IGF CultureWatch

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!

The Washington Post takes a look at gay GOPers and their fight for the soul of the Republican Party.

Meanwhile, anti-gay Congressman Edward Schrock (R-Va.), married and a father, is outed for allegedly trolling gay sex lines and ends his re-election bid, also reports the Post. In 2000 Schrock said when opposing gays in the military, "You're in the showers with them, you're in the bunk room with them, you're in staterooms with them. You just hope no harm would come by folks who are of that persuasion. It's a discipline thing."

The Washington Post editorializes on the latest bit of anti-gay venom to come out of the Old Dominion, where a state judge has ruled that Virginia's recently passed Marriage Affirmation Act nullifies a Vermont court's recognition of parental rights on the part of a lesbian who is now de-civil unionized from her former (and now ex-gay) partner, the child's biological parent.

Illegalities aside (you can read the Post editorial for the scoop), what a nightmare it must be not only to break up with a former spousal-equivalent with whom you've been co-parenting from the get-go, but then to have her custody jump to the most anti-gay state in the union and bring in lawyers from religious right "family" groups to ensure you can never see the child again.

When love is gone, it's gone.

More Recent Postings
8/22/04 - 8/28/04

Remember when the Human Rights Campaign used to portray itself as nonpartisan? Now, following on the heels of the group's decision to oppose the re-election of incumbent Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), one of the GOP's most consistently gay-supportive members, HRC has garnered attention for its high and unstinting praise of New Jersey Gov. James McGreevey. Unethical he may be, but he's a gay Democrat, and they're not admitting to any concerns.

And then there's the presidential race, in which HRC's involvement included a "Fahrenheit 9/11 Audience Outreach Campaign." And, at its Dupont Circle storefront in the nation's capital, HRC's placards, stickers and shirts proclaim "George W. Bush: You're Fired!" rather than much about gay issues. Moreover, HRC has hired billboard trucks to troll around New York City during the GOP convention, again promoting the same, now cliche "You're Fired" message.

HRC may bill itself as "the nation's largest gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender political organization," but it's getting harder to see any difference between the group, which in the past has made unequivocal support for abortions without restrictions and for race-based preferences into candidate "scorecard" items, and other liberal-left Democratic Party affiliates such as Moveon.org.

As noted earlier, EMILY's List may have no compunction about supporting an anti-gay rights but pro-abortion rights Senate candidate, but HRC is determined to make itself the leader of a grand coalition of the left, even as its mission of bipartisan gay advocacy gets lost along the way.

At the request of the Republican National Committee, New York City's tourist bureau has pulled the off-Broadway show "Naked Boys Singing" from a list of discounted offerings to visiting Republican delegates, the AP reports. The gay-themed musical revue "celebrates the splendors of male nudity in comedy, song and dance." But the Republican bluenoses complained after about a dozen people, presumably delegates, had purchased tickets using the special code offered on the tourist bureau's Web site.

Meanwhile, the Log Cabin Republicans note, the GOP platform committee was busily at work making sure that, contrary to recent remarks by the president and veep, not only gay marriage but civil unions and domestic partner benefits would be condemned in the party's official platform. Red meat to the hard-right social conservatives upset over the moderate lineup of convention speakers, but just the sort of reactionary obtuseness that drives away fair-minded swing voters.

As the San Francisco Chronicle reports, "Vice President Dick Cheney, whose daughter Mary is a lesbian, drew criticism from both proponents and foes of gay marriage Tuesday after he distanced himself from President Bush's call for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage." Cheney said:

"Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it's an issue our family is very familiar with. With respect to the question of relationships, my general view is freedom means freedom for everyone ... People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to.

"The question that comes up with the issue of marriage is what kind of official sanction or approval is going to be granted by government? Historically, that's been a relationship that has been handled by the states. The states have made that fundamental decision of what constitutes a marriage."

Having made it clear he, personally, doesn't support federalizing marriage, as the failed anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) sought to do, Cheney went on to provide some cover to President Bush, a strong FMA supporter, remarking:

"I think his [Bush's] perception was that the courts, in effect, were beginning to change, without allowing the people to be involved. The courts were making the judgment for the entire country."

As the Chronicle notes, Cheney's comments drew a rebuke from the religious right's Family Research Council, while doing little to mollify anti-Bush activists, such as the Human Rights Campaign.

But it's significant, I think, that Cheney's remarks follow on the heels of Bush's own, under-reported statement earlier this month that regarding civil unions, "That's up to states. If they want to provide legal protections for gays, that's great. That's fine. But I do not want to change the definition of marriage."

It sure looks like the administration is moderating its stance, trying to recapture some of the gay/gay friendly votes in the all-important swing states. And while it doesn't, and can't, make up for unleashing the FMA in the first place, it's certainly a welcome change of tone -- especially as the Kerry camp moves in the other direction, denouncing gay marriage and backtracking on gays in the military.

The Cherokee National Tribal Council voted to define marriage as only between a man and a woman, reports the AP. "If we don't address this, we'll have a flood of same-sex marriages," an advocate of the ban asserted, adding that same-sex matrimony would otherwise "be a black eye on the Cherokee Nation. Even the state of Oklahoma doesn't allow same-sex marriage."

Nope, not even gonna attempt to parse those comments. But I did refrain from heading this item "Anti-Gay Cherokees on the Warpath."
--Stephen H. Miller