IGF CultureWatch

There's an intriguing story in the Washington Blade this week focusing on Virginia, where the state's GOP-controlled legislature passed legislation that not only bans recognition of same-sex marriage and civil unions, but also bans recognition of legal contracts between same-sex partners intended to confer marriage-like rights. Virginia's Democratic governor, Mark Warner, had sought to strip the contract-banning provisions from the anti-gay bill while supporting the civil union and marriage ban, but when the legislature added these back in he signed the bill into law anyway. Had he used his veto, chances are it would have been overridden, but he would at least have made a clear statement against bigotry and discrimination.

The Blade reports in "Lobbying Effort Faulted in Va. Fight" that Equality Virginia, the state's LGBT lobby, never asked Virginia's Democratic Party to help it work against this legislation:

"The thought of involving Virginia's Democratic Party, within walking distance from Equality Virginia, to lean on House and Senate Democrats, never occurred to [Equity Virginia's Dyana] Mason. 'I"ve contacted them in the past, but never followed up. We"ve always crossed in the night,' Mason said."

Given that Equality Virginia just about exclusively backs Democrats and enthusiastically worked for Gov. Warner's election, isn't some payback expected from the party machine? And no, I'm NOT excusing the Republican homophobes, the prime movers in this drama. But it's the Democrats that, overwhelmingly, get the gay vote and collect gay dollars. What's the point if that's just considered a freebie?

More Recent Postings

4/25/04 - 5/01/04

Opining in The New Republic, Jeffrey Rosen joins those same-sex marriage supporters who argue for legislative over judicial action: He writes:

The experience in Europe suggests that, when victories for gay equality come from legislatures rather than courts, they can eventually grow into something more: The legislature in the Netherlands initially recognized civil unions and, several years later, granted gays and lesbians the full benefits of marriage. Unless they are forced by courts to recognize gay marriage before the public is ready, state legislatures may move through the same progression, recognizing first civil unions and eventually gay marriage. For the moment, the best thing for judges to do is the thing they're most likely to do, which is very little.

As I said earlier, there's a valid point here, and in many jurisdictions we're too quick to seek judicial solutions rather than striving to win popular support. On the other hand, would African-Americans still be waiting for government-decreed segregation to end in the South if the courts hadn't interceded to ensure legal equality for a minority against majority animus? (Oops, just ticked off all those black, anti-gay "civil rights leaders" again.)

If you've been following the attacks on gay marriage by anti-gay conservative Stanley Kurtz of The Hoover Institution, you'll enjoy this thorough repudiation by Nathaniel Frank in The New Republic, titled "Perverted: Quack Gay Marriage Science." Frank writes:

Kurtz's argument is -- that the symbolic damage done to the institution by letting gays join it would deter younger couples from bothering to wed. -- Alas, Kurtz's conclusions are suspect on their face. -- In the United States, the number of unmarried, co-habiting couples increased tenfold from 1960 to 2000. And all of this with no gay marriage, no registered partnerships, not even civil unions, which only came into existence in a handful of states after the 40 years of data in question.

But when have ideologues of the left or the right ever let mere reality interfere with their abstract theorizing?

Ryan Sager, a libertarian-minded NY Post editorial board member, makes a cogent argument in "Courting Gay Backlash" that fighting for marriage equality by persuading voters is a better long-term strategy than seeking court decrees that ultimately provoke a hostile populace to support measures worse than the status quo, such as amending state and federal constitutions. He writes:

"Gay marriage advocates ought to realize that there would be much to gain by engaging in democratic debate and compromise, rather than filing lawsuits all around the state as they have. Cutting the people out of the process not only disenfranchises them -- it lets them off the hook. Shouldn't those opposed to gay marriage be asked to confront the people they wish to relegate to an unrecognized netherworld? A spotlight on the inhabitants of this world might change some minds, if advocates could be troubled to shine it."

