IGF CultureWatch

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.

From an op-ed by Andrew Lee in the San Francisco Chronicle:

If allowed to go forth, Social Security privatization will limit the ability of the government to act as arbiter of Social Security survivor benefits, and therefore recognition of beneficiaries.... Without sweeping federal redefinition, gays and lesbians will continue to receive unequal benefits. If they are to make the best of the situation, they should support private accounts, forming alliances with Republicans who support limited government.

Hat tip: Right Side of the Rainbow, which comments:

Personal accounts are so obviously in the financial interests of gay and lesbian Americans, who get massively ripped-off by Social Security when their partners die, that only one thing can explain the failure of gay political groups to embrace the president's call for reform: politics over progress.

Of course, when you see your mission as advancing a broad-based left-liberal agenda of bigger, more "caring" (i.e., intrusive and redistributionist) government, with more authority centralized with federal bureaucrats (who, after all, know best - at least when appointed by Democrats), then of course you'll use your perch to lobby against personal accounts. Which is what the National Gay & Lesbian Task force did when (as reported here last December) it organized more than 70 prominent gay rights "leaders" to sign a joint letter to Congress opposing personal Social Security accounts.

More Recent Postings
3/06/05 - 3/12/05

A Special Report titled "Homosexual Civil Unions," on the website of Lou Sheldon's archly anti-gay Traditional Values Coalition (TVC), takes aim at the Independent Gay Forum (it's a slow-loading PDF so give it a minute or two - nothing about the TVC is up to date, it seems). According to the report:

Dale Carpenter, a homosexual writer for the Independent Gay Forum (11/25/2004), for example, has described the "California Model" to gain the legal status of marriage - without calling it marriage under state laws. The objective is to gain marriage status through incrementalism....

Carpenter says this incremental strategy makes it difficult for opponents to oppose "any single one of the benefits and responsibilities that comprise the legal status of marriage."Incrementalism "also gives the public time to adjust to each advance." (bold emphasis in original)

The report also targets John Corvino for advocating civil unions, as well as Andrew Sullivan and others (for trying to undermine marriage), citing work that's appeared in various venues, but I take pride in the fact that a graphic from our site accompanies the report's lead item. (Links to Dale and John's articles can be found by scrolling down on your right.)

The TVC crowd is as adamantly opposed to civil unions as they are to gay marriage. But it's interesting that they portray the "incrementalist" approach as a particular threat. They know that the American people are more open to supporting civil unions, and that once civil unions are institutionalized, providing same-sex couples with the same state-level rights as heterosexual spouses, the game (from their perspective) is lost. Now, if only the "we want courts to order full marriage everywhere today; who cares about the backlash" crowd also understood this.

The Harvard Crimson has published a column by the former public relations chair of the Harvard Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender, and Supporters Alliance (BGLTSA), the subject of March 6th's "Not a Parody." Adam P. Schneider writes:

The recent controversy surrounding the "heteronormative" speech by [Jada] Pinkett Smith at this year's Cultural Rhythms indicates once again that the BGLTSA is more dedicated to pointless rhetoric than substantive change....

The reactionary politics of the BGLTSA also represent a more systemic problem in LGBT politics: radical isolation. By advancing fringe agendas, which have a negligible impact on the lives of LBGT people as compared to larger more pressing problems, LGBT activists alienate even would-be supporters of their cause....

People who have dedicated a significant amount of time and effort to advancing LBGT equality will become increasingly frustrated with the institutions that purport to represent and argue on their behalf such as the BGLTSA.... Sorry, Jada, but you're caught in the crossfire.

Many, many years ago I was the media chair for the NYC chapter of GLAAD; I'm still recovering from the mindlessly numbing leftist groupthink (sort of institutionalized infantilism). Welcome to the club, Adam! Now, your next step is to jettison the "LGBT" mantra, because (gasp) there is no "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender" community outside the politically correct fantasy of "progressive" activists! You can do it, just breath deep and let go.

A libertarian critiques a conservative's critique of libertarianism - from Tech Central Station (and, if you haven't guessed, TCS is one of my favorite web lounges).

In the anti-libertarian article published in the March 14 issue of The American Conservative, Robert Locke wrote: "Libertarians are also naive about the range and perversity of human desires they propose to unleash. They can imagine nothing more threatening than a bit of Sunday-afternoon sadomasochism, followed by some recreational drug use and work on Monday." Gee, where have we heard that stereotype before? At TCS, Max Borders answers:

In a truly free society, people will be just as able to enter into collective arrangements with people who have also chosen to forego so-called "absolute freedom." Mr. Locke and I can start a Hutterite commune where everybody shares the work and bows hourly to a statue of Edmund Burke as a condition of residing there.... [As for] Mr. Locke's visions of how libertarianism in practice would unleash "sadomasochism" and other caligulan horrors....

Suffice it to say that libertarians know that we are able to exercise self-restraint not because the Great Nanny in Washington threatens us with chastening, but because we belong to communities, families, and relationships in which the values of healthy living are naturally grown orders.

Another rebuttal runs (to its credit) in the same March 14 issue of The American Conservative, this time by Daniel McCarthy, who writes "Sadly, a few conservatives seem to have learned nothing from their experience at the hands of the Left and are no less quick to present an ill-informed and malicious caricature of libertarians than leftists are to give a similarly distorted interpretation of conservatism." He continues:

There is something rather counterintuitive - or just plain nonsensical - to the belief that bureaucrats and politicians care more about the elderly than families and communities do. The same holds true for the notion that the state upholds the interests of children....

