IGF CultureWatch

The story of how "progressive" pro-outing activist Mike Rogers silenced popular gay-conservative blogger Gay Patriot is revealed by Christian Grantham of Outlet Radio. Essentially, GP had posted an item likening Rogers and his partner-in-crime John Aravosis to terrorists. Rogers then reportedly called GP's boss and secretary to complain about/harass him, and contacted the police as well, presumably to allege that GP was inciting violence against him. Since GP has a real job in the real (non-activist) world, he felt compelled at that point to give up blogging (the blog itself will continue under GP's associate, Gay Patriot West).

I admit that the description of GP's item sounds over the top (but then, so is Rogers' own BlogActive site, and The Raw Story, with which he's affiliated). And, to some extent, anonymous bloggers make themselves vulnerable. But the alleged calls to GP's employer and to the police seem typical of the pro-outing, take-no-prisoners, slash-and-burn mentality. Many commentors on the left cheered the attempted personal destruction of conservative journalist Jeff Gannon, and they'll no doubt cheer the harassment and silencing of Gay Patriot. That pretty much tells you what they're all about.
--Stephen H. Miller

[note: blogging on the run; some typos (censure/censor) corrected subsequently]

Update: From PoliPundit:

imagine the outcry if GayPatriot had been a liberal, and his antagonist a conservative.

There'd be protestors in the streets, organized by HRC, NGLTF and the ACLU.

Blogger Dirty Harry weighs in:

Brace yourself bloggers. This is just the beginning. Lawsuits and criminal charges are on the way. Facts, free expression, and merits be damned. These folks play dirty. An art they've perfected.

But hey, when your side is "progressve" then nothing is out of bounds as long as it advances the path to the bright, shining day that lies ahead.

Update: Another blog is silenced.
--Stephen H. Miller

Columnist Larry Elder notes that, at a recent White House press conference, New York Times reporter Elisabeth Bumiller posed a question in which she called deputy defense secretary (and Bush's nominee for World Bank president) Paul Wolfowitz "a chief architect of one of the most unpopular wars in our history." With minimal research, Elder shows that this is, factually, far from the truth (the Iraq War has a much highly support level than many other U.S. incursions), thus revealing Bumiller's query as "another editorial masquerading as a question."

Might I add that if she had phrased her inquiry as biased in favor of the president rather than against, some of our liberal friends would now be cheerfully investigating her sex life for dirt.

More Recent Postings
3/20/05 - 3/27/05

Writing at TechCentralStation, Pejman Yousefzadeh questions whether the existence of a separate Libertarian Party has diminished the influence libertarians might otherwise have on both Republicans and Democratic. He acknowledges that "when it comes to elections, the Libertarian Party is at best a marginal contender," but given how evenly divided the electorate is, a possible strategy might be:

to augment the influence of libertarians in public policy; invite Democrats and Republicans to bid for libertarian support with policy concessions to libertarians in exchange for libertarian votes. That way, libertarians could influence policy and serve as kingmakers for whichever party did the best job of attracting libertarian support on substantive policy issues.

It has long seemed to me that the religious right became a major player precisely bcause it didn't form its own party and run candidates sure to lose. Of course, the "kingmaker" strategy assumes there are enough libertarian-leaners to make a difference, but I suspect a lot of voters are "small 'l'" libertarians (or at least "neolibertarians") without labeling themselves - favoring government limited as much as is practically possible to its core mission of defending life, liberty and property (in Locke's phrase) and relying on freely made transactions within a dynamic civil society to provide the rest.

Okay, I looked around and there really isn't much gay news happening that's worth writing about- although I did find this Advocate story about a lesbian who fled the U.S. for Canada but is now returning (she'd "rather remain a disgruntled American queer. Free to be oppressed, free to be maligned, and free to be trampled upon, all in the name of political expediency," but is "ready to take up the mantle for positive change-not just for gays and lesbians but for all Americans") to be the perfect embodiment of the Advocate-gay worldview. It appears in the same online issue along with the expected knee-jerk vilification of Jeff Gannon.

