lesbian Democrats in return for an implicit pledge to represent their interests.

Many of those millions were produced through the efforts of the Human Rights Campaign, which the Washington Blade now reports has been wildly inflating its membership numbers:

Today, under new director Joe Solmonese, HRC claims 650,000 members. In fact, those totals were guaranteed always to escalate impressively, and never to decline. That's because HRC counts "members" in a way that will strike many as curious. HRC membership numbers include the name of every person who has ever once given at least the minimum amount - currently $1 - and provided an address.

I think HRC is foolish to go to so much effort to create a big, bogus figure. What matters is how much cash you can convince your donor base to part with, and HRC can justly claim credit for raising several millions - for Democratic politicians who urge voters to pass gay marriage amendments.

I'm not the first to note it would have been of far more value to the cause of gay equality if those funds had been spent, with far less partisanship, working to defeat the state amendments instead of on behalf of politicians who supported (and continue to support) them.

More Recent Postings
5/1/05 - 5/7/05

Did the Montgomery County, Maryland, public school district err in promoting tolerance towards gays by presenting a liberal view of biblical scripture? Eugene Volokh argues a line was crossed, and a Clinton-appointed federal judge has issued an injunction against distributing the materials (part of the schools' sex-education curriculum), finding they make theological judgments in violation of the 1st Amendment establishment clause.

Worse, the homophobes will be having a field day attacking the curriculum, which (among other things) suggests homosexuality is not a top-notch sin because Jesus never discussed it.

Update: Washington Post columnist Marc Fisher also takes aim at Montgomery County:

The curriculum lists precisely what teachers may say about homosexuality, then adds, "No additional information, interpretation or examples are to be provided by the teacher." Ah, so that's how to stretch minds and instill a love of discovery.

(Hat tip to IGF author Rick Rosendall for noting this.)

I prefer to add updates immediately below the existing posts, for the sake of continuity. So scroll down to see recently added updates to items on gay-bashing Arabs in Amsterdam (shhh, you have to say "Dutchmen"); banning military recuritment on elite campuses, and Microsoft's ever-changing finger in the wind.
-- Stepehen H. Miller

Conservative closet case politician accused of molesting boys while a Boy Scout troop leader. Don't know if the accusations are true, but in any case this story should demonstrate why closet cases ought not to be scout leaders, but will no doubt be interpreted to warn against letting openly gay men work with boys.

As for the double-life of Spokane's Mayor James E. West -- homophobic politician by day, online gay-sex cruiser by night, "Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!"

By the way, I don't think this is in any way comparable to the outing of conservative journalist Jeff Gannon. Gannon was not an elected official using his office to push for anti-gay legislation. But outing advocates will, no doubt, cite this case as justification for delving into the personal life of anyone who is politically right of center.

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.