IGF CultureWatch

The National Gay & Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) this week issued a statement criticizing Democrats for their lukewarm opposition to the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment. That's good, but the NGLTF statement, titled "That's What Friends Are For - Where are Democrats on the Federal Marriage Amendment?," starts off in typical fashion with a laundry lists of complaints against the Bush administration that has nothing to do with gays. Instead, NGLTF's Matt Foreman writes:

"You've got to hand it to the Bush administration: they take care of their own. Wealthy folks have received tax breaks; Star Wars defense contractors are reaping billions; pollution controls on business are being eased; national forests have been opened to logging."

Thus having shown the GOP that there's no way short of hell freezing over that gays (on behalf of whom NGLTF claims to speak) would ever support their party, regardless of the Republicans' stance on gay rights, NGLTF then criticizes the Democrats for not scuttling the Federal Marriage Amendment despite overwhelming gay support for their party:

"[K]illing the amendment requires only 34 votes, and there are 48 Democrats, five of whom are retiring at the end of this year. In other words, every single Democratic Senator considered "at risk" this fall could be "let off the hook" on this vote, if necessary, and the amendment would still be defeated. ...

" I don't understand why our community should have to spend one more hour, one more dime, make one more phone call or write one more letter to make sure an anti-gay, anti-marriage constitutional amendment is dead on arrival in the U.S. Senate. ...

"We thought we could help head this off and give some cover to those now getting squishy on us by getting a few senators from safe (let me say SAFE) seats not up for election this year to say unambiguously that they would oppose any amendment seeking to restrict marriage rights. ... Turns out not even THEY would come through."

But here's a point worth noting: no Democrat reading the NGLTF statement, which equates gay interests with the whole left-wing political agenda, would ever fear that gays would abandon the party that stands against Bush's tax cuts, military spending, and attempts to loosen excessive business and environmental regulation, no matter what the Democrats do or don't do as regards the Federal Marriage Amendment. Thus does NGLTF undercut its own efforts.

[Addendum]: It occurs to me on re-reading this piece that NGLTF's statement is an excellent example of a near-total lack of understanding about market economics. Metaphorically, in a town with just two grocery stores, Foreman is telling the managers of the Red Supermarket that we will never shop with you (and cursed be anyone who does), while complaining to the managers of the Blue Supermarket that their customer service stinks.

Heritage Relents.

The Heritage Foundation has, apparently, removed Paul Cameron's pseudo-scientific studies from its research database (see Wednesday's item, "Shameful Heritage'). Andrew Sullivan and others had also called Heritage to task over its inclusion of Cameron's crank polemics as if they represented legitimate social science research on homosexuality. Sometimes, embarassment works.

The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank that's more or less in the mainstream rather than on the far edges of the right, and which enjoys close ties to the Bush administration, has launched a research database for conservative policy wonks. Naturally, they devote an entire section to "homosexuality." And what passes for solid social science research at Heritage these days? How about at least two pieces by the king of social science falsification, Paul Cameron.

As you may recall, we have posted a few pieces revealing what a scurrilous creature Cameron is, including "Queer Science" by Mark E. Pietrzyk (originally published in the New Republic). Excerpt:

Cameron himself is also a demonizer of gays: several times he has proposed the tattooing and quarantining of AIDS patients and raised the possibility of exterminating male homosexuals. Most important, he is the architect of unreliable "surveys" that purport to show strains of violence and depravity in gay life.

And Walter Olson, writing on "Phony Statistics," notes:

Cameron resigned under fire from the American Psychological Association and was later formally terminated from membership following complaints about his research methods. He has had run-ins with other professional groups, including the Nebraska Psychological Association and the American Sociological Association.

So maybe Heritage isn't so mainstream after all.

Informed Chat.

Our own Jon Rauch had an online chat this week with readers of the Washington Post. An excerpt:

I favor going a state at a time with gay marriage. Let it start out where it has social support. Then it has the best shot at working. And as the rest of the country sees that the sky doesn't fall and in fact marriage is strengthened, GM will win not just legal but also social acceptance.

Which is like getting a bicycle instead of a unicycle.

Click here to read more.

Take a look at some of the family developments so far week (via links to 365gay.com):

• In Idaho, the state Supreme Court heard the case of a father who lost custody of his two children because he's gay, and who was then denied visitation rights with his kids as long as he lived with his same-sex partner.
• In Washington state, an appeals court ordered a new trial for a woman denied co-parental rights for the little girl she helped raise.
• In Kansas, legislators rejected a proposed amendment to the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage. The state, however, already has a Defense of Marriage Act that limits marriage to a man and a woman.
• In Oklahoma, the governor signed legislation barring state recognition of adoptions by gay couples from out of state. Same-sex Oklahoma couples were already prevented from adopting. Apparently, this law could nullify parental rights and obligations if same-sex couples who jointly adopted a child move to the OK state, turning the child into an orphan.

All this while Massachusetts prepares, against its governor's will, to officially recognize same-sex marriages at the state level. It's quite a crazy quilt, but not too long ago some states allowed women's suffrage while others didn't. And, for that matter, slave and abolition states uncomfortably existed for nearly a century in the same federal union. Which is simply to say that justice is going to come at different times to different parts of the nation, mixed with hefty doses of imbecilic, family-nullifying reaction delivered by hypocritically "pro-family" demagogues. Get used to it.

"May 17 will change the world for lesbians and gays, for better, or for worse," reports the San Francisco Chronicle in this comprehensive wrap-up on Massachusetts, where the upcoming, first ever, state-sanctioned gay marriages in the United States will take place:

The Massachusetts marriages are clearly a turning point. Unlike San Francisco's February flurry of issuing marriage licenses to gay couples, which are on hold until the courts resolve their legality, these will be fully legal and may be accepted in a handful of other states such as New York.

Further notes the Chron, however:

Gay activists said that while publicly they will attempt to play up the celebrations, they are also watching what one called an "intense backlash" not witnessed even when women sought the right to vote or African Americans pushed for the end of Jim Crow.

There's no attribution for who actually offered this position, but it's clearly wrong-headed. Neither women's suffrage nor civil rights were won without years of intense struggle against a brutally hostile populace that was eventually won over. Life's just not that easy.

I like, however, that the article reports that:

The state's Republican governor, Mitt Romney, promises to enforce a 1913 miscegenation statute that voids marriages conducted in Massachusetts for out-of-state same-sex couples if that marriage would not be accepted in their home state. Several county clerks have said they will refuse to enforce the 1913 law.

Could there be a better, or worse, metaphor for those opposed to same-sex marriage than trying to bring back to life a miscegenation statute? Apparently, the symbolism hasn't gotten through to them, alas.

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