IGF CultureWatch

The House of Representatives is set to vote this week on the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA), a political ploy by right-wing Republicans to bash gay-supportive Democrats, since the Senate's anti-amendment vote (with Kerry and Edwards absent) dooms the measure for this session. Our own Dale Carpenter has written an excellent paper for the Cato Institute explaining why this debate should remain in the state legislatures and the federal government has no business regulating family life. It's an argument aimed at small government, pro-federalism conservatives who should oppose the FMA.

Meanwhile, Cheryl Jacques, head of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), during a conference last week with journalists quoted in the Washington Blade, lobbied against the FMA by saying:

"This is nothing but a political effort to draw attention away from Congress' failure to do something about the economy, the hemorrhaging of jobs, rising health care costs and national security."

Let's reflect on this tactic. HRC ought to be doing whatever it can to move moderate and libertarian-minded Republicans to oppose the FMA, arguing against constitutionalizing the marriage ban in a way that might sway them. Instead, she uses language that mirrors Kerry's critique of Bush's domestic agenda and calls for more expansive government. This tactic can only have one outcome: to antagonize those very Republicans whose votes she should be soliciting!

Jacques is a partisan drone who hasn't made a right call since taking the helm at HRC earlier this year. It's time for her to go.

The National Gay & Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) sent out an e-mail earlier this week that read as follows:

The year is 2010. Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people have been guaranteed the rights granted every American by the Constitution of the United States. And, as predicted, the homosexuals have taken over. Old Glory's gone pink. Hedonism reigns. And ass-less chaps are standard office attire. Welcome to the United States of Gaymerica.

Click to enter:

http://ga4.org/ct/BdzNfRd1NQlI/gaymerica

The clink is to a webpage that continues the theme. Bizarre, to say the least, but it turns out this is a weird NGLTF call to vote on Nov. 2 styled as a parody of anti-gay propaganda. Unfortunately, NGLTF seems unaware of how easily its satire could be used by anti-gay wingers in real anti-gay fundraising letters proclaiming, "See, this is what gays really want."

In fact, the rightwing is still circulating a 1987 Gay Community News manifesto that declared "We shall sodomize your sons" and "Tremble, hetero swine," also said to have been meant as darkly humorous but which subsequently found its way into the Congressional Record as evidence of the "gay agenda."

Elsewhere, NGLTF is worried that, according to its press release, "Bisexuals Overlooked in the Debate on Equal Marriage Rights." It states:

when the Washington Post wrote about the first same-sex couple to marry in Massachusetts...the headline was wrong. One of the two, Robyn Ochs...emphasized her orientation as a bisexual in speaking with the reporter, [but] this was never mentioned....

As if focusing on bisexuality would help make the case for marriage equality clearer!

On Saturday, Louisiana voters overwhelmingly approved a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages and civil unions, one of 12 such measures on ballots around the country this year. Poll watchers say it's likely anti-gay-marriage advocates will win all 12, and win most of these easily, although the proposed ban in Oregon has a shot at losing (and maybe in Michigan, too).

The Massachusetts Supreme Court's Goodridge ruling, declaring that the Bay State must recognize full same-sex marriage -- rather than civil unions with the rights associated with marriage, as in Vermont -- will be viewed as a move that went too far, too fast, and triggered a wave of state actions that actually set back the cause of marriage equality for decades (it was George Bernard Shaw, I think, who said the road to hell is paved with good intentions).

Or maybe the success of these anti-gay ballot initiatives will show that states are quite capable of stopping same-sex marriage if they want to, derailing the pressure for a federal Constitutional amendment.

In any event, the battle for marriage equality is going to be long and hard, with many setbacks but also a few victories (Massachusetts voters may allow their same-sex marriages to stand; other states will add or beef up their domestic partnership laws; the next generation is going to be far more comfortable with gay equality than today's average voter.) Better strategies, pursued along less partisan lines and attempting to appeal to voters not already on the liberal left, could be put into play. In time, federalism allows what works to spread and exposes what's hidebound. Not today. Not tomorrow. But eventually.

More Recent Postings
9/12/04 - 9/18/04

In an interview published in the Dallas Voice, a gay paper, John Kerry says he was wrong to endorse a Missouri state constitutional amendment, recently passed by voters, that will ban same-sex marriage and civil unions in that state. Apparently, he was misinformed about the matter and only supports amending state constitutions to ban gay marriage, while civil unions are ok. Of course, this is very close to what Bush recently said, so I guess Kerry is courageously making sure he doesn't get to Bush's right on this matter -- not that gay Democratic activists would complain or anything.

Being uncharitable, one could say that Kerry has once again done a political recalculation and flip-flopped -- though this time in our favor. Can he tell religious conservatives he supported the Missouri amendment before he opposed it?

And yes, I realize Bush, unlike Kerry, supports the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would ban same-sex marriage and civil unions (though Bush, disingenuously, disputes it would nix the latter).

Also of note, Kerry's daughter, Vanessa, has told AIDS advocates her dad would double spending in that area. But it's odd that during a week in which Kerry the candidate spoke extensively about his health care agenda he didn't feel compelled to go on record with this promise himself. Maybe he's made so many promises to double spending in so many areas -- while balancing the budget, of course -- that he decided this was best delivered at a distance and below the media spotlight.

--Stephen H. Miller

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