IGF CultureWatch

Utah saw its first openly gay state senator sworn in (Scott McCoy, D-Salt Lake). McCoy, who spoke from the front of the chambers, said "The fact that I am gay is certainly one of the characteristics with which I have been endowed by my Creator, and it is an important part of who I am as a human being," adding that it is not the only characteristic that defines him. He concluded by thanking his parents and his partner, Mark Barr, for their love and support. Thus is progress made, even in the reddest of states.

...and the Lack Thereof.
Washington Post columnist Marc Fisher takes note of the moving story of Maya Keyes, the now-out lesbian daughter of archly homophobic commentator and recent senatorial candidate Alan Keyes. Maya was recently evicted from her parents' home and told she'd receive no money to attend Brown University, where she was accepted. Just the latest high-profile example of how anti-gay prejudice destroys families.

At the libertarian-minded ReasonOnline site, John Coleman reminds us in My Privatized Valentine that:

St. Valentine, a Roman cleric, was imprisoned for his opposition to Emperor Claudius' decree that young men (his potential crop of soldiers) could no longer marry. Valentine performed their ceremonies anyway and was thrown in jail for his obstinacy. His belief was that marriage is too sacred a rite to relegate to the incompetence of state bureaucracy. And, on February 14, he was executed for that belief.

Drawing a lessons for our times, Coleman argues that the state should only certify the legality of civil unions, leaving the sanctioning of ceremonial "marriage" to the private sphere of religious institutions:

It is time to privatize marriage. If the institution is really so sacred, it should lie beyond the withering hands of politicians and policy makers in Washington D.C. There should be no federal or state license that grants validity to love. There should be no state-run office that peers into our bedrooms and honeymoon suites. If the church thinks divorce and homosexuality are problematic, it should initiate the real dialogue to address these problems in-house rather than relying on state-sponsored coercion to affirm doctrinal beliefs. And if tax-codes and guardianships need some classification for couples, let's revise civil union standards to reflect those needs.

Well, that's certainly one up on those who believe we must settled for nothing less than full state-recognized marriage! (hat tip: instapundit)

If your interested in this argument, IGF contributing author Steve Swain argues here that what the state does for birth and death it should also do for marriage: merely certify status, and leave the tasks of celebrating and solemnizing to communities and religions.

And over on my right, we now have a diversity of opinion on the marriage question, most recently from John Corvino, Dale Carpenter, and Paul Varnell.

This week the Democrats elected Howard Dean as their new party chair. Yeeeehaaaaa.

There are those who say it's only a matter of time before the Democrats slide into total irrelevancy, at which point the GOP will split into a libertarian and a social conservative party. But an alternative future is proposed in this op-ed from Washington's newest paper, the Examiner.

Former Democratic National Committee press secretary Terry Michael argues that the Democrats can succeed if they return to their "Jeffersonian liberalism" roots. He writes:

But in a post-industrial, information economy, the little guys, who Democrats have always claimed to represent, are again more self-sufficient, empowered to make - tailor-make, in fact - choices for themselves.... The "Central Authority Solutions" story offered by Democrats, from the mid-19th to mid-20th centuries, lost luster. That's especially true with regard to economic issues. On the other hand, when it comes to lifestyle and personal choices - the social-cultural issue frame - the party still has some juice left from that original Jeffersonian story, which made individual liberty central to party ID....

The new desktop-empowered generation, turned on by Republican economic choice, but turned off by the social-cultural intolerance of the GOP Taliban wing, could embrace Democrats if we return to our founder's philosophy - a back-to-the-future Jeffersonian liberalism. Jefferson, who said the government that governs least governs best, knew the era of big government was over before Bill Clinton proclaimed it.

It's a nice thought, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
--Stephen H. Miller

Look for a split decision on same-sex marriage from New York's highest court. In fact, the New York Post reports, it's likely to come down to one man - moderate conservative Judge Albert Rosenblatt, appointed by moderate conservative Gov. George Pataki. The Post reports:

Pataki's other three appointees are not likely to be swayed by the argument that the ban on gay marriage violates New York's constitution, said [legal scholars]. Those likely opponents are Judges Susan Phillips Read, Victoria Graffeo and Robert Smith.

On the other hand, Chief Judge Judith Kaye and Judges George Bundy Smith and Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick - all named by former Democratic Gov. Mario Cuomo - have traditionally been "very sensitive" to civil-rights issues and would likely favor legalizing same-sex marriages. That would make Rosenblatt the deciding vote.

