IGF CultureWatch

A funny "Brady's Corner" cartoon in the Washington Blade shows a quavering SpongeBob Squarepants confessing: "First they came for Bert and Ernie, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Muppet. Then they came for Tinky Winky, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Teletubby. Then they came for me..."

Yes, to our eyes, James Dobson, head of the religious right's Focus on the Family, looks ridiculous when he claims that SpongeBob's participation in an educational video remix of "We Are Family," being distributed to elementary schools to promote diversity and tolerance, is part of a cryptic "pro-homosexual" agenda. But an op-ed by Ruth Marcus, a member of the Washington Post's editorial page staff, titled "Ready to Throw in the Sponge?" raises some provocative issues that supporters of gay equality would be foolish to dismiss out of hand.

She writes, "who could resist the temptation to make fun of the alarm-sounders? Not I, certainly - how else to respond to people who work themselves into a lather over an animated talking sponge? Yet, in an odd way, I also find myself understanding some of what's bothering them."

She notes, further, that:

...if you peel away his repulsive prejudice against gays and his overheated paranoia, Dobson's stated problems with the video echo the worries of many ordinary parents, even liberal ones, that they are the losers in the culture wars and that they have been supplanted in their role by outside forces.

This phenomenon was brought home to me recently when my elementary school-age children's private school put up a photography exhibit on families with gay members.... What discomfited some of us - many of us, in fact - was the explicitness of the accompanying text describing families with bisexual and transgender parents and families with a history of incest.

This was a PC bridge too far. One day that week, I was driving the kids home and asked the innocuous question of what they had done in school. "We went up to see the exhibit and learned about transgender families," my 9-year-old answered brightly. "Will was a little confused about how the woman had the baby if she is a man." I held my breath, waiting for the 7-year-old to follow up.

...is it really necessary, absent such a predicate, to go through all this in elementary school? And whether my reaction is right or wrong, shouldn't this be a decision for me and my husband to make - not something sprung on us by our school? This is the way in which I find myself unexpectedly, and somewhat unsettlingly, aligned with the Focusers on the Family.

I'm not embracing Marcus's view of things, but I think it's important for those who work for gay equality to understand these fears instead of just dismissing them as "bigotry" and "hate." It might also help to recognize that some (not all) of what progressive activists want to preach to school kids, where they're able to do so, can be over the line.

More Recent Postings
1/23/05 - 1/29/05

Iran clerics have no problem with men undergoing sex change operations, reports the Los Angeles Times:

In the Islamic Republic of Iran, gay male sex still carries the death penalty and lesbians are lashed, but hundreds of people are having their gender changed legally, bolstered by the blessings of members of the ruling Shiite clergy.

"Approval of gender changes doesn't mean approval of homosexuality. We're against homosexuality," says Mohammed Mahdi Kariminia, a cleric in the holy city of Qom and one of Iran's foremost proponents of using hormones and surgery to change sex. "But we have said that if homosexuals want to change their gender, this way is open to them."

Sadly, gay men are no doubt facing intense pressure to undergo sex change/castrations. But one can see how, from the fundamentalists' perspective, this actually affirms the stark duality of gender that they need to uphold.

In Connecticut, the Hartford Courant reports in "Tactic May Stall Bid For Civil Unions" that:

Connecticut appeared poised this year to become the first state to approve civil unions for same-sex couples without the threat of court intervention. But now the chances of passage have greatly dimmed as the result of a controversial decision by an influential gay rights group. Love Makes a Family began telling legislative allies Wednesday it is launching an all-or-nothing campaign for a same-sex marriage law.

It is a decision that puts the group at odds with legislative supporters, some of whom see Connecticut on the threshold of extending an important civil right.

Are gay-marriage activists right to oppose civil unions, even if they confer all the state benefits of marriage? How about statewide domestic partnership bills, as in California, that might offer many but not all spousal rights?

The Courant story also reports:

Rep. Cameron Staples, D-New Haven, said civil unions have picked up significant bipartisan support in the last two years, including an unexpected endorsement from one of the legislature's leading conservatives, House Minority Leader Robert Ward, R-North Branford. "We have a real opportunity to pass a civil union bill this year with all the rights of marriage. The position taken by Love Makes a Family puts that at risk," Staples said. "I was disappointed."

Love Makes a Family, a coalition of groups backing equal marriage rights for same-sex couples, always set marriage as its goal. What's new, legislators said, is the all-or-nothing strategy....

