IGF CultureWatch

Many Democrats may be total reactionaries when it comes to defending set-in-stone New Deal/Great Society centralized government programs and declaring "No reform yesterday, no reform today, no reform tomorrow" -- just more spending down the bureaucratic rat holes to create even more anti-market, big government "solutions" that will keep the apparachiks fully employed. But too many Republicans are total reactionaries when it comes to social issues and cultural matters, especially "topic G." A brief sample from current U.S. Senate and House campaigns (many via www.politics1.com):

Rep. Tom Coburn (the GOP Senate candidate in Oklahoma): "[L]esbianism is so rampant in some of the schools in southeast Oklahoma that they'll only let one girl go to the bathroom. Now think about it. Think about that issue. How is it that that's happened to us?"

Rep. Jim DeMint (the GOP Senate candidate in South Carolina): "If a person wants to be publicly gay, they should not be teaching in the public schools."

Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kansas): "Marriage is a privilege the State should protect, but it is not a right for same-sex partners, multiple partners, or any configuration of people and animals that express love for one another."

Mel Martinez (the GOP Senate candidate in Florida): Blasted his primary opponent as "anti-family" and "the new darling of the homosexual extremists" because he supported a hate crimes bill that included gays.

And there's much more of the same. Worse, gays are in a Catch-22 when it comes to the GOP -- because so few gays support Republicans, the party feels no need to concern itself about gay opinion, especially at the risk of alienating its social conservative base.

If the GOP loses the White House and even the Senate, that strategy could be bankrupt. Of course, the economy will probably tank as we have four years of Carter/Mondale redux, but that's the choice we face. Hail the two-party duopoly!

"Kerry and Edwards are becoming more obsessed with Mary Cheney than Pat Robertson is with bestiality," observes Gay Patriot, while Mickey Kaus speculates "it's a poll-tested attempt to cost Bush and Cheney the votes of demographic groups (like Reagan Dems, or fundamentalists) who are hostile to homosexuality or gay culture." Suspicious, isn't he.

As Lynne Cheney fumes over Kerry's "cheap and tawdry political trick," Elizabeth Edwards accuses her of being ashamed of Mary (who, by the way, if you didn't happen to know out there is undecided blue collar and soccer mom land, is A LESBIAN.

Carolyn Lochhead, an IGF contributing author, has penned a thoughtful piece for the San Francisco Chronicle on the betrayal felt by gay Republicans over President Bush's support of the marriage amendment. She pays particular attention to the Austin 12, a group of gay Republicans who met with then-Gov. Bush in 2000 during his campaign. Below are quotes from four of them, pulled from the article:

David Catania, a District of Columbia Councilmember: "My heart has left the party, my head has left the party. The party as it is now is not one I can support."

Rebecca Maestri, former aide to Sen. Al D'Amato: "I believe in the principles of the Republican Party, and I won't be railroaded out of the party just because of my sexual orientation."

David Daniel Stewart, mayor of Plattsburgh, N.Y.: "I can't support George Bush anymore. I have just had it. He hit my soul, he hit my heart. I'm not going to stand there and violate my own conscience to help get someone elected."

Brian Bennett, who came out while chief of staff to anti-gay former Rep. Bob Dornan: "Why should we abandon Rudy Giuliani, George Pataki, Arnold Schwarzenegger and other leaders who are in the party taking heat for standing up for gays and lesbians? They have the courage to stand up for me in my party. What good would I be for them, who are in some ways jeopardizing their political futures by standing up for me, if I cut and run?"

At least one of the 12 is on record saying he'll still vote for Bush (former AIDS czar Scott Evertz). Others, including Stewart, said they can't support either candidate. But Catania has switched his party affiliation to "independent" and endorsed Kerry/Edwards.

