IGF CultureWatch

Jonathan Rauch weighs in on the McGreevey affair and what it says about the marriage fight in a Sunday New York Times Op-Ed, no less. He writes:

The gay-marriage debate is often conducted as if the whole issue were providing spousal health insurance and Social Security survivors' benefits for existing same-sex couples. All of that matters, but more important, and often overlooked, is the way in which alienation from marriage twists and damages gay souls. ...

Opponents of same-sex marriage sometimes insist that gays can marry. Marriage, they say, isn't all about sex. It can be about an abstinent, selfless love. Well, as Benjamin Franklin said, where there is marriage without love there will be love without marriage. I'm always startled when some of the same people who say that gays are too promiscuous and irresponsible to marry turn around and urge us into marriages that practically beg to end in adultery and recklessness.

The Human Rights Campaign is praising Democrat McGreevey for showing "enormous courage," despite the growing allegations that the New Jersey governor gave his then-lover a high paying position for which he was unqualified. As gay historian and author Eric Marcus comments in the New York Times:

"I don't think it reflects well on gay people. Here is a man who chose to hide who he was, came out under pressure because he had engaged in an adulterous affair, had given his romantic partner a government job. It's not exactly a moment I think anybody who has been involved in the gay rights movement can take pride in."

Except if you're a Democratic Party front like HRC. The Log Cabin Republicans, while sympathetic to McGreevey's situation, called on him to resign immediately rather than wait until Nov. 15 (which is McGreevey's way of ensuring that his unelected Democrat successor needn't face voters until 2005).

Another result of the McGreevey affair is a spotlight on gay men who marry women but seek out sex with men -- a huge, but under the radar -- phenom. The Washington Post takes a look in a piece titled "Married Men with Another Life to Live".

"That's Great"?

Mostly overlooked in last week's news was President Bush's statement on CNN's Larry King show that, as regards states providing legal recognition to gay couples through civil unions, "That's up to states." Bush added:

"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. I don't think our country should."

Let's go over that one more time. A conservative Republican president just said "that's great" about states granting legal protections to gay couples. It doesn't make up for supporting the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment, but it's worth some major news coverage, wouldn't you think?

Meanwhile, over at Overlawyered.com, Walter Olson provides an update on one state where the GOP legislature clearly is far to the right of President Bush. In Virginia, there are increasing ramifications from a reprehensible new law banning gays from entering into marriage-like contracts.

More Recent Postings
8/08/04 - 8/14/04

I realize there's lots of gay news, but I'm on the road through the weekend with limited computer time. On L'affaire McGreevey, I'll just allude to the old political saying, "Never get caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy."

Blogger Eric Siddall writes in Memo to the Right: Gay Marriage Promotes Conservative Agenda:

One would think then that the Christian Right would be jumping up in joy for gay marriage. Bring these guys back to tradition and family. After all, aren't the Christian Right constantly saying hate the sin, love the sinner? Well, if the sin is the behavior surrounding the homosexual lifestyle, then what better way to stop gays from going to circuit parties and having sex outside of marriage than to allow them to get married?

Of course, that's exactly why some on the gay left are against same-sex marriage.

Conservative columnist Bob Novak is trying to stir up trouble for John Kerry in his Aug. 7 column when he writes:

John Kerry's official Web site last week deleted his advocacy of homosexuals in the military after the Orlando (Fla.) Sentinel reported on this disclosure of the Democratic presidential candidate's position.

Before the language was eliminated, the Web site said bringing gays into the military was one of Sen. Kerry's "priorities." The page on homosexual issues had gone on to say: "John Kerry opposed the Clinton administration's Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy. He was one of the few senators to testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee and call on the president to rescind the ban on gay and lesbian service members."

Kerry does not mention the issue in his speeches, and the party platform is mute on gays in the military.

Novak is no friend of gays and his motive is to embarrass the Kerry/Edwards campaign. Nevertheless, it's more evidence of Kerry's tendency to buckle under and abandon us at the first sign of opposition. No doubt, he believes he has little to fear by taking the gay vote for granted -- which is largely true, because gay political groups have given him a green light to do just that. But if Kerry doesn't make a case for revoking government discrimination now, he clearly won't be able to claim a mandate to do so once in office.

I'm not suggesting that Bush is "better." But if we want the Democrats to give us something, then gay "leaders" must stop being partisan sycophants
and at least hint that the gay vote could stay home on election day (or vote for Nader or the Libertarian candidate).

Fear of losing customers is what motivates good service. The same is true in politics. The religious right understands this, and its leaders constantly tell Karl Rove they'll stay home if Bush takes them for granted. If only gay leaders would show as much spine.

More Recent Postings
8/01/04 - 8/07/04

EMILY's List, the powerful women's PAC with an abortion rights agenda, is backing a senatorial candidate who supports a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, reports the Washington Blade. The Democratic candidate is Inez Tenenbaum, running for the U.S. Senate in South Carolina, and EMILY's List has reportedly given her $350,000.

The Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest lesbigay political fundraiser, has long considered support for abortion a key factor in making endorsements (pro-choice voting is also an important category on HRC's congressional scorecards). Likewise, the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund requires candidates it endorses to be pro-choice. In both cases, the abortion litmus test has served to deny these groups' funds to GOP candidates who are gay-supportive but favor some abortion restrictions, such as parental notification.

In another development reported in the Blade, Unity, the umbrella group of minority journalists associations (with a decidedly "progressive" tilt) has again denied a membership request by the National Gay & Lesbian Journalists Association, stating that Unity is intended only for racial/ethnic minorities. Instead, NLGJA has been offered an "unofficial" role.

