IGF CultureWatch

An excellent piece in Sunday's NY Times magazine by IGF's co-managing editor Jon Rauch, laying bear the vacuousness of the anti-marriage arguments, one by one. Surely many of the anti-gay activists and intellectuals making these empty assertions know they lack substance but figure they'll still inflame their followers.

It also must be said that too many of our purported gay "leaders" seem unable or unwilling to engage in hard argument with the right. An example: Julian Sanchez writes on Reason magazine's blog:

I tend to watch Crossfire for laughs, but right now I'm livid. Tucker Carlson just asked Human Rights Campaign president Cheryl Jacques why, for all the reasons she advances to support gay marriage, polyamorous groupings of three or more men or women shouldn't be recognized. Her brilliant, principled answer? "Because I don't approve of that."

I've also heard activists dismiss the polygamy charge by saying "that's ridiculous" and then moving on. Yes, we know it's ridiculous, but that canard sways many who may be good-hearted but not well-informed. There's more to gay activism than just asserting moral superiority. We need fewer "professional activists" who excel at preaching to the choir and more astute arguers like Jonathan Rauch and our other contributing authors. Check out some of their latest columns posted to your right (including anther piece by Jon, this time for the National Journal).

The Mayor's On Board -- or So They Say.

Here's an odd piece from the Saturday NY Times about Mayor Mike Bloomberg addressing a meeting of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association, headlined Bloomberg Said to Want State to Legalize Same-Sex Marriages. Or does he? Despite the fact that he was speaking to a journalists' association, the Times says that:

No tape recordings were rolling, and various auditors were somewhat fuzzy trying to remember his exact words. --

He did say in certain terms that 'I think the law should be changed,' -- Eric Hegedus, vice president of the journalists association, recalled yesterday. Pamela Strother, president of the association, remembered it all as less assertive. "My recollection is that he said something like he wished the law were different," she said.

Did I mention this was a meeting of journalists?

Dan Barry, writing in the "About New York" column in the NY Times, reflects:

In recent weeks, the struggle to define our nation has included a debate over the legality of gay marriage. Often lost in the hubbub, though, is any recognition of how hard it is to find a partner for life in the first place. For some, the debate is important, compelling - and theoretical.

The column's title: "Gay Marriage? First You Need to Fall in Love."

Of course, not everyone is the marrying kind. Marriage can be a great institution, but who wants to live in an institution? Yuk, yuk.

Gay and lesbian couples started tying the knot in Portland, Oregon, this week after the county issued same-sex marriage licenses, joining the rapidly spreading national movement, the AP reports. On Wednesday, Nyack, N.Y., Mayor John Shields said he would also start marrying gay couples and planned to seek a license himself to marry his same-sex partner. New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer said in a statement, "I personally would like to see the law changed, but must respect the law as it now stands." Spitzer said New York's law contains references to "bride and groom" and "husband and wife" and does not authorize same-sex marriage, and that "the local district attorney has the authority and responsibility to enforce the law."

As in San Francisco, New Paltz and elsewhere, marrying same-sex couples is being seen as an act of justified civil disobedience (by supporters) and wanton law-breaking (by opponents).

Meanwhile, in Washington, D.C., Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist asked Congress to embrace a constitutional amendment banning these marriages. "Same sex marriage is likely to spread through all 50 states in the coming years," Frist said. "It is becoming increasingly clear that Congress must act." Well, the first sentence of his comment is true.

What Bush Has Wrought.

"President Bush's endorsement of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage could prove to be a great moment for gay rights," says a Washington Post op-ed by Steven Waldman (editor of the interfaith site Beliefnet.com ). That's because the fallback position that even Bush has said he can live with is civil unions -- a position that until very recently was considered "extreme." And the culture shifts, like a raging river in which you can never stand in the same water for more than an instant.

"So what does it mean that gay rights activists, once the standard-bearers for sexual freedom, are now preoccupied with the sober institution of marriage?" asks the New York Times' Tamar Lewin. One answer comes from David Greer, a gay Republican activist. "If you look back to the 60's, the movement was about liberation,'' he tells the Times. "Gay liberation had a lot to do with freeing people from gender roles, while marriage was seen as the oppressive male hegemonic institution, which lesbians, especially, didn't want any part of.'' Greer adds, however, that "Marriage actually should have been the goal of the movement all along."

Ah, but that would have been a very different movement, in a very different world. Suffice to say, the gay rights struggle went through a delayed and prolonged adolescence, and is now ready to settle down -- kind of like Warren Beatty.

Seriously , the outpouring of emotion as thousands of gay couples flock across country to exchange vows rivals the highpoint of grassroots AIDS protests in the '80s, and certainly makes the tame professional lobbying of late for ENDA and hate crimes laws -- the heretofore holy grails of the gay movement -- pale in comparison. Anti-discrimination statutes targeting the private sector never generated a groundswell of activism because the vast majority of gays and lesbians never encountered workplace discrimination -- or if they did, moved on to other jobs. Philosophically, too, many of us had doubts about more government mandates on the hiring and promotion decisions made by private employers, and about hate crime laws adding penalties not for actions, but for what criminals were thinking.

