IGF CultureWatch

I'd noted on Dec. 9 that the Human Rights Campaign was considering endorsing private social security accounts that would allow gays to inherit at least part of a deceased partner's retirement savings (now, because federal law does not recognize gay marriages, surviving partners and their nonbiological children can't inherit any benefits).

Sadly, but typically, the mere suggestion that HRC might support personal accounts, reports the New York Times,

provoked a sharp protest from other gay and lesbian leaders. After the article was published, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force sent a letter to all members of Congress saying the gay rights movement should not try to obtain equal rights at the expense of any other group of Americans.

"We specifically reject an attempts to trade equal rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people for the rights of senior citizens under Social Security or, for that matter, the rights of any other group of Americans," said the letter, signed by more than 60 gay and lesbian individuals and organizations.

So, although personal accounts would be good for gays without harming today's seniors (who'd continue under the current system), the reform is opposed by the grand coalition of the left, which plans to demagogue the issue for partisan gain, and so it's anathema for gays to support it. Got that?

Update: LawDork weighs in on NGLTF vs HRC.

And here's Mike Silverman's Red Letter Day blog on why private accounts matter (scroll down).

Resources: This report from the libertarian Cato Institute notes how incorporating personal retirement accounts into Social Security would "create clear property rights for individuals in which they can bequeath contributions to their family members, regardless of state or federal legality of their union."

Look Back: In 2000, I first urged activists to support personal social security accounts, in An Economic Agenda for Gay Couples.

I haven't wanted to wade through the sewer that is the Internet campaign by Michael Rogers, formerly of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, to "out" low-level, closeted gay Republican staffers working on Capitol Hill. But his recent missive, asking his minions to call and encourage anti-gay organizations to pressure Republicans to fire their gay employees, seems about as low as you can get.

On a much happier note, we welcome former Log Cabin leader Rich Tafel to the blogosphere. Check it out.

Canada could become the third country (after Belgium and the Netherlands) to fully legalize same-sex marriage, but a potentially bruising fight in parliament awaits, reports the Toronto Star. While the Canadian Supreme Court has ruled that the government can legalize same-sex marriage, this actually disappointed many activists who hoped the court would rule that the government must grant recognition to same-sex couples. Of course, as we've seen elsewhere, using court decrees to override the democratic process doesn't always work out so well in the end.

Belgium and the Netherlands both began with domestic partnerships/civil unions that were eventually merged into full marriage, so it will be instructive to see how the Canadian strategy plays out. I hope gay marriage is embraced by the people and their elected representatives. But I wouldn't expect U.S. gay marriage opponents to weaken their resolve either way.

Meanwhile, New Zealand goes the civil unions route.

posted December 10, 2004

Massachusetts companies, some of which pioneered domestic-partner benefits for unmarried, same-sex partners, said they are now withdrawing them for reasons of fairness: If gays can now marry, they should no longer receive special treatment in the form of health benefits that were not made available to unmarried, opposite-sex couples, reports the Boston Globe.

For those who believe that "marriage lite" alternatives actually weakened marriage, that's good news. But the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) of New England argues that taking away partner benefits for the unwed is discriminatory. Way to get across the message that gays want to strengthen marriage by joining it, GLAD!

In a welcome development, the Human Rights Campaign is reevaluating its failed strategies. Reports the New York Times, HRC's board has:

concluded that the group must bow to political reality and moderate its message and its goals. One official said the group would consider supporting President Bush's efforts to privatize Social Security partly in exchange for the right of gay partners to receive benefits under the program.

A sensible idea, but of course one that immediate elicited howls of protest from gay lefties.

If the Log Cabin Republican's leadership had been savvy, they would long ago have embraced social security personal accounts as a GOP-initiative that was good for gays, and perhaps even made some strategic alliances within the party. But, of course, they didn't. Gay Patriot West has more to say about LCR's identity crisis.

Abner Mason, an openly gay Bush appointee, argues in the Advocate that Bush's support for an anti-gay marriage consitutional amendment shouldn't overshadow his:

preelection statement on ABC's Good Morning America that he supports civil unions for gay couples....While making clear his opposition to same-sex marriage, Bush said he disagreed with the Republican platform, which opposes civil unions. ...

At a minimum, the president merited praise for his public recognition that gay relationships deserve respect and support. There was none. His announcement was met with deafening silence and, from some gay leaders, sharp criticism that condemned Bush's decision to back civil unions....

I guess it could be said that gay activists (including, in this case, the Log Cabin Republicans) never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. (Hat tip: Gay Patriot).