So, I'll follow up again with Terri Schiavo, now being starved to death in Florida. Many of our commentors are enraged by my stance. Too bad. To paraphrase Lillian Hellman, I won't cut my conscience to fit this year's fashions. And when there's doubt, I won't hesitate to err on the side of life. But like the abortion battle, nothing can convince those who disagree; it's a gut issue. And my gut tells me that Michael Schiavo should no more get away with murder than O.J. Simpson or Robert Blake or, oh, never mind.

I will say that to those of our readers on the left who are enraged that I could possibly support any position that Tom DeLay might support (no need to think, just conclude that whatever they favor must be opposed), I note that not all Democrats are with you, either. As this piece in Slate reports:

In the Senate, a key supporter of a federal remedy was Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, a progressive Democrat and longtime friend of labor and civil rights, including disability rights. Harkin told reporters, "There are a lot of people in the shadows, all over this country, who are incapacitated because of a disability, and many times there is no one to speak for them, and it is hard to determine what their wishes really are or were. So I think there ought to be a broader type of a proceeding that would apply to people in similar circumstances who are incapacitated."

I don't agree with Harkin on most issues, but I do think this makes the point that it's not only members of the great right-wing conspiracy who oppose starving Terri Schavio to death. Of course, some will still, I'm sure, conclude that both Harkin and I are tools of Tom DeLay!

Update: Chuck Muth writes, perceptively:

This intellectual and constitutional battle over the Schiavo matter is taking place almost exclusively among those on the right, with bona-fide card-carrying limited-government types finding themselves on opposite sides of the issue.

I'd agree with that. Some who oppose the congressional action paint it as a simple matter of federal encroachment on the states; it's not (simple, that is), if you believe the central responsiblity of government is, above all else, defending life and liberty.

Intemperate Update: On the death watch: Wouldn't it be more humane - and certainly more honest - to administer a lethal injection? But somehow starving her allows those responsible to obscure causality regarding their actions.

Is the Village Voice a Tom DeLay mouthpiece? Nat Hentoff has some eye-openers about Michael Schavio's behavior.

Final update: Cruel to the end, Michael Schiavo denies her parents' request to be with Terri as she died.
--Stephen H. Miller.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, no friend of gay equality, was quoted in the Washington Times on congressional action to save Terri Schiavo from forced starvation at the hands of her husband:

"The sanctity of life overshadows the sanctity of marriage," Mr. DeLay said. He said that unless Mrs. Schiavo had previous written instructions, "I don't care what her husband said."

This led blogger Paul at "Right Side of the Rainbow," who opposes saving the life of Terri Schiavo, to write:

Is the manner in which [Delay] dismisses Mrs. Schiavo's husband distinguishable from the manner in which he would dismiss a gay man's partner? I doubt gay relationships have risen in Rep. DeLay's estimation; rather, the significance of heterosexual ones have fallen.

Blogger Paul comes out in favor of "the traditional right of spouses" and accuses the Republicans of attempting "to substitute their own judgment for that of Mrs. Schiavo's legal husband."

But as James Taranto writes in the Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal:

Supporters of Michael Schiavo's effort to end his wife's life have asked how conservatives, who claim to believe in the sanctity of marriage, can fail to respect his husbandly authority. The most obvious answer is that a man's authority as a husband does not supersede his wife's rights as a human being - a principle we never thought we'd see liberals question.

On one hand, you'd think there'd be pleasure in the fact that conservative Republicans are placing some value (i.e., saving a woman's life at the pleading request of her frantic parents) above "the sanctity of marriage," while gay activists - and even some gay Republicans - suddenly are in support of the full rights of traditional marriage and patriarchy, reducing a woman to the disposable property of her spouse.

Addendum - the anti-federalist contention. While in most respects I find arguments against increasing federal encroachment to be persuasive, sometimes rigid adherence to principle must give way to simple decency. And I remain unmoved by liberals who are eager to offer up Terri Schiavo as a human sacrifice in honor of their newly feigned fealty to state judicial autonomy.