The free market sometimes involves things that conservatives dislike, such as pornography. Playboy may be bad, but one is not forced to subsidize it....

The libertarian rests content to let Utah be Utah and San Francisco be San Francisco.... If the property owners of a neighborhood wanted to establish a certain set of common moral standards, they could do so. Other places could do differently. Libertarianism thus responds to the reality of difference, including profound cultural and religious difference, much better than other political philosophies, which are left trying to smash square pegs into round holes.

And as to that possibility, rest assured, both the social right and the angry left join together to declare, "It's our way, or no way!"

The Human Rights Campaign's brief flirtation with relevancy has come to an end, or rather a screeching halt, with the official announcement that Democratic abortion-rights activist Joe Solmonese will be its new leader. Not a surprise, as the appointment was leaked last week (see HRC to Red States: Drop Dead?).

HRC had been called on the carpet by its "allies" earlier this year for deviating, momentarily, from the leftist line of march when, after putting the hapless Cheryl Jacques out of her misery, then political director Winnie Stachelberg floated the idea that since private Social Security accounts could be bequeathed by gays to our partners (unlike current Social Security, which only spouses inherit), maybe it shouldn't be opposed at all costs, even if (gasp) Republicans were for it.

But never fear, the collective voice of the collectivist left rose up as one and threatened HRC with excommunication. In February, Stachelberg was "promoted" over to HRC's nonprofit foundation. And in further penitence, HRC is now embarked on a course to prove it's more left than the best (er, worst) of them.

In 2004, while taking in millions in donations from gay Americans, HRC virtually ignored state ballot initiatives to ban gay marriage, in order to focus on electing John Kerry - a supporter of state ballot initiatives banning gay marriage. Where is the outrage?

Update: Log Cabin put out a press release. At first, taking the headline at face value, I feared they were in fact sending a congratulatory message. But it's actually pretty snide:

The selection of an experienced Democratic activist will allow HRC to solidify and strengthen Democratic support for equality. As the leading voice for moderate and conservative gay Americans, Log Cabin recognizes our unique responsibility to make new allies in the Republican Party," said Log Cabin Political Director Chris Barron.

"Log Cabin is expanding its commitment to work with people in the Heartland, conservatives in red state America, and with people of faith. In addition, we are pursuing an aggressive legislative agenda that includes Social Security reform...."

Well, it's good that somebody is going to focus on something beyond solidifying MoveOn.org's support for gay equality!

The editorial page of the New York Times praises gay activists in Connecticut for, finally, deciding "not to make the perfect the enemy of the good this year in Hartford," and ending their opposition to a civil unions bill that the legislature seems poised to pass. The Times concludes that if all goes as planned:

Connecticut and California will be the only states to have enacted broad laws of this kind voluntarily.... It's no small thing for a state legislature to take this step on its own. The constitutional rights of every American are safest when they're protected not by the judiciary alone, but also by the strong support of the citizenry as a whole.

Turning to the judiciary should be a last resort, but too often it's taken as the first step. And then we're shocked, shocked when unpopular judicial decrees are sweepingly set aside by the actual citizenry.

Running to teacher may sometimes be necessary, but it never wins you friends.

A Friday Wall Street Journal "Outlook" column titled "Straight Talking" looked at politically correctness run amok (again) at Harvard, where even liberals fall prey to the sensitivity police.

In this latest incident, African-American singer/actress Jada Pinkett Smith, in accepting an award from the Harvard Foundation for Intercultural and Race Relations, spoke about overcoming the disadvantages of being the child of teenage heroin addicts, offering her success as proof that if you follow your dream "and don't let anybody define who you are" you can succeed. She added, "Women, you can have it all - a loving man, devoted husband, loving children, a fabulous career.... To my men, open your mind, open your eyes to new ideas, be open."

This motivational message, however, didn't sit well with Harvard's Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender and Supporters Alliance, or BGLTSA. The group, which in the past brought to Harvard's attention that "bathrooms labeled 'men' and 'women' can create an atmosphere of hostility and fear for some people," complained that Pinkett Smith's speech was "extremely heteronormative, and made BGLTSA members feel uncomfortable." Last week, the BGLTSA announced a victory of sorts, noting that the sponsoring foundation "will make a statement of apology about the incident," acknowledging that it "had not reviewed Pinkett Smith's speech in advance and was not responsible for her words." The BGLTSA also said the foundation "pledges to take responsibility to inform future speakers that they will be speaking to an audience diverse in race, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, gender and class."

Maybe it would have been warm and fuzzy if Pinkett Smith had said, "Women, you can have it all, a loving partner" instead of man, but gays (excuse me, BGLT-ers) are a minority, and the majority discourse isn't always going to construe itself to avoid every possible linguist "exclusion" that hyper-sensitive grievance collectors are on the lookout for. And making an issue of such incidents only furthers the impression that gay activists are all little commissars-in-waiting, red pens in hand, yearning for the day when they can dictate beyond the walls of elite academia what will henceforth be acceptable speech.

Update: On Tuesday, a BGLTSA spokeswoman was grilled on Fox's "The O'Reilly Factor," where she seemed unable to explain why her comrades were so offended. Actually, it was like she had never had her views challenged before, and given her Harvard haven, that's quite possible.

More Recent Postings