Also in the Advocate, Dr. Gary R. Cohan observes of gay activists:

These ambitious, well-intentioned, but dangerously naive baby boomer leaders grew up in a fast-food culture of instant gratification. They acted on impulse -- "Let's go for the gold!" -- and in the process have torpedoed 20 years of forward movement in a single election. We need to express our disappointment with some serious introspection, more judicious philanthropy, and a major reorganization of our civil rights strategy.

And, he adds:

We presumed we could skip the usual prerequisites of winning the "hearts and minds" of the American public. So swept-up in the moment were we that we ignored an important fact: Even decent-minded straight people were having difficulty grasping the concept of "gay marriage."

This is the type of reevaluation that we most need right now.

The Devil's Advocacy blog notes the Human Rights Campaign's plummeting clout on Capitol Hill under it's "only Democrats matter" strategy of late:

While HRC supporters characterize their shift to the left in the past years as a natural shift in strategy, the numbers tell a different story. In the 107th Congress, the HRC asked Members of Congress to sign a pledge that they wouldn't discriminate in their offices on the basis of sexual orientation; 68 out of 100 Senators signed.

In the 108th, however, the HRC broadened their pledge to include gender identity ... [T]he concept of a protected class for transgendered folks isn't as bipartisanly supported; this year, the HRC lost 46 of its previous pledges.

Many say this is progress, but in a town where politics is perception, the perception of progress is slipping.

It certinaly is.

Lambda Legal has emailed a press release ballyhooing that a New Jersey appeals court has heard its case "seeking marriage equality for same-sex couples." Says the release:

the judges asked us whether we're seeking to change the definition of marriage in New Jersey. We explained that there will be changes ahead and that judges haven't shied away from change when it brings the state in line with its constitution. We've seen similar change in Massachusetts recently, when same-sex couples began legally marrying there. The sky didn't fall and the world didn't crumble, and that's what we'll be seeing in New Jersey, as well.

Which brings to mind the question, What planet do these people live on? If 13 states passing state constitutional gay-marriage bans this year in the wake of Massachusetts wasn't enough (11 did so on Nov. 2), it's likely that a decision by a liberal NJ court ordering same-sex marriage could be just the extra impetus that backers of the Federal Marriage Amendment need to write their ban into the U.S. Constitution. Will Lambda be celebrating then?

Arguing for the rights of marriage through civil unions or domestic partnerships as an first step - and one that actually has the electorate's support - would have been the saner course.

I finally caught up with "Alexander," in which director Oliver Stone makes amends, somewhat, for his virulently homophobic conspiracy-theory flick "JFK." Alexander the Great is portrayed as bisexual, but clearly he feels real intimacy is what men physically share at night in bed, while women are for making heirs.

Still, the love between men is something that's talked of, save for one kiss and a few hugs, while the one heterosexual bedroom scene is quite explicit. A cop out? Well, in the Washington, D.C. theater where I saw the film with a mixed-race audience, the mere discussion of manly love elicited derisive cat-calls. So I guess Stone and his producers know their audience and how much (or rather, how little) of same-sex physicality they're willing to watch in a big-budget epic.

At the same time, nonsexual gays keeping popping up all over the small screen. The latest: On TBS's new reality show, "The Real Gilligan's Island" (in which two teams of castaways compete "Survivor" style), one of the "professors" turned out to be openly gay. Of course, didn't the original sitcom professor always seem gay (having shown little interest in Ginger or Mary Ann)?

Just as Americans, save for the hard religious-right flank, seem OK with domestic partnerships but not marriage, they seem OK with gays in the media but only if they're de-sexed ("Will & Grace" being the ultimate example). Over time, the comfort level with both gay marriage and physical displays of affection should increase, but it won't happen soon.

More Recent Postings
11/28/04 - 12/04/04

It's been a busy week, so I've ignored a lot of news. But belatedly, last Monday's Supreme Court decision not to review a challenge to Massachusetts' gay marriage ruling is of some significance.

I have come to believe the original, split decision by the Bay State's highest court requiring state recognition of same-sex marriages was an invitation to backlash with terrible consequences. Example: this week, Michigan was forced to end domestic partner benefits for state workers because of their state's anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment, passed Nov. 2. Even so, it would be supremely wrong for the U.S. Supreme Court to have invalidated Massachusetts' decree. Ultimately, this is a state matter and must be left to the interplay of state legislatures, governors and courts. That's why the Bush administration is wrong to try to federalize marriage laws with an anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment that would bar any state from recognizing same-sex unions.

What was done wrong in Massachusetts cannot be easily undone without making matters even worse, but there appears little chance that any other state would now follow Massachusetts' lead and decree the "M" word for gay couples. As my colleague Dale Carpenter points out in his new column, the California model is far more likely as an evolutionary scenario, and one that's unlikely to galvanize the forces of reaction in a way that sets back the clock on gay equality for years to come.