More Recent Postings
3/20/05 - 3/26/05

IGF's Dale Carpenter points to a statement in the Washington Post by new Human Rights Campaign honcho Joe Solmonese, who opines:

"This struggle that we're in in this country right now is not just for GLBT Americans but for all progressives," [Solmonese] said. "All of us are redirecting our energy and adapting to a considerable shift in the political landscape, not just in the GLBT world."

I agree with Dale that this takes the lid off what Solmonese sees as his prime objective: to advance the liberal-left political agenda, of which "GLBT" issues are just one aspect.

The same Post story reported:

Just weeks ago, the NGLTF [National Gay & Lesbian Task Force], while stressing that it was not treading on the HRC's lobbying turf, announced that it was forming a committee to lobby Congress for GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender) issues.

NGLTF, from its beginnings, has been politically even further to the left than HRC. So along with Solmonese's appointment, the Task Force's new Washington effort means that in the nation's capital the dominant gay strategy will be to hunker down with the Democrats' liberal wing rather than pursuing any kind of bipartisan effort.

As I wrote in response to a letter posted in our mailbag saying that gay groups should reflect most gay voters' left-leaning views:

It's fine to be insular within the liberal cocoon, just don't expect any pragmatic political victories. All 11 anti-gay state ballot initiatives passed on Nov. 2, while HRC focused on defeating George W. Bush in concert with its liberal allies rather than on addressing Americans' fears about gay marriage.

Former Log Cabin Republican head Rich Tafel on his blog offers this take:

[W]ith NGLTF on the scene HRC has to worry again about its left flank. That might explain why as a group the highly partisan HRC decided to move left, not to the middle, with its latest hire. It is all about fundraising and market share. It has nothing to do with the mission of the group, which was to make progress in the halls of Congress and the corridors of the White House for gay people. But as long as wealthy gay Democrats keep feeding this beast, we can expect more of the same.

So it's partisanship triumphant. And of course, that pretty much sums up American political culture at the moment. New York Times columnist David Brooks writes of "the ever-increasing polarization of the political class," and predicts:

At the same time, Americans will grow even more disenchanted with the political status quo. Not only will there be a general distaste for the hyperpartisan style, but people will also begin to see how partisan brawling threatens the nation's prosperity.... I wouldn't be surprised if some anti-politician emerged - of the Schwarzenegger or Perot varieties - to crash through the current alignments and bust heads.

One thing is for sure, a body politic with no center could be in for some wild swings. Be prepared.

More Recent Postings
3/13/05 - 3/19/05

A letter in our mailbag supports Terri Schiavo's right to life. As widely reported, Terri has been in a vegetative state and kept alive by a feeding tube, now removed at her husband's insistence, backed by a court order. Terri's parents consider this murder by starvation, and Congress has stepped in.

Gay couples have often been in a situation where, after a terrible accident or illness leaves one partner incapacitated, the healthy partner and the victim's parents disagree about care. But this, it seems to me, is different - a husband wants to terminate the life of his spouse when there is no clear indication that this is what Terri Schiavo herself would have wanted. In such a situation, I'm not opposed to the state stepping in to protect the life of someone who can't speak for herself.

Passing an amendment to Michigan's constitution that defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman "also signals the end of health care and other benefits for the same-sex partners of public employees in the state, according to an opinion issued Wednesday by Attorney General Mike Cox," the Detroit Free Press reports. Polls prior to last November's election suggest that banning partner benefits for state employees wasn't what a majority in Michigan thought they were voting for, but that's what they got.

As reader "Guy" commented on my previous posting:

In Michigan and Ohio, polls also showed majority support for DPs [domestic partnerships] or CUs [civil unions] with majority opposition to marriage, but when marriage and CUs were put together in a ballot initiative, the whole thing won. That's the danger of opening the door.