A 4-3 decision upholding gay marriage in New York State would likely add to the polarization over the role of "unelected" judges in "redefining" marriage - just what the proponents of a federal "marriage protection" amendment dream of. Yet the strategy of marriage-by-lawsuit rolls on.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a moderate Republican, announced that while he supports the right of gay couples to marry, the city will appeal last week's ruling by a state judge giving the Big Apple 30 days to start issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Despite his support for gay marriage, Bloomberg said the state court's ruling was not the way to achieve that goal. As reported in the New York Sun (the place to go for honest analysis):

The judge's decision caught Mr. Bloomberg and his aides off-guard and put him in a position of having to choose between courting the city's liberal majority and fending off challengers from his right in a campaign year....

Mr. Bloomberg told two hostile crowds - the Human Rights Campaign and the Lesbian & Gay Pride Foundation - that he was appealing the decision because the ruling "was incorrect" and "the current state Constitution does not permit same-sex marriages." He was heckled and booed by the two audiences, and his critics wasted no time in criticizing his attempt to have it both ways.

Yet, interestingly:

Gay activists in the city said privately they sympathized with the mayor. While they want support for gay marriages, there is a widespread belief in the community that the dust-up caused by the San Francisco marriages didn't help their cause, it hurt. Having New York rush to allow marriages that might only be rolled back later doesn't make much sense, they said.

And that's a response that does make sense. This matter is going to go to the state's highest court one way or another, given the upstate marriage suits that Democratic Attorney General Eliot Spitzer is fighting. If the court upholds gay marriage, couples in NYC can then get married. If it goes the other way, what would be gained by allowing mass weddings of dubious legality on the City Hall steps, repeating the images that came out of San Francisco last year that gays cheered but many others viewed as an anarchistic assault on marriage, thus fueling the national backlash. And to what end, since California's high court than nullified those weddings?

A word of warning from libertarian-leaning Republican Chuck Muth, a political consultant and head of Citizen Outreach, a limited-government public policy organization, on what might happen if the U.S. Supreme Court throws out the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Muth writes:

In any event, the New York decision based upon the Loving decision [in which the Supreme Court voided laws against interracial marriage] could well be the basis of a case which ultimately ends up before the Supremes over the constitutionality of DOMA. And when it does, my money is on the Court striking down DOMA based on the Loving precedent and the 14th Amendment.

Which brings us to the Federal Marriage Amendment (or whatever focus-grouped name they're now calling it).

If DOMA does get struck down, that will further inflame a large and vocal segment of the public and fuel congressional efforts to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages. Unlike today, such an amendment, post-DOMA, could well garner the 2/3 vote needed in both houses of Congress to send the ban to the states. And just by looking at the number of states which passed gay marriage bans last November, there's a good shot that such an amendment could get the [3/4ths] ratification needed to approve it.

Would this happen? I don't know, but given current political realities, it certainly could happen. Should marraige activists challenging DOMA at least give serious attention to this scenario? Absolutely! Are they? Don't bet the ranch.

(hat tip: Rick Sincere

Update: Loyal CultureWatch reader "Pillar" comments:

In the corporate world, scenario planning (also called "war gaming") is vital before any major strategic undertaking -exploring all the possible consequences of an initial action, whether positive or negative to your goals, and then developing possible counter-responses within each scenario, and on and on.

This type of complex strategic planning helps many companies avoid going off the cliff by attempting the wrong takeover or brand launch.

As for gay activist organizations, I think their strategy sessions basically have consisted of jumping up and down and yelling, "George W. Bush, You're Fired!"

Remember the "Saturday Night Live" skit where John Kerry defended his position on the Iraq war as being "perfectly consistent" - he was always for the war when addressing conservatives and always against it when speaking to liberals.

Well, New York's Democratic Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, the scourge of Wall Street and would-be next governor, has taken an oddly Kerryesque stance on the gay marriage lawsuits being argued in his state. According to a report by law professor/marriage advocate Arthur Leonard in Gay City News, in the suit Lambda Legal brought in Manhattan, Spitzer:

was invited to intervene in the case to defend the marriage statute, he declined to do so, leaving the defense of the case to the City Law Department....

On the other hand, Spitzer's office is defending the marriage law in other lawsuits pending outside the city, in which his office has taken the position that the marriage law is constitutional.

While upstate voters might not take to the idea of gay marriage, liberal Manhattan is a different story. Thus is all explained.
--Stephen H. Miller

More Recent Postings
1/30/05 - 2/05/05

A New York State judge in Manhattan ruled that denying gay couples the right to marry violates the state constitution. The matter will now go to New York's highest court, but it raises the possibility New York City (the only place where the ruling applies) could be ordered to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples beginning next month. (Here's the New York Times story.)

The case was brought by Lambda Legal on behalf of five New York City gay couples.