More Recent Postings
10/3/04 - 10/9/04

Responding to the veep debate, Human Rights Campaign head Cheryl Jacques castigates Dick Cheney for his views on AIDS. As an HRC news release puts it:

"Vice President Cheney's ignorance about the HIV/AIDS crisis is inexcusable," said Jacques. "When asked about the effect this epidemic is having on Americans - especially communities of color - he said he was unaware of the problem."

But a new letter posted in our mailbag ("HRC: Beyond Spinning Lies Deceit," Oct. 8) begs to differ:

Cheney's answer did not show ignorance of HIV issues. He didn't know that black women between the ages of 25 and 44 are 13 times more likely to die of AIDS than "their counterparts." I follow issues of HIV and AIDS and although I am aware that HIV infection rates have significantly increased as a percentage among black women, I was unaware of that exact statistic. In fact, I'm still not sure what the moderator meant by "their counterparts"; I don't know if she meant other races, other ages, men, the general population or just what. Neither did Cheney.

Frankly, neither candidate answered the question well with...Edwards being less forthcoming on the answer than Cheney. So [Jacques' statement] goes beyond spinning to outright deceit.

Of course, the "racist, sexist, anti-gay" mantra is the prism through which the left views all things Republican. So instead of building on Cheney's break with Bush over the marriage amendment and celebrating that his daughter, Mary, appeared on stage with her lesbian partner after the debate - and the positive signal this sent - HRC instead attacks Cheney by distorting his response. Along with their decision to oppose the re-election of moderate, pro-gay GOP Sen. Arlen Specter of Penn., Jacques and HRC are telling Republicans no matter what they do, they will be vilified. What a great way to advance the cause of gay legal equality with a Congress that's likely to have a GOP majority even if their beloved Kerry wins the White House.

I wish I had more time to visit other non-lefty gay or gay-friendly blogs. Anyhow, blogger Boi From Troy shares his views on the veep debate addressing gay marriage and lesbian daughters, as does Gay Patriot. And here's Ryan Sager's two cents. These sites are well worth checking out (but remember to come back!).

Thus speaks John Kerry, as quoted in Thursday's New York Times:

"The president and I have the same position, fundamentally, on gay marriage. We do. Same position. But they're out there misleading people and exploiting it."

And who would be misleading people so nefariously, the great right-wing conspiracy? How about the gay left-wing claque.

Sure, if Kerry wins we may get four years of vacillation and appeasement abroad, higher taxes and blocked entitlement reform at home, with Carter-era economic growth thanks to jacked-up minimum wage levels and an onslaught of anti-business regulation, trade tariffs and approval of the Kyoto protocols. While endorsing marriage-banning state constitutional amendments and leaving in place the military's don't ask/don't tell gay ban in deference to "unit cohesion," Kerry will appoint some lesbigay Democratic hacks to mid-level bureaucratic positions and send press releases to the gay media each June recognizing pride month. Happy Days Are Here Again!

OK, that's the worst-case scenario. My colleague Paul Varnell's recently posted column provides a more nuanced view of a Kerry victory (which I see as the likely election outcome).

The National Gay & Lesbian Task Force co-sponsored a new study showing that black lesbian couples are raising children at almost the same rate as black married couples, and that black same-sex couples raise children at twice the rate of white same-sex couples. The Task Force concludes that "Black same-sex couples have more to gain from the legal protections of marriage, and more to lose if states pass amendments banning marriage and other forms of partner recognition."

Fair enough, but being the Task Force, they add:

"These facts underscore the hypocrisy and wrong-headedness of the Bush Administration's aggressive attempts to deprive same sex couples equal marriage rights while touting its multi-million dollar 'African-American Healthy Marriage Initiative' as a way to strengthen the African American family," said Matt Foreman, the Task Force's Executive Director. "This report clearly shows that denying the protections that come with marriage disproportionately hurts...gay and lesbian African American couples....

Yep, blacks suffer "disproportionately," of course. And while it's fair enough to castigate Bush over the federal marriage amendment, what about Kerry's support for state marriage amendments -- the current threat. Also, the Task Force makes no mention of the devastating breakdown of straight black marriage that their study reveals (because if they did, they couldn't attack Bush for trying to address that problem and hit him on both fronts).