I read on another site the question, why not just let Massachusetts sit for a couple years so the country can see it's no big deal? I don't have an answer, except that Lambda (which I in all other respects support) see this as a big fundraising/visibility issue. But is it good politics? Dubious.

Alas, the "class interests" of activists (as a lefty might put it) are not necessarily the same as the class interests of the rest of us.

Meanwhile, on the federal front, when asked at Wednesday's press conference about the California same-sex marriage decision and whether it would add fire to the proposed "marriage protection amendment" to the U.S. Constitution, President Bush said:

"the court rulings are verifying why I took the position I took, and that is I don't believe judges ought to be deciding this issue. I believe this is an issue of particular importance to the American people and should be decided by the people. And I think the best way to do so is through the constitutional process.... As a matter of fact, court rulings such as this strengthen my position.... People now understand why I laid out the position I did....

And no matter what your position is on the issue, this is an issue that should be decided by the people, not by judges.... This is a very important issue for the country and one that obviously needs to be conducted with a great deal of sensitivity and concern about other people's feelings.

In other words, "Yes."

No surprise here: In California, gay marriage opponents are pledging to launch a statewide ballot initiative to amend their constitution to ban same-sex marriage. Some fear that the language might extend so far as to undo the spousal rights granted under the state's sweeping domestic partner law, which was legislatively approved. Marriage opponents, of course, could overreach to their detriment; but if there's a genuine backlash against a judicial ruling that goes against the majority's expressed will on marriage, all bets are off.

Yesterday, I called amending the state constitution through referendum a burdensome process, but I stand corrected. Some states require a second vote along with legislative approval; not CA, where it just takes enough signatures to hold a single election to amend the constution.

Meanwhile, a positive sign. AP reports that while Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger doesn't "believe in gay marriage" he would not favor amending the state constitution if the high court upholds the gay marriage decision. "I think that this will be now going eventually to the Supreme Court in California, and we will see what the decision is," he said in a televised interview. "And whatever that decision is, we will stay by that, because I believe in abiding by the law and sticking with the law." Which is a good deal better than the Kerry/Edwards position during last year's campaign.

In February, a New York State judge in Manhattan ordered her state to recognize same-sex marriages, and the issue (currently stayed) is headed on appeal to New York's highest court. Now, a California State judge in San Francisco has ruled that his state, too, must recognize same-sex marriage, striking down Prop. 22, a statewide ban on gay marriage passed by voters (note: Prop. 22 changed the state's family code, but was not a state constitutional amendment. California's requirements to amend the constitution by initiative are more stringent than the requirements to amend a statute by initiative).

As in New York, there's a strong likelihood this latest lower-court decision will be overturned on appeal, so the celebrating may be premature. But there's also the possiblity that one or both decisions will hold.

A worst-case scenario: In response to the courts ordering gay marriage against the expressed wishes of the electorate, the electorate will pass statewide constitutional amendments (as 13 other states did last year alone). Even worse scenario: Given California's (and New York's) prominence, court-ordered gay marriage breaths new life into the efforts to pass a federal constitutional amendment.

Best-case scenario: California and New York are ordered to establish same-sex marriage, the backlash is successfully countered and efforts to pass statewide constitutional amendments go down in flames. The states' electorates may not have voted for same-sex marriage, but they eventually come to accept it. And all this happens before a federal amendment winds its way into enactment. It could happen (hey, the Berlin Wall fell), but I wish there was at least some acknowledgement that this is a high-risk gamble and that every lower-court victory is not simply a linear advance toward the inevitable goal of marriage equality.

One thing is clear: the leading gay legal rights advocates have adopted a strategy of going to the nation's most ultraliberal state judicial districts to seek favorable marriage rulings, and they will not be dissuaded from that path. The alternative - seeking legislatively approval for granting gay couples all the rights and benefits of marriage - is now viewed with disdain, although real gains for gay families have been achieved through legislative victories in New Jersey, California and (soon) Connecticut.

So it's go for broke, folks. And before too long we'll know if it's the Berlin Wall falling - or Prague Spring.