IGF CultureWatch

Gay service members returning from Iraq and Afghanistan say that the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy is "meaningless and unenforceable" and "prevents gays and lesbians from bonding with their peers," according to a new survey reported by the AP.

"All the policy meant to me...was that I still had to hide," says one former soldier, who adds, "All it does it put more stress on people." Some service members told researchers they feared that confiding in doctors or chaplains would place them at risk for being discovered and discharged. Yet many said younger service members with whom they served, on learning of their orientation, typically had no problem with it, even if the military brass did.

Neither Bush nor Kerry has shown a willingness to revisit a policy that prevents brave and able men and women from serving their country without the burden of having to lie and hide. Kerry originally made promising noises, then quickly backtracked once he encountered resistance and now speaks about the importance of "unit cohesion" (but hey, he's been promised the gay vote for free by our activist "leadership," so what the heck). As for Bush, his interest now is to placate the hard religious right in search of even more evangelical votes, although it's worth remembering that Cheney did once famously deride the gay ban as "a bit of an old chestnut."

It's certain Kerry, given the need to overcome his past stinging criticism of the military, won't touch this hot potato. Bush could pull a "Nixon goes to China," but there's little to suggest he would.

An article on The New Republic's TRN Online site (alas, subscribers only) raises some pertinent questions about Bush campaign guru Karl Rove's evangelical-vote strategy. In "Off Base," Marisa Katz notes Rove's frequently cited remark before the American Enterprise Institute, where he said:

"If you look at the model of the electorate, and you look at the model of who voted, the big discrepancy is among self-identified, white, evangelical Protestants, Pentecostals and fundamentalists. ... There should have been 19 million of them, and instead there were 15 million of them. Just over four million of them failed to turn out and vote... that you would have anticipated voting in a normal presidential election."

Rove has made capturing those "missing" 4 million evangelical votes the centerpiece of his campaign strategy, advising Bush, it's widely believed, to push for a Federal Marriage Amendment. But it seems no one is quite sure where Rove's numbers come from. Writes Katz:

Rove has never disclosed his sources or explained his methodology, and even the most respected analysts of evangelical opinion can't divine the origin of his statistics. "Whether the four million is the right number is unclear for me, and it's always been unclear for me since the first day I heard it," said John Green, a University of Akron political scientist who has been studying the U.S. evangelical community for 30 years. "That's a figure [Rove]'s been throwing around for several years, and I don't know what he's talking about," agreed Furman University political scientist James Guth, who has an equally long history of evangelical scholarship.

And upon this, Rove - and Bush - decided to sacrifice a verified (by Voter News Service exit polling) 1.1 million gay GOP votes (here are the figures).

Just a Thought

Groups like the Human Rights Campaign should more honestly define themselves as outreach organizations that mobilize gays and lesbians to support liberal issues and vote for Democrats -- rather than as lobbyists seeking to pressure Democrats (and Republicans) on behalf of gays and lesbians.

More Recent Postings
9/05/04 - 9/11/04

Here's a moving piece from the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, titled What Threat to Marriage? by Bill Hetland, about caring for his life partner, Phil Anderson, who is paralyzed. Hetland writes:

It isn't so much about having the same rights as straight couples -- although that would be nice. Rather, I'm angry with those who demonize gays and think that loving gay couples like us somehow threaten that sanctity. We have been together for almost 16 years and have survived incredible challenges during the past three and one-half years.

Phil was paralyzed from the waist down in a February 2001 auto accident and has since been hospitalized for femur reconstruction, lung surgery, a stroke, gallbladder surgery, multiple seizures, chronic pain and numerous other health problems. Last September, during a celebration of our 15 years together, I presented Phil with a framed "Certificate of Survival" in recognition of his incredible courage. ...

Like Phil, I'm a veteran, having served in Vietnam. We have both served our country honorably and have been honorable in our commitment to each other. Yet there are still folks who see gay couples like us as a threat to the sanctity of marriage.

