Pigs Fly?

Here's a surprise from a Father's Day interview with Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) in the New York Times Magazine. (You may recall that the former Senate majority leader once famously compared homosexuality with alcoholism and kleptomania.). Here's the excerpt:

[final question]

Q: How do you feel about gay men adopting and raising children?

Lott: It's so important that children have parents or family that love them. There are a lot of adopted children who have loving parents, and it comes in different ways with different people in different states.

Don't know if there was any more context to this statement than the Times is providing. But from Lott, it's a startling sentiment.

More Recent Postings

6/13/04 - 6/19/04

Summer Vote on Marriage Amendment.

Looks like anti-gay Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) is angling for a July vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would bar any state from recognizing same-sex marriages. The amendment has little chance of garnering the 60 votes needed to keep it alive, but that's not the point: Santorum and the GOP's anti-gay crusaders want to use the vote to bludgeon gay-supportive Democrats in November.

But the anti-gay right isn't even united on the amendment. As this story from the conservative CNSNews.com reports:

Some conservative groups reject the Federal Marriage Amendment as currently written. Concerned Women for America says it's important to do more than preserve marriage "in name only." The group says same-sex partnerships should not be afforded the same benefits as married couples are.

"CWA opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment because it would not prevent state legislatures from recognizing and benefiting civil unions and other such relationships, which would result in legalized counterfeit marriage," the group's website says.

The politics of this thing get loopier every day.

Veep Games.

I don't know how much stock I'd put in this NY Post gossip item claiming that former Sen. Sam Nunn, (D-Ga.), a fervent supporter of the military gay ban, is a strong contender for Kerry's vice presidential spot. I assume the Kerry campaign is putting out many false signs of interest to placate a range of ideological and regional constituencies. However if such a thing were to come to pass, you can bet liberal gay groups would contort themselves in defense of the ticket.

They Won’t Be Taken for Granted.

It's good to see that some on the gay left actually do stick to their principles. The Chicago Anti-Bashing Network (CABN) plans to picket a John Kerry fundraiser, citing the gamesmanship through which both Kerry and Illinois Democratic senate candidate Barack Obama try to have it both ways -- opposing the Federal Marriage Amendment but also opposing marriage equality for gays. This is from the CABN website:

John Kerry...says that while he opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment, he also OPPOSES gay marriage and says he SUPPORTS a proposed anti-gay amendment to the Massachusetts State Constitution. In other words, he calls for destroying equal marriage rights in the one state where they have been secured!! Democratic office holders in Massachusetts are in the forefront of a move which could once again ban gay marriage there as early as 2006. ...

On Saturday night Obama and John Dean, a stand-in for Kerry, will be the honored guests at the annual Human Rights Campaign fundraiser. We call on all true supporters of full equal rights for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered people to please join us for a picket of Obama and Dean.

HRC, of course, would support Attila the Hun if he were the Democratic presidential nominee.

A Two-Party Strategy, More Than Ever.

I guess I wasn't really aware of this until I read it in the June 22 (Pride) issue of The Advocate. Writes author and Air America (that's lefty radio) host Laura Flanders:

At every level the [Democratic] party needs a push: of the 14 legislative bodies in seven states that have passed anti-gay marriage amendments (which are subject to voter approval), six were Democrat-dominated; two state legislatures had both houses controlled by Democrats.

Yes, on gay matters, the GOP is worse. But the Democrats will do as little as they feel they can get away with, and those who urge gay voters to withdraw from the GOP are ensuring that the Democrats will become even more lethargic.

I've said this before, but I like it, so I'm saying it again: If a town has just two supermarkets, it doesn't do much good to proclaim you'll never, ever use supermarket A (and anybody who does should be cursed) and then complain about the lousy service you're receiving at supermarket B.

Gay Panic in Virginia.

Our own Jonathan Rauch, a Virginia resident, takes aim at Virginia's law set take effect July 1 that will nullify all "contracts or arrangements" between two members of the same sex that seek to bestow marriage-like rights. In his Sunday op-ed in the Washington Post, he also reminds us that Virginia is the only state to forbid private companies, unless self-insured, from extending health insurance coverage to employees' domestic partners.

Writes Rauch of the new statute:

When Rhea County, Tenn., tried to ban gays from living there, it became a national laughingstock and hastily backed down. Obstructing gay couples' private contracts is no less vindictive and abusive, and it deserves the same nationwide opprobrium...

If Virginia's attack on basic legal equality does not offend and embarrass conservatives, what anti-gay measure possibly could? And if this law is not snuffed out, what might be next?

Two good questions.

Anything He Did Would Have Been Wrong.

The Washington Post takes a look at the gay community's response to Reagan's death. Among those quoted, activist-author Larry Kramer complains:

Not once in that speech -- not once in his presidency -- did [Reagan] ever say gays and AIDS and crisis in the same sentence.

Forgive me, but if Reagan had given a speech linking "gays" and "AIDS" and "crisis," I can just imagine the outcry from activists damning him for inciting an anti-gay panic. Not a shred of doubt about it.

More Recent Postings

6/06/04 - 6/12/04

More from Deroy.