In a sense, this debate could be looked at as Vermont vs. Massachusetts. In the former, a comprehensive civil unions law was passed following a court order that gays be given equivalent rights; in the latter, the state's highest court ordered that gays be granted full marriage equality. The Massachusetts' ruling, however, unleashed a backlash that led many states to pass constitutional amendments barring both same-sex marriage and (in many instances) civil unions, and gave momentum to a federal constitutional amendment that would do the same.

In neither Vermont nor Massachusetts, let's note, do same-sex couples receive federal recognition or spousal rights. However, in an interesting development, this week Wal-Mart (one of the nation's largest employers) expanded its definition of "immediate family" to include an employee's same-sex partner in states that recognize either domestic partnerships and civil unions. Once again, private employers go where government fears to tread.

Given how deeply conservative and fearful the nation is on the issue of marriage - even Kerry-voting Oregon voted overwhelmingly to ban gay marriage - supporting civil unions as an initial step doesn't seem imprudent (how's that for a definitive position!). As noted before, the Netherlands and Belgium both began with civil-union-like partnerships; after people became comfortable with them, it was easier to then grant gays full marriage access.

(Newly posted on this site, John Corvino further makes a case for civil unions.)

Canada, of course, looks like it may skip the civil unions phase and go straight (so to speak) to same-sex marriage. But the U.S. is most certainly not Canada, and one reason Canada may grant marriage rights is to further poke its nose at the U.S.

In Connecticut, if it turns out that the civil unions bill on the verge of passing is pulled for lack of gay activists' support, and if no marriage bill is subsequently passed (and I believe it very unlikely one would be), it will stand as a lesson for others facing the same choice elsewhere.

"A coalition of major conservative Christian groups is threatening to withhold support for President Bush's plans to remake Social Security unless Mr. Bush vigorously champions a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage," reports the New York Times.

The letter, dated Jan. 18 and addressed to the administration's lead political strategist, Karl Rove, was sent by a coalition known as the Arlington Group. Last November, MSNBC reported that the Arlington Group "unites the heads of almost every major political advocacy organization on the Christian right, including James Dobson of Focus on the Family, Gary Bauer of American Values, Bill Bennett of Empower America, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, Sandy Rios of Concerned Women for America and Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation."

The Arlington Group expressed disappointment with the White House's decision to put Social Security and other economic issues ahead of its paramount interest: opposition to same-sex marriage. Referencing President Bush's recent statement that "nothing will happen" on the marriage amendment for now because many senators did not see the need for it, the group's letter threatens:

When the administration adopts a defeatist attitude on an issue that is at the top of our agenda [banning same-sex marriage], it becomes impossible for us to unite our movement on an issue such as Social Security privatization where there are already deep misgivings.

The letter also whined that in an interview before the election President Bush "appeared to endorse civil unions" for same-sex couples, something the left-gays at the Human Rights Campaign have still not acknowledged.

In response to the letter, the Log Cabin Republicans issued a statement saying:

The Arlington Group should stop using political blackmail to push a divisive Constitutional amendment that failed by wide margins last year in both houses of Congress. Instead they should join with other conservative and Republican groups in supporting the GOP's reform agenda.

The statement also quoted LCR President Patrick Guerriero saying:

The creation of personal savings accounts is a tremendous opportunity for the Republican Party to build an ownership society. I hope the Arlington Group joins Log Cabin and dozens of other grassroots conservative organizations in fully supporting Republican efforts to save Social Security.

I'm glad that, at least this time, it's Log Cabin that's standing by the administration and building bridges while the one-issue focused social conservatives are refusing to play if they don't get their way.

A follow-up on responses from left and right to the controversial "gay Lincoln" theory. Columnist Doug Ireland, gay and of the left, writes that a grotesque Lincoln cartoon in The Nation, the leading leftwing political magazine, "showing Lincoln's head on a woman's body with an ample, protruding bosom and dressed scantily in 19th century women's lingerie," is much worse than even the rightwing Weekly Standard's gay-stereotype Lincoln cover. And it is. Scroll down Ireland's blog and take a look.

More Recent Postings
1/16/05 - 1/22/05

No, not polygamy. But a bill granting some marriage-like rights passed Utah's state senate, reports the Salt Lake Tribune. The bill, for example, would

...allow two adults - be it a same-sex couple or a grandmother and granddaughter - to register with the state Health Department and check which benefits they want, including hospital visitation privileges and inheritance....