How small and mean-spirited our opponents seem in the face of testimony like this.

Theweddingparty.org, a pro-gay marriage site, runs an excellent news digest of gay-marriage-related items and links. Recently posted: an AP story on Howard Dean's forthcoming book, which includes this interesting tidbit:

Dean recounts that one of the people Clinton called was a Dean supporter who described how the former president said that Dean "had forfeited his right to run for president." That was because, Dean writes, he had signed a law creating civil unions for gay and lesbian couples and Clinton believed Dean couldn't be elected as a result.

Not so surprising, given Clinton's history of supporting, signing, and ballyhooing (on ads that ran in the South) his support for the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which bars the federal government from recognizing same-sex nuptials. Interestingly, Log Cabin refused to endorse George W. Bush owing to his support of the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment, while the Human Rights Campaign and lesbigay liberals gave orgiastic support to Bill Clinton despite DOMA.

Speaking for myself and not on behalf of our heterodox IGF fellowship, I wish I could support Bush, since I'm in his camp on a wide range of issues (the War on Terror, entitlement and tort reform, pro-investment tax cuts). But I can't. He's sold my vote to the religious right.

Yet I won't be voting for Kerry, with whom I disagree on most foreign and domestic policies, not to mention his wishy-washy position on topic G (he opposes gay marriage and supports state amendments to ban 'em, but claims he also opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment - just not enough to vote against it).

Addendum: I should also have noted that when asked about the military gay ban, Kerry equivocates and talks about "unit cohesion." But to those gays who are first and foremost liberal Democratic Party activists, it matters not.

The board of the gay Log Cabin Republicans has voted overwhelming against endorsing President Bush for re-election, reports the New York Times, citing Bush's support for the proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. In doing so, said LCR head Patrick Guerriero, "Some will accuse us of being disloyal. It was actually the White House who was disloyal" to the one million self-identified gay voters who supported President Bush in the 2000 election.

[LCR's news release is here.]

LCR also struck the right chord in making sure to praise the aspects of the GOP agenda which they, as Republicans, agree. As the Times reports:

Log Cabin, [Guerriero] said, "proudly supported the president's firm leadership in the war on terror," adding, "We especially applaud the president's leadership in cutting taxes for American families and small businesses, his belief in free-market principles and his compassionate and historic leadership in the global fight against H.I.V./AIDS."

The group also denounced what it called "flip-flops" by Senator John Kerry, the Democratic nominee, referring to statements that Mr. Kerry opposed same-sex marriage but also opposed amending the federal Constitution to ban it.

Guerriero, says the Times, "attributed the president's embrace of the proposed amendment to a 'dramatic and disappointing' decision by his political advisers to make turnout of evangelical Christians a priority in the 2004 election."

LCR now says it plans to "shift our financial and political resources to defeating the radical right," partly by supporting sympathetic Republican candidates for Congress." And that, too, is as it should be.

A column on the website of the Outlet Radio Network has an interesting item saying that Democrats in Indiana are trying to undermine the GOP nominee among conservative Republicans by spreading the word that he's pro-gay. That's it, boys and girls, make sure the GOP remains in the hands of the gay haters -- the country may never get gay equality, but the Dem's near monopoly on our vote will remain, and really, isn't that the important thing?

More Recent Postings
8/29/04 - 9/04/04

Before I leave for vacation, here's a link to Chris Crain's Washington Blade editorial, "A Tale of Two Parties." Crain notes the deafening silence on gay issues in the speeches delivered at both political conventions, even as their respective party platforms (tailored mainly to appease activists) took stands strongly in favor (Democrats) or opposed to (Republicans) gay rights. He then asks:

So if gay issues are so important, why won't [either party] engage the general public on them? Because both parties fear the risks outweigh the benefits.

