IGF CultureWatch

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.

The Chicago Tribune's feature on the Log Cabin Republican is one of the better pieces on the group and its struggles. The Trib notes, among other things, that Democrats have stepped up their efforts to recruit gay Republicans (four years ago, exit polls showed Bush received support from 25% of all self-identified gay voters, or a cool 1 million votes). Get this:

On its Web site, the DNC posts a feature called "Leaving the Log Cabin" including samples of what it claims are "the hundreds of e-mails we've received from proud new Democrats."

That's a little too reminiscent of Christian right "gay conversion" web sites, I'd say. In any event, the Trib reports that, when pressed, a Democratic official admits there were "about 100 such e-mails." Over at the RNC website, however, there's no mention of gay Republicans at all, though it otherwise has links to all manner of GOP constituency groups.

The Trib also says that LCR's plans for the GOP presidential convention in New York City

include the renting out of Manhattan's elegant Bryant Park for a Log Cabin reception on the convention's eve --"literally a big-tent event under a big tent"-- with Republican Govs. George Pataki of New York and Arnold Schwarzenegger of California as hosts, [LCR head Patrick Guerriero] said.

Guerriero urged delegates to use the August convention as an opportunity to display to the country and to the party that there are "thoughtful, conservative gay Republicans" and to "celebrate the fact there is a big tent in the Republican Party."

Otherwise, he said, "If we abandon it, the far right will be able to claim it as their convention."

But all gay gatherings in NYC this August won't be so polite. The AP reports that a number of gay activist groups are planning large, and no doubt angry, demonstrations. Whether they join with all the manifold zanies in one of their "grand coalitions of the left" unity fests (e.g., confer yesterday's item about GLAAD's anti-gun rights crusade) will be interesting to see.

Not Even Evangelicals Support It.

A new poll commission by US News & World Report & PBS, and conducted by the respected polling firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, has some surprising results. Summarizes the Religion News Service:

Researchers found that while evangelicals were generally opposed to gay marriage -- 83% -- that view did not equate with a universal call for a constitutional amendment banning such unions. 41% of evangelicals said an amendment is needed while 52% said it was sufficient to prohibit gay marriage by law without changing the Constitution. Moreover, evangelicals were almost evenly divided over whether gay marriage would provide a litmus test for their vote in an election.

Andrew Sullivan has already made the obvious point -- Karl Rove's strategy is in meltdown.

More Recent Postings

4/11/04 - 4/17/04

The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) has issued a press release, "Vice Presidential Keynote Address to NRA Raises Concerns Among LGBT and Anti-Violence Organizations," condemning VP Dick Cheney's planned speech before the National Rife Association. GLAAD makes the point that Cheney is defending constitutional rights for gun owners but not for gays. That's a fair point, if somewhat off target for an anti-defamation group. But GLAAD then quotes extensively (and solely) from other gay and left-liberal groups that vehemently oppose gun ownership. Take a gander (remember, this is within GLAAD's press release):

• Gay Men of African Descent - "The NRA...perpetuates a culture of violence that in no small way affects vulnerable communities (i.e. communities of color and the LGBT community)."
• Mano A Mano - "The NRA...refuse to recognize that advocating the removal of a ban on assault weapons in this country does enormous damage to vulnerable populations, particularly in urban environments where many Latinos live and work."
• Al Fatiha - "Since the Sept. 11 attacks on America, there has been a 300% increase in violence against Muslims in the United States..."
• The National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs - "'Firearms are America's true 'weapons of mass destruction.' "

The clear message: GLAAD is incontrovertibly positioning itself as part of the anti-gun coalition. So much for supporting "diversity" in representations of the gay community! One wonders, have these people ever heard of the Pink Pistols, a network of gay gun owners, or the many, many other gays and lesbians who support the right to bear arms (some of whom, when attacked by bashers, saved their lives because they were carrying)?

Spain will legalize same-sex marriages and grant equal rights to gay couples under incoming Socialist Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero's government, Reuters is reporting. The move is significant because Spain is one of Europe's most Catholic countries and the Vatican, as we all know, condemns same-sex unions with a vehemence.

Yes, the left does have its uses. But otherwise, I'm viscerally appalled and sickened by the new Spanish government. By shamefully declaring that his country would withdraw its coalition troops from Iraq in the wake of the terrorists pre-election attack in Madrid, Prime Minister-elect Zapatero sent a clear message of capitulation to the most fascistic enemies of freedom. He has greatly escalated the odds of more attacks, probably tied to swaying elections toward pro-withdrawal candidates, 'cause it worked so well in Spain. And he has heightened the resolve of the blood-thirsty murderers within Iraq. I won't even get into the harm that his anti-market, anti-trade policies will cause the global economy.