I think Sager has a point -- up to a point. Some gay advocates are far too eager to seek judicial action as a solution. And not just for marriage but to for all manner of perceived slights and injustices -- occasionally at the expense of constitutional rights such as freedom of association (i.e., when the Boy Scouts or St. Patrick Parade organizers don't want to let us into their private clubs). This is what lawyers do, after all -- they sue. But in jurisdictions where public opinion can be mobilized in our favor, a legislative or plebiscitary victory is much firmer ground for advancing our rights.

On the other hand, liberals have a point that courts exist to protect minorities from majority tyranny. If constitution guarantees of equality under the law are not likely to be realized due to widespread and deeply rooted animus, it is the role of the courts to defend those rights. But big social revolutions are predicated on many small victories, and working at winning popular support for the cause, especially where it is likely to be winnable, is in fact a smarter strategy than "courting backlash" among the benighted.

More Recent Postings

4/25/04 - 5/01/04

Washington Post columnist Colbert I. King, commenting on John Kerry's minority outreach efforts, references an April 16 Kerry campaign press release:

"Asian Pacific Islanders have a senior outreach official of their own. So do the environmental crowd, women and LGBT, which the press release fails to spell out (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people)."

This tactical use of "LGBT" (or "GLBT") is an increasingly common tactic, allowing candidates to solicit gay and lesbian votes without tipping off the rubes -- or at least making it too obvious by using the word "Gay" in a headline. There's an online correlate as well. On Kerry's website, the high-profile "Issues" homepage, with links to information on the candidate's record and positions, lists "GLBT" along with "Native Americans," "Seniors," "Women's Issues," etc. But you have to click on "GLBT" to go to a page that uses the word "gay." Similarly, I've seen references to candidates' support for the vaguely titled Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) that fail to say exactly who it is that would be protected from discrimination under this proposal.

Of course, many gay-not-so-friendly candidates -- including President Bush -- don't mention gay issues at all except to oppose same-sex marriage. Still, it's worth noting that the supposed "inclusive" nature of the activist-created LGBT (or GLBT, or LGBTQ for "questioning and/or "queer") formulation, far from increasing our visibility, often makes gay references invisible to casual readers who aren't "in the know" -- or who might otherwise take offense.

More Recent Postings

4/18/04 - 4/24/04

More from the political correct grievance collectors whose self-righteousness only slightly masks their partisan politics. Matt Coles of the ACLU's Lesbian & Gay Rights Project has denounced an exchange between New York Republican Gov. George Pataki (who in 2002 supported and signed a law banning anti-gay discrimination) and GOP state senate leader Joe Bruno. As reported in 365gay.com's hyperbolically headlined "NY Gov Under Fire For Gay Slur," this was the "offensive" exchange:

At a public event [the opening of a power plant] "Bruno turned to the Gov. and said that they "make love" - most of the time. "I've been proud to partner with this governor - most of the time," said Bruno, drawing laughter from Pataki and several others in the audience. Bruno, who has had some notable battles with Pataki over the state budget and other issues, told the audience that "like all good partners, occasionally you don't partner. But you kiss, you make up and you make love most of the time."

When Pataki took to the podium he carried the references to gay couples further. "I don't mind making love to you. Just don't ask me to marry you," the governor said.

And the response:

"Governor George Pataki was way out of line in his disparaging comments about same-sex marriage," said Matt Coles director of the [ACLU] project. "The governor may think it's funny that he can't marry Senator Bruno, but after he stops laughing he can go home to his wife. The joke isn't so funny for people who get turned away when their partners are in emergency rooms -- or people who pay for "family" insurance but can't include the love or their lives"

Now, the issue of marriage equality is one that we fervently support, for the reasons Coles notes, among others. But to take the banter between Pataki and Bruno as a "slur" meant to disparage gay marriage is ludicrous. If anything, the fact that two straight politicos feel free to joke about making love to each other is a sign of cultural progress. But recognizing this would hardly score points with Coles' political constituency.

On a weekend that brings a large pro-choice march to the streets of Washington, Matt Foreman, head of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) issued a statement declaring his group's support for abortion without restrictions:

First, the obvious: we march because like everyone else, LGBT people need, deserve, and demand the fundamental right to control our bodies without the interference of government.