Something else the Task Force doesn't mention: the marriage amendment received a higher percentage of votes in the House from black Democrats than from Democrats as a whole.

Of the 36 Democrats who voted for the anti-gay amendment, 7 were members of the Congressional Black Caucus, including Rep. Harold Ford, D-Tenn., a rising star in the party and one of John Kerry's earliest backers in Congress. (Of the 158 Democrats voting against the amendment, 25 were black caucus members, a somewhat smaller percentage). Which, ahem, seems to suggest some "disproportionate" homophobia among black Democrats.

Engaging the Enemy.

Jonathan Rauch has an interesting debate with David Blankenhorn, a pro-fatherhood, pro-family advocate over at the website Familyscholars.org (Jonathan's latest posting has links back to earlier installments). The discussion focuses on federalism and why honest conservatives should support letting states decide their own marriage laws.

I'm not the only one who viscerally felt that John Edwards' raising the issue of Mary Cheney during the vice presidential debate had the feel of a sting. Said Edwards in response to a question about gay marriage (which Cheney had answered without mentioning his daughter):

let me say first that I think the vice president and his wife love their daughter. I think they love her very much. And you can't have anything but respect for the fact that they're willing to talk about the fact that they have a gay daughter, the fact that they embrace her. It's a wonderful thing.

As blogger Mickey Kaus of Slate's Kausfiles put it, "I got the heebie jeebies when [Edwards] smarmily praised Cheney for having a gay daughter." My interpretation: Hello, socially conservative-leaning independents. Did you know about this.

Addendum: The Wall Street Journal's James Taranto agrees. From his Wednesday OpinionJournal.com debate analysis:

At present, a vast majority of Americans oppose same-sex marriage; when it comes up to a statewide vote--whether in a red state or blue--voters typically reject it by majorities ranging from 60% to 80%. This means there are a lot of Democrats who...belong to their party despite its views on social issues.

We don't agree with the gay-rights crowd that "bigotry" is behind all opposition to same-sex marriage, but there's no doubt that some opponents harbor antigay prejudice. Were these the voters John Edwards was addressing when he brought Cheney's daughter into the debate?

Racial demagogue and slander-monger Al Sharpton, scheduled to give the evening's keynote address at the Human Rights Campaign's annual National Dinner in Washington, DC, has pulled out of the event, citing a scheduling conflict (apparently, he's got a gig as an analyst for the Oct. 8 presidential debate). "We're disappointed that he can't make it, but of course we understand," HRC spokesperson Steven Fisher told the Washington Blade. Perhaps there's still time to get Louis Farrakhan.

More Recent Postings
9/26/04 - 10/2/04

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has angered social conservatives by signing legislation requiring health insurance policies to provide coverage for registered domestic partners, a bill to help law enforcement battle hate crimes (including anti-gay violence), and a measure to legalize the sale of over-the-counter syringes to slow the spread of AIDS. So, he's a liberal, right?

Wrong. The "Governator" also outraged the left (including gay Democrats) by vetoing a string of anti-business measures, including a bill to jack up the state-enforced minimum wage, and "consumer protection" and anti-pollution mandates that would add significantly to the costs of doing business. As the state's economy struggles under what's already one of the most onerous regulatory climates in the country, perhaps the world, unions and liberal lobbyists -- and the legislators they fund -- think driving small businesses out of business (and bigger businesses out of the state) is dandy as candy.

Arnold is so appealing because he's willing to stand up to the professional activists of the left, while standing firm on issues of legal equality.

There's one proposed constitutional amendment I'd happily support: allowing foreign-born U.S. citizens to run for President. This constitutional prohibition - a legacy of Alexander Hamilton's political opponents! - is itself an affront to legal equality that should be done away with. Here's hoping.