Time and again, the liberal-left parties that are horrific on economics and security are the ones most likely to support gay legal equality. And that is the challenge we face.

Fortunately, there are some exceptions -- in Great Britain, the leader of the Conservative Party, who once supported anti-gay legislation, has now endorsed Tony Blair's Civil Partnership act, which grants marriage-like rights to same-sex couples. In fact, the Tories recently held a "summit" to discuss reaching out to young gay voters.

But in America, those of us who support legal equality for all citizens, economic freedom, and the will to defend those freedoms, often have to make extremely difficult election choices -- as explored by the New York Times Magazine last week, when it reported that "The prospect of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage is leading Log Cabin Republicans to question whether they can support George Bush in November."

Marriage Evolved, and Evolving.

Time and again, opponents of same-sex marriage claim that the institution's strength has been its immutability over millennial. But as two anthropologists write in the Washington Post, "The human record tells us otherwise." For instance:

the cult of romantic love in a companionate marriage is a recent innovation in the history of marriage. -- Marriage, in other words, is not only diverse across cultures but also dynamic and changing in America's own history".. This said, it is not the case that "anything goes." Every society favors forms of union that conform to its ethical standards and its needs.

And in America, our ethical standards, at their best, emphasize liberty and justice, not perpetuating discrimination for tradition's sake.

What happened to IGF this past week? The short version: we were hit with a "denial of service attack," a blizzard of unauthorized traffic that pushed us over our bandwidth limits and knocked us out. We're now back on a temporary server and hope to stay in business while we recover. Thanks for coming back to see us!

Special thanks are owed to Mike Airhart, Walter Olson, Jonathan Rauch, and others for their efforts and support.

--Stephen H. Miller and the IGF team

Peering into the Void.

IGF's co-managing editor Jonathan Rauch, author of the new book Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America, was interviewed earlier this week by radio host/Denver pastor Bob Enyart. As Jon puts it, "Ya gotta hear it to believe it."

If you can find humor in the vast mindlessness of the anti-gay religious right (Enyart, I'm told, is a Christian Reconstructionist) then enjoy this encounter at http://www.kgov.com/bel/2004/20040409-BEL072-24k.mp3 as "Bob Debates Homosexual Jon Rauch."

Another Example of 'Family Values'.

Anti-gay, anti-abortion leader Randall Terry of Operation Rescue writes in an op-ed that he has a gay son who, after spilling the beans to "Out" magazine, is no longer welcome in the Terry home. As Andrew Sullivan and others note, this is just one more example of how homophobia wrecks families. Growing up gay in the Terry household, it's no wonder the kid is "troubled."

More Recent Postings

4/04/04 - 4/10/04

Are President Bush and Karl Rove at risk of alienating many who would otherwise be in the forefront of the next generation of Republicans? Could be, judging from this column in the Yale Daily News by the head of that university's undergraduate Republicans. In "Gay Marriage Fits Republican Values," Al Jiwa writes:

I am firmly committed to the foreign policy of President Bush, believe strongly in the private sphere, and often prioritize the rights of states above federal jurisdiction. ...

The Republican Party stands for individual liberty and limited government; in calling for a constitutional amendment for the express reason of denying the validity of gay unions, we are contradicting these core principles, violating the dignity of our fellow citizens, and perpetuating lines of discrimination. ...

If marriage is a critical element of building a strong family unit (as many Republicans would contend), should we also not give every incentive possible to those who would make excellent parents? Instead, however, we discriminate against those who are more than capable of establishing long, stable relationships solely on the basis of their sexual orientation.

Yes, Yale is an elite liberal university and even its Republican activists could well be to the left of the party's core. Still, the GOP can't limit itself to the religious right and hard social conservatives if it hopes to remain the dominant party of the next generation.

Blogger Geitner Simmons has an interesting post about the ferocity with which some in Congress tried to expel gays from federal employment in the 1950s. Now that the Bush White House has reaffirmed a policy forbidding the firing of federal workers because of their sexual orientation -- after the administration's rightwing appointee to head the Office of Special Counsel tried to reverse course -- it's worth noting how far we've progressed, even with occasional flaps.