He also observes:

Conservative groups have aggressively pressured the GOP not to remain quiet on gay issues. That's the only reason why President Bush endorsed the [Federal Marriage Amendment] to begin with.... Gay rights groups, meanwhile, have taken their marching orders directly from the Democratic National Committee and the Kerry/Edwards campaign, giving the party a "pass" on marriage equality and over-investing resources on the presidential race.

And he adds, sensibly:

...our movement must focus on persuading fair-minded moderates from both parties, along with independents. And we should be pressuring the Democrats to do the same because otherwise they clearly won't."

I'd go further: politics is the sphere in which society's acceptance of gays will be ratified, not the primary forum in which advances will first be made. Th relative silence from both sides -- at least at the presidential campaign level -- will give way as we continue our advances in the workplace, in the media, and in all the institutions of civil society. Then it will be the politicians' turn to play catch up.

Overt gay-bashing was avoided at the GOP shindig. In his acceptance speech, President Bush did proclaim, without referring directly to gay people, "Because the union of a man and woman deserves an honored place in our society, I support the protection of marriage against activist judges." Bush also jabbed Kerry for his Senate vote against "the bipartisan Defense of Marriage Act, which President Clinton signed." But this week's real gay-baiting took place elsewhere, in the GOP Senate runs by Mel Martinez in Florida (see item below) and Alan Keyes in Illinois.

Keyes, of course, called veep daughter Mary Cheney and all gay people "selfish hedonists." He subsquently defended himself, NBC reports, saying if his daughter were a lesbian,
he would tell her she was committing a sin and should pray.

As was widely noted, Mary did not join her father, mother, sister and the Cheney grandkids on stage after her father's Wednesday night speech -- although she did sit in the vice-presidential box next to her partner, Heather Poe, while her father spoke. Mary was also missing on Thursday night when the Cheney clan joined the Bushes onstage at the convention's close.

Some gay activists and media have concluded Mary was "kept off the stage." But the Washington Post reported that, according to those who would know, this was Mary's decision. And that sounds right. Nobody tells Dick Cheney which of his kids can and can't join him and Lynne on stage.

Given this, perhaps it's sad that Mary felt she should volunteer to remain seated for fear of creating more controversy. But I've also heard another explanation -- that Mary chose not to go onstage because, while she supports her dad, she doesn't want to publicly endorse the GOP, which her stage presence would have suggested. And that sounds right, too.

Addendum: The L.A. Times had a slightly different take, reporting that the "vice president's lesbian daughter and her life partner appear prominently at a gathering that has rejected them."

CNN is refusing to air a Log Cabin Republican commercial showing anti-gay demonstrators with signs reading "God Hates Fags." This somehow crosses the line of acceptability, CNN feels (not on the bigots' part, but on LCR's!). Would CNN have refused a black civil rights message that showed hoses and dogs?

Why they Want Us to Lie

Gay columnist Michael Alvear, writing in Lavender Magazine, relates an interesting experience that reveals religious conservatives want gays to lie about our lives so we don't make them (the conservatives) feel "uncomfortable."

Sadly, after running a campaign loaded with virulent gay bashing, former HUD Secretary and trial lawyer Mel Martinez has won the GOP Senate primary in Florida.

As reported by the Sun-Sentinel, Martinez accused his opponent, conservative former GOP Congressman Bill McCollum, of being "the new darling of the homosexual extremists" and "anti-family," and of trying to appease "the radical homosexual lobby" by supporting a bipartisan federal hate-crimes bill that included "sexual orientation."

In response, the St. Petersburg Times reversed its prior endorsement of Martinez, citing his campaign's "sleazy, homophobic advertisements" and saying "Martinez took his campaign into the gutter with hateful and dishonest attacks.... The Times is not willing to be associated with bigotry. As a result, we are taking the almost unprecedented step of rescinding our recommendation of Martinez."

But the editorially liberal Miami Herald shamed itself by sticking with its primary endorsement of Martinez, no doubt with an eye on the paper's large Cuban-American readership. Imagine, liberals selling out gays to appease an ethnic minority -- who could imagine!