Says the Blade story, Unity "has decided not to extend the parameters of its big tent past its founding mission," and leaders of NLGJA "have gradually come to accept their second-tier status."

Do I begrudge EMILY's List and Unity the right to limit their agendas and constrain their "parameters"? Not at all. But it does highlight the absurdity foisted on us by LGBT activists who insist that every leftwing cause is part of their mission, so that gay groups involve themselves in everything from supporting race-based preferences (as HRC does) to opposing welfare reform (as the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force does). And that's leaving aside the whole issue of transgenderism, which extends to the cause of heterosexual cross-dressers.

At Least Bush Lowered Our Taxes.

Senator John Edwards said he and running mate John Kerry have "no objection" to this week's vote in Missouri to amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage, according to media reports. "We're both opposed to gay marriage," said Edwards.

I'm waiting for gay activists to deliver another of their increasingly absurdist rationales for their support of these two snake-oil salesmen.

If our movement "leaders" would just hint that gay voters might stay home on election day (no one expects them to support Bush), it might be enough to trigger some fealty from the Democrats.

The Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest lesbigay lobby, has endorsed the Democratic opponent of Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), one of the most pro-gay senators in the GOP. Specter did vote to bring the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment to the floor of the Senate -- which turned out to be the vote on the amendment's fate, since opponents blocked the amendment then and there. (Specter indicated that if a subsequent Senate floor vote on the measure had taken place, he would have then voted against the FMA.) Nevertheless, six fair-minded Republicans did manage to vote against allowing the amendment to go forward, including New Hampshire's John Sununu, and Specter fell short in comparison.

But if voting correctly on the FMA were a litmus test for the HRC, why are they still enthusiastically endorsing John Kerry and John Edwards, who chose not to vote against the amendment when they failed to vote at all?

On Tuesday, Missouri voters overwhelmingly approved a state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage -- the first such test of the issue since a Massachusetts court legalized gay and lesbian weddings last fall. The amendment was approved by 71% of those voting. Next up, voters in some 10 other states will face similar ballot measures in coming months. The prospects aren't good. It may take another generation before voting majorities conclude gay marriage strengthens rather then rips the social fabric.

Meanwhile, in Washington state a King County Superior Court judge ruled that gay couples were entitled to marry. But no marriage licenses can be issued until the state Supreme Court reviews the case. Expect conservatives to charge that an activist judiciary is again overriding the will of the people -- which it may well be, but that's what guaranteeing minorities legal equality is often about.

Nevertheless, if court rulings favoring gay marriage trigger passage of state constitutional amendments that permanently bar same-sex nuptials, we may regret not taking the path of civil unions -- at least as an interim step. But then again, the Massachusetts court's ruling may have made that decision for us.
--Stephen H. Miller

A new letter argues that in Europe, "It isn't gay marriage that destroys heterosexual marriage, it's socialism."

Fighting for Evangelical Votes.

From a recent issue of U.S. New & World Report:

While it comes as no surprise that white evangelicals are overwhelmingly Republican and back President Bush by a wide margin, nearly a quarter say they might vote for Democrat John Kerry.

Since "white evangelical Christians today make up roughly a fourth of the U.S. population," that quarter of a quarter is a pretty steep number.

Perhaps this slice of religiously conservative but economically liberal evangelicals is what a lot of the political hullabaloo is about -- Bush supporting a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, and Kerry not voting against the same, and not publicly mentioning any gay-supportive position at the convention or on the campaign trail.

From a review of Showtime's reality show "The American Candidate," which started out with 10 contestants facing off against each other in a mock presidential race. One player/candidate is/was Chrissy Gephardt, the lesbian daughter of Rep. Dick Gephardt and a darling of gay activists and the gay media. But Chrissy G. was quickly eliminated. A story in Washigton's Express subway paper (published by the Washington Post, but not online) reports:

Gephardt's most depressing move, however, came in her final "debate." Asked to speak on a pet issue, Gephardt practically announced that she was vigorously in favor of late term abortions. The "front-runner," silver haired smoothie Park Gillespie, quietly tore [into] her -- he's the father of a five-week premature daughter.

Actually, Gephardt was well-spoken and in many ways attractive and appealing, but her position remained that a woman has a right to end her pregnancy at any point she so chooses regardless of the late-term viability of the child she's carrying. She also argued we shouldn't be debating gay marriage because "We have prisoners being abused in Iraq; we should talk about that."

What better example of how the LGBT left lives in its own, hermetically sealed universe.

I recently commented on fears that gay marriage will be an effective mass mobilization issue for rank-and-file conservatives, noting that such a threat seemed overblown. As a reader e-mailed to point out, Michael Greve, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, made the same point back in March when he wrote:

I disagree with the widely held notion that judicial overreach [courts requiring states to recognize gay marriage] would spark a backlash and a lasting social rift akin to the division generated by Roe v. Wade. There is no such thing as a "charming" abortion, and nobody celebrates an abortion with friends and family. The certainty that each abortion (40 million and counting) is an act of brutal aggression sustains the Right to Life movement.

In contrast, even adamant opponents of same-sex marriage as an institution can think of a charming same-sex couple and of a union worth celebrating. And who precisely are the victims that command our compassion and protection? Movement-sustaining fervor at this front is hard to come by, and easily lost amid messy details and conflicting emotions. (emphasis added)

That's not to say that achieving gay marriage, or even civil unions, won't require a long, drawn out fight throughout the length and breadth of the nation, especially to defeat or overturn statewide constitutional amendments and DOMA laws. But what we learned from the recent Senate vote is that the grass-roots troops aren't calling, writing, and pestering their elected officials with the vehemence they express over abortion. That's a positive worth bearing in mind.

More Recent Postings
7/25/04 - 7/31/04