While I celebrated the Massachusetts ruling ordering that state to recognize gay marriages, I've since changed my view and now believe a more effective and practical strategy is to go to bat for civil unions with all the state rights spouses have, as in Vermont. Polls show far wider support for civil unions than for marriage, and many conservatives now view it as the "compromise" position -- despite the hard right's opposition.

Once the electorate is comfortable with the level of recognition granted under civil unions, it would be far easier to advance to full marriage equality. But this view is certainly not shared by all of our IGF contributing authors, to be sure.

In any event, the activists have staked out a strategy of using the nation's most liberal courts to order full marriage recognition now, the electorate be damned. While I'd like to believe they'll succeed in securing marriage rights for gay Americans, I think it's a high-risk, all-or-nothing proposition. (See my Jan. 29 posting about activists in Connecticut scuttling a civil unions bill that was about to pass.)

And if the backlash against judicially decreed gay marriage leads to passage of the proposed federal "marriage protection" amendment - or even just more state amendments in addition to the 13 passed last year - history will record this approach as well-intentioned but strategically calamitous.

But maybe I'm wrong; the next few years will let us know.

Update: Gay Patriot predicts a New York statewide voter referendum in 2005 that will defeat gay marriage (in the comments area, that legal possibility is disputed). I'd say it's more likely the state's highest court will put the kabosh on the lower court ruling - and if it instead decreed the rights of marriage through civil unions, I wouldn't be displeased.

Some of the comments to the previous item show an almost pathological hatred of the current administration, claiming, for instance, "What Bush is doing to gays is unacceptable for any decent human being. He is destroying every single part of our lives." This is what many on the gay left (and some libertarians) believe.

For those who don't read the comments (which, alas, mix thoughtful responses with the venting of antagonists raging at a site they're compelled to visit and attack daily), I answered a suggestion I was "blaming the victims" as follows:

One of my purposes on this blog is to hold gay activists accountable for strategies and actions I see as counter-productive - or at least counter-productive in advancing gay equality; they may in fact fulfill the objective of producing successful fundraising letters.

Am I always right? No. Do I think it's useful to challenge the activists in this way - yes, if for no other reason than most gay media is nothing but an echo chamber - running press releases as if they were analysis.

If you think Bush is the devil, then you're not going to agree with me on this. If you think Bush and all other politicians respond to political interest groups on the basis of whether it serves their interests to do so, then my point - gay Republicans need to be Republicans, and thus build leverage in the party; supposedly nonpartisan groups need to be effectively nonpartisan, and thus able to lobby both sides - might be seen as having some merit.

If I can be indulged another link to Rich Tafel, I see he is of similar mind when he writes:

During my time running a gay rights group I noticed a disturbing trend. When I was in conflict with Republicans I was lauded by the gay press and fundraising shot up. When I worked in cooperation with Republicans to accomplish things I was called a shill and fundraising was more difficult.

So here's the paradox for gay organizations. Though cooperation should be the goal, their funding depends on attacking Republicans. The gay political groups will not make progress nor seek opportunities for finding common ground, and they will be wealthier for it.

Meanwhile, there are reports that openly gay U.S. Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz) is being considered by the Bush administration for the important post of U.S. Trade Representative. (Hat Tip: Gay Patriot). If he should be appointed, expect many of the main gay activists groupings to respond on a par with the hostility minority activists have shown to the appointments of Condi Rice and Alberto Gonzalez.

A few weeks ago President Bush said that "nothing will happen" on the proposed federal amendment to ban gay marriage because too many senators did not see the need for it, signaling that pushing the amendment would be a low priority. Then hell broke loose on the right, as social conservatives demanded that the president change his tune or they'd turn on him in the social security reform debate. Dutifully, tonight Bush included the amendment in his state of the union address (though again stating his case in terms of reining in "activist judges").

Sadly, gays have no leverage with the party in power. Gays overwhelming vote and fund the Democratic party, and the Human Rights Campaign, the largest gay organization, choose inaugural week to attack Bush - right after he made his statement backing off of the amendment, just as activists were either critical or silent when, before the election, Bush made conciliatory remarks about civil unions.

The GOP will continue to kow-tow to social conservatives as long as the gay line is "one party only," as recently reiterated by Matt Foreman of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force when he said, "It's not relevant what the Republicans in the Senate do."

Gays won't support a party that doesn't support gay equality; that party won't support gay equality until gay support increases gay leverage. That's the way things now stand.

Update: Rich Tafel writes:

When the President said a few weeks ago that he wouldn't push this issue, gay groups attacked him for being two faced and social conservatives responded with a letter to Karl Rove demanding a response. I'm hopeful that by mentioning it he's given the social conservative wing of the party a bone, but with pressure against him from the gay left and religious right that will be tough.