In addition to granting hospital-visitation rights and inheritance benefits to those who register for reciprocal rights, the bill would allow them to make organ-donation decisions, make funeral arrangements and also make emergency medical choices for the other person.

The bill comes less than three months after voters overwhelmingly passed a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage and restrict benefits in any "domestic union" outside marriage.

Now, one could argue that allowing a man to "reciprocal partner" with his grandmother is far more likely to weaken traditional marriage than letting two unrelated gay adults wed. But being optimistic, maybe if people get used to same-sex couples "reciprocal partnering," it would make them less fearful of same-sex marriage (or at least civil unons!) - even in Utah.

Update: Well, so much for that, as Utah lawmakers kill partners bill.

An e-mailed press release from the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force hypes "Why Welfare Reform Is a Queer Issue," a panel and "speak out" to be held at NYC's LGBT Community Center on Jan. 26. On the agenda, NGLTF's Jason Cianciotto will explain the "overt homophobia in welfare - abstinence promotion, marriage promotion, fatherhood initiatives." Also according to the press release:

Policy experts will address the harmful impact of the 1996 welfare reform laws on the LGBT community and what's in store for the LGBT community with reauthorization.... Discussion will include how new welfare proposals increase funding for homophobic policies like marriage promotion and fatherhood initiatives.

I remember how when Clinton signed the GOP welfare reform bill requiring able-bodied, long-term welfare recipients to take available jobs, left-liberals predicted our nation would again be filled with Hoovervilles (i.e., homeless tent cities). Instead, a record number of long-term welfare recipients actually (gasp) took jobs.

As for welfare reform being anti-LGBT because it promotes marriage and fatherhood, one could certainly argue that not allowing gays to marry increases the liklihood that poor gays would need welfare, since studies show married couples are better able to lift themselves out of poverty. But I suspect we're actually seeing a hint of what the activists at NGLTF actually feel - marriage itself is an oppressive institution, so encouraging folks to marry (and, especially, encouraging single mothers to marry one of their children's fathers) simply reinforces the evils of patriarchy.

Update: If you haven't done so, click below and read the comments posted on this item. We don't always get intelligent debate; this time we did.

I've been out of town with limited computer access these past few days, which explains the lack of postings. I hope to get caught up next week. But I did want to check in and note a few passing thoughts.

On Bush's inaugural theme of freedom and liberty: It's easy to point out the obvious - he wants to deny gay couples the freedom to marry. True enough, but endorsing individual freedom as the foundation for social advancement is still worth celebrating, and Bush's rhetoric can be used to hold the GOP accountable when it attempts to use the power of the state to elevate the prejudices of the majority over the rights of all to equal treatment under the law (including the right to equal participation in the institutions created or regulated by the state). Remember, Thomas Jefferson was a slaveholder but his proclamation that "all men are created equal" nevertheless provided the inspiration to abolish slavery.

But by the same token, freedom also means free individuals may choose with whom they wish to affiliate and associate in the private sphere, and the state should not intervene even if private country clubs choose to discriminate against gays and not recognize gay families. That is simply one of the tradeoffs of freedom.

On Martin Luther King Day, "The Oprah Winfrey Show" focused on Nate Berkus, a regular guest who talks about interior design, and who just survived the tsunami disaster in Sri Lanka. Sadly, his partner, photographer Fernando Bengoechea, was lost in the waves. Berkus told a very moving story of fighting to stay together and cling to one another as they were both swept into the ocean, and then being pulled apart by the water's force. Many in the audience wept. It was Oprah's highest rated show of the season, and another example of how Americans from all walks are getting to know gay people and our lives.

Update: Writing in Salon, Jennifer Buckendorff's "The Oprah Way" explains why "to change people's minds on issues like gay marriage, liberals [I'd say supporters of gay equality] need to learn to tug at their heartstrings."

Rich Tafel's blog reports on a local GOP event where Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie was asked, by Republican Unity Coalition founder Charles Francis, about the place of gays in an inclusive GOP. Rich writes:

Gillespie went on to explain that the GOP needed to reach out to all groups if the party is to become a majority party....My impression is that the Republican leaders are looking for opportunities to mend fences with gays in the party....For gays to move forward they'll need to educate those who don't understand us in the same way the Gillespie's father educated him about the immigration issue. It looks like there are opportunities now to build bridges between gay Republicans and the GOP.

That's a hopeful message for inauguration week, but time will tell whether the GOP's leadership is intent on becoming a big tent, or just blowing smoke.