Along with NGLTF, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) evaluates congressional abortion votes when tabulating its annual scorecard of how "gay supportive" politicians are, and the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund has used a pro-choice litmus test for its endorsements.

On the other side, the Pro-Life Alliance of Gays & Lesbians (PLAGAL) issued its own statement:

"It is no pride to work for the rights of the GLBT community while at the same time taking away the rights of the unborn," said Cecilia Brown, PLAGAL's president. She further states "I know I speak for myself and others pro-life members of the GLBT community when I say that I do not want my rights as a member of the GLBT community to come at the expense of the unborn. It is far better not to take a stance on the issue of abortion as it relates to fighting for the rights of the GLBT community than to combine it and lose the support of those who otherwise would work with you on other worthwhile causes."

PLAGAL is, of course, a group founded on the abortion issue, whereas NGTLF, HRC, the Victory Fund, and many others claim to represent the interests of gays and lesbians in general, assuming an ideological consistency interlinked with our sexual orientation.

Finally, check out a letter we've posted from Scott Tucker, who writes:

As a supporter of HRC (and a conservative on most other political issues), I was more than disheartened when my e-mail inbox gave me an invitation from HRC to "March for Women's Lives and HRC." The e-mail further encouraged me to "Join HRC in support of reproductive freedom and justice for all women." How sad indeed that the greatest GLBT rights organizations refuse to reach out to all gay Americans. I have tremendous respect for HRC. But can I continue to give them my support if I am pro-life? I haven't decided yet.

What a shame that so many gay groups, even those who feign to be non-partisan (and how they must laugh at that howler), insist that everyone dance to the left's music when it comes to abortion, welfare, racial preferences, and on and on and on.

In response to a colleague who asked the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation to explain its anti-gun ownership press release (see our April 17 posting), GLAAD's John Sonego responed, in part:

"Some of the LGBT organizations we work with also had concerns, including specifically gun-related concerns, and we were happy to have the opportunity to include them, both as a news hook and as a service to our sister organizations."

No mention of why the Pink Pistols, a group of gay and lesbian gun owners and 2nd Amendment defenders, aren't considered a "sister organization," though.

No Family Picnic.

The Washington Post delves into the blowup around anti-gay activist Randall Terry's adopted son coming out.

Asked if he tried to broach this subject with his parents, Jamiel returns a look that suggests you're on crack. As he noted in Out magazine: "When you grow up in a house where to be the thing you are is an abominable sin, you tend to try and shed those behaviors."

Jamiel even went to Vermont to work with his father against civil unions. Now that he's broken free, here's hoping him all the best.

Rights for Me, but Not for Thee.

Perhaps nothing is sadder than anti-gay clergymen who hold themselves out as champions of the black civil rights struggle. Writing in the Baltimore Sun, the Rev. Dick Richardson is a case in point. Taking aim at gays who make the civil rights analogy, Richardson declares:

It boggles our mind that some folks today want to compare the time-honored institution of traditional marriage to the despicable institution of slavery. ...

The time-honored institution of marriage is under attack. And activists pushing for same-sex "marriage" ... will prevail unless people who know the value of traditional marriage put up a resistance on behalf of children.

But, he pontificates, "the defense of marriage is not about discrimination. ... The defense of marriage is about children. It is about lifting them up." Just not children like Jamiel Terry.
--Stephen H. Miller

Jonathan Rauch's Gay Marriage received high praise in a Sunday Washington Post Book World review by the distinguished civil rights historian David J. Garrow, who writes:

Rauch astutely notes how "peculiar" it is that adversaries energetically denounce "the 'homosexual lifestyle' -- meaning, to a large extent, the gay sexual underworld -- while fighting tooth and nail against letting gays participate in the institution which would do the most to change that lifestyle." Rauch is too courteous to observe that this discrepancy suggests that a racist-like loathing of gay people as innately inferior, rather than just a desire to "defend" marriage, may motivate many outspoken opponents.

Garrow also observes, "Rauch is -- no lefty-liberal, nor is he a gay cheerleader." Just an honest and perceptive writer, but we knew that already.