In a new column posted at NRO (National Review Online) titled "The Homophobe Myth: The Facts About Ronald Reagan," Deroy Murdock responds to critics of his earlier piece, "The Truth About Reagan and AIDS" (posted at right). And note, National Review is one of the preeminent conservative home bases -- arguing persuasively here that Reagan was not a homophobe is all to the good. Just what does the left think it's accomplishing by screeching that this widely beloved hero-president (and, yes, conservative icon) was anti-gay? And doing so with distorted history (e.g., the claim Reagan never mentioned AIDS until 1987)?

Deroy, by the way, does clear up a misattribution of a Reagan statement about AIDS, which was not in the State of the Union address, as he originally stated, but in ancillary material given to Congress. We've posted a correction on his earlier article to clarify the matter, which is also noted in a letter in our mailbag.

From Overseas.

New Zealand's Institute for Liberal Values [which seems to be a vehemently anti-left, pro civil liberties group] posts this piece, "Was Reagan a Bigot"? Jim Peon writes:

There are times that the dominant Left in the gay community really irritate me. And right now is one of them. Ronald Reagan has just died. Many Americans, myself included, still have some fond feelings for the man.
But some of the more radical elements within the gay community refuse to see any good in Reagan just as they refuse to see any problems with their anointed candidates.

It's a small world, after all.

The “A” Word.

Because the canard about Reagan not mentioning AIDS before 1987 is spreading, here's an excerpt from a press conference transcript, from the NY Times, Sept. 18, 1985:

Q: Would you support a massive Government research program against AIDS like the one that President Nixon launched against cancer?

Reagan: I have been supporting it for more than four years now. It's been one of the top priorities with us, and over the last four years and including what we have in the budget for '86 it will amount to over a half a billion dollars that we have provided for research on AIDS, in addition to what I'm sure other medical groups are doing.

And we have $100 billion, or $100 million in the budget this year; it'll be $126 million next year. So this is a top priority with us. Yes, there's no question about the seriousness of this, and the need to find an answer.

Reagan and the 'Briggs Initiative.'

On another gay-related issue, here's a good discussion of Reagan's opposition to a statewide ballot initiative that would have banned gays and lesbians from teaching in California's public schools. Writes columnist John Nichols:

it was quite a remarkable moment when Ronald Reagan, who had served two terms as governor of California and was preparing to mount a campaign for the Republican presidential nomination in 1980, emerged as an outspoken foe of the Briggs Initiative. Convinced by activists David Mixner and Peter Scott that the initiative represented an unwarranted threat to free speech rights and individual liberties, Reagan declared that the initiative "is not needed to protect our children -- we have the legal protection now." ...

Reagan's forceful opposition to the Briggs Initiative helped to doom it.

Initially, one poll had shown that Californians backed the anti-gay initiative by a margin of 61 percent to 31 percent.

The Haters.

A commentary by author and ACT-UP founder Larry Kramer, slated for the July 6th issue of The Advocate (on sale June 22), is making the rounds of the 'net. It's headlined "Adolf Reagan," and the Hitler/Reagan comparisons aren't limited to the title. Kramer begins his polemic:

Our murderer is dead. The man who murdered more gay people than anyone in the entire history of the world, is dead. More people than Hitler even.

Andrew Sullivan has a well-reasoned response on his andrewsullivan.com blog to this kind of anti-Reagan hyperbole. Sullivan writes that once the epidemic became evident:

Many people most at risk were aware -- mostly too late, alas -- that unprotected sex had become fatal in the late 1970s and still was. You can read Randy Shilts' bracing And The Band Played On to see how some of the resistance to those warnings came from within the gay movement itself. In the polarized atmosphere of the beleaguered gay ghettoes of the 1980s, one also wonders what an instruction from Ronald Reagan to wear condoms would have accomplished.

As for research, we didn't even know what HIV was until 1983. Nevertheless, the Reagan presidency spent some $5.7 billion on HIV in its two terms -- not peanuts. The resources increased by 450 percent in 1983, 134 percent in 1984, 99 percent the next year and 148 percent the year after.

And than there's the oft-repeated charge, or variants thereof, that Reagan never mentioned AIDS until a 1987 speech. For instance, writes Matt Foreman, head of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force:

AIDS was first reported in 1981, but President Reagan could not bring himself to address the plague until March 31, 1987, at which time there were 60,000 reported cases of full-blown AIDS and 30,000 deaths.

But the New York Times, in an article dated September 18, 1985 and titled "Reagan Defends Financing for AIDS," reported:

President Reagan, who has been accused of public indifference to the AIDS crisis by groups representing victims of the deadly disease, said last night that his Administration was already making a "vital contribution" to research on the disease....

Mr. Reagan said that he had been supporting research into AIDS, acquired immune deficiency syndrome, for the last four years and that the effort was a "top priority" for the Administration.

No, Reagan didn't poison the drinking water or otherwise engage in "murder." Could and should he have done more to let people know his government cared about their plight? Yes. Did his efforts to embrace the religious right as part of the GOP coalition give power and prestige to some very bad people? Yes. But that's far from what some are accusing him of. It seems the extremes of both the left and the right are united in their need to express a daily dose of hate and vitriol.