Simmons writes of how, under an executive order signed by Harry Truman in 1947, "the federal government could fire known or suspected subversives, habitual drunkards, homosexuals, and others susceptible to blackmail." Under pressure from Nebraska Sen. Kenneth Wherry, "a staunchly conservative Republican first elected in 1942," and like-minded allies, "an estimated seven to ten thousand real or suspected homosexuals -- Democrat and Republican -- lost their jobs during the 1950s."

The posting also cites the real-life Senate blackmail/suicide case on which novelist Allen Drury modeled the characters in his best-selling Advise and Consent.

Despite setbacks here and there, this is no longer the world in which we live, thankfully.
--Stephen H. Miller

The longish, wistful feature from the Washington Post, "Inventing a Marriage -- and a Divorce" looks at what lead one gay couple to join together in what they termed a "holy union" -- in 1976.

It was the spiritual, not the legal, side of marriage that was important to them, [Wayne] Schwandt recalled more than 25 years later. They wanted the blessing of the church and hardly thought about the state. "I was naive," Schwandt said. "I would not have understood what the 'legal protections of the law' would have meant.'"

Their union had no legal standing, but they hyphenated their names. "We were crazy," [James] Fortunato said. "It doesn't even fit on a credit card." He recalled trying to reason with irate Department of Motor Vehicles workers to change his name on his driver's license.

Sadly, like half of all marriages, their union didn't last the test of time, in part because it turned into a media circus. But one went on to a new, 20-year (and still counting) relationship that included a private exchange of rings at a church altar. Just a look at common lives being lived in uncommon times.

"The U.S. House of Representatives voted [last week] in favor of a bill supporting military recruitment on college campuses, prompting gay rights groups to vow to fight the bill when it moves to the Senate." That's the lead paragraph to this news story, and I can't think of a worse -- or better -- example of liberal activist myopia, and why such activists are held in disdain by so many Americans.

Yes, "don't ask, don't tell" is a terrible policy and we should lobby hard to revoke it, so that gays can serve openly in a military that holds all servicemembers to the same rules of on-duty decorum. But trying to stymie recruitment to the armed forces, while America is fighting a war on terrorism, makes me apoplectic. Do these activists really think a weaker military is the answer to discrimination? Sadly, the answer is probably yes.

And then there's the issue of recruitment bans on elite campuses themselves, which suggest that military service is best left to the less educated, non-latte drinking classes.

(IGF contributing author James Kirchick had more to say about campus recruitment bans in this column from the Yale Daily News.)

More Recent Postings

3/28/04 - 4/03/04

Perhaps fearing that its pandering to the religious conservatives' anti-gay agenda has gone too far (or been perceived as such), the White House declared this week that gay federal employees should not face workplace discrimination. The San Francisco Chronicle reports:

"Long-standing federal policy prohibits discrimination against federal employees based on sexual orientation," said White House spokesman Ken Lisaius. "President Bush expects federal agencies to enforce this policy and to ensure that all federal employees are protected from unfair discrimination at work."

The surprise announcement came on the heels of mounting controversy over actions last month by a Bush appointee that appeared to reverse part of that policy. Social conservative Scott Bloch -- new head of the office charged with protecting federal workers from discrimination (!) -- in early February removed references to sexual orientation from his agency's website, complaint forms, brochures and training documents. Reports the Chronicle:

The Bloch controversy has threatened to undermine Bush's repeated efforts to emphasize his tolerance for gays and lesbians even as he backs a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. It may also cement perceptions that the president is hostile to the gay community"

It's unclear, however, whether Bloch himself will now be pressured to reverse his "gay removal" policy, as the administration tries to find just the right balance between appearing too tolerant and too intolerant.

More on Massachusetts.

A correspondent writes:

In fairness to Kerry, the proposed MA "civil unions" are marriage in all but name. So, of course, the religious right is dead set against them and the constitutional amendment [in Massachusetts, which bans gay marriage but puts in place civil unions]. This issue boils down to how important you think a name is.

Ok, let me try this again. Kerry is better than Bush on gay issues, but not to the extent that justifies the free pass from gay supporters he's been getting. If Massachusetts had simply passed a Kerry-backed civil unions bill, that would be one thing. But once the state's Supreme Judicial Court put access to "real" marriage on the table, the bar for what's acceptable was permanently raised. Now, it would be a large step backwards to tie civil unions to a constitutional amendment that enshrines the concept that:

It being the public policy of this commonwealth to protect the unique relationship of marriage, only the union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as marriage in the commonwealth.

In other words, they're saying that they'll never let us have full marriage equality -- not now, not down the road, no how.

This is more than just a matter of names, in my opinion, or even of whether civil unions might, under other circumstances, have been prudent as an intermediate step.