But the gay masses have awakened and are now demanding what they know to truly be a fundamental human right too long denied, and movement "leaders" are scrambling to catch up. (An aside: there were, of course, a few notable exceptions who showed real leadership -- Evan Wolfson, originally at Lambda Legal and now as head of Freedom to Marry, comes to mind.)

Still More on the Culture War.

"Bush's Backfire" is IGF contributing author Rick Rosendall's take on gay marriage and the culture war, at Salon.com. Rick writes:

The fundamentalist Christian right -- the constituency of Judge Roy Moore and other apocalyptic preachers -- will never be satisfied short of remaking the entire country in their own theocratic image, which is impossible in a pluralistic Western democracy. Yet continuing to let itself be held hostage to these fanatics will be ruinous to the [Republican] party's long-term mainstream appeal.

Meanwhile, Calif. Governor Schwarzenegger appeared on the Tonight Show with a different GOP message, telling Jay Leno that it would be "fine with me" if state law were changed to permit same-sex marriages, reports the LA Times. Schwarzenegger also strongly rejected President Bush's call for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. "I think those issues should be left to the state, so I have no use for a constitutional amendment or change in that at all," said the "Governator." (He did, however, reiterated his opposition to San Francisco's granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples, saying city officials should abide by the current state law.)

Columnist Joe Klein gives the latest round of the culture wars a look over, in Time magazine . This piece from the New York Times' Sunday Week in Review does the same. Both reference Mel Gibson's bloody "Passion of the Christ" and the Superbowl half-time show's sexual crudity, along with gay marriage, as the latest touchstones of cultural discord. Gibson's film, which has both anti-Semitic and homophobic overtones, is a religious-right wet dream, from what I hear (haven't, and won't, see it). I'd say, it's the theology of Sissy Spacek's mother in "Carrie." (Here's Christopher Hitchens' take, from Slate.) But the Superbowl antics gave the country a taste of the culture left's sexual infantilism, and provoked an understandable backlash that's aided the anti-gay marriage cause (since both get lumped together as manifestations of threatening sexual anarchy).

The polarization really is stunning, but we should recall that times of harmony in the U.S. have been few and far between. From the revolution to the civil war to the sufferage, prohibition, abortion and civil rights struggles, polarization has been a long-standing theme, as the dialectics between greater liberty/equality and preserving tradition/social cohesion play themselves out. What could be more American?

Taking Count.

Oxblog finds at least 44 U.S. senators are opposed to the anti-marriage amendment, leaving the amendment's supporters far shy of the two-thirds needed. No time for complacency, but certainly a good sign.

One reason there's so much confusion over whether the language of the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment would ban civil unions, too, is that its drafters wanted to obscure the full extent of their proposal. Thus, the odd wording that would make unenforceable "marital status or the legal incidents thereof" for same-sex couples. The Washington Post has some insights into this scheme in a Sunday op-ed titled The Amendment Speaks for Itself -- which makes clear that the language now before Congress "would render civil unions -- as well as domestic partnerships -- meaningless."

In fact, what may doom this whole dark business is the religious right's insistence that any amendment either covertly or overtly nix civil unions as well -- a position that even many Republicans now find extreme.

More Recent Postings

2/22/04 - 2/28/04

By all accounts, supporters of the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) lack the required two-thirds majorities in either house of Congress. That's why, suddenly, we're seeing conservatives scrambling for some sort of "compromise" language. The typically gay-unfriendly editorial page of the Wall Street Journal on Friday opined that "Now, even some who support a constitutional remedy wonder about the language. There is debate about whether the amendment's language would bar states from endorsing civil unions, which Mr. Bush says they should be free to do."

Another example: An interesting column by Michael Horowitz of the conservative Hudson Institute, published at Tech Central Station, says the proposed anti-gay marriage/civil union wipeout under the FMA "will please some conservatives and evangelicals, but will go nowhere." Horowitz suggests an alternative saying civil marriages will be determined by voters or legislatures of the states, with no state requried to recognize any other's marriages. It's less draconian, certainly, than what's before Congress now, but still unnecessary and a slap -- in what other civil rights matter are state courts barred from ruling? Still, it's a good sign that the present amendment is already hemorrhaging support on the right.

More Evidence the Wind Will Not Subside.

The Green Party mayor of New Paltz, NY, is performing gay marriages, and hundreds have flocked upstate to be wed. Reports the NY Times:

Coming with little warning, the wedding ceremonies here left many lawyers and politicians struggling to respond, while independent observers and advocates for gay rights said the move may signal a shift in the scope of the cultural struggles -- from big cities to small towns.

"politicians, advocates, and outside observers said the events of Friday demonstrated how quickly the issue is moving and how unpredictable it has become.

Indeed it has.

And here's a good wrap up from the Washington Post on what's happening in California.

Enough 'Free Passes'.

An editorial in this week's Washington Blade takes aim at John Kerry's support for a state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. "We give gay-friendly politicians a 'free pass' almost anytime they tell us that supporting our equality would require actual courage on their part," writes editor Chris Crain.

Equal Time: Academic and author Tibor Machan, who is "neither left nor right," zeroes in on Bush's confused logic. He writes:

Mr. Bush is, in fact, trying to have it both ways, a limited government dedicated primarily to protecting our individual rights to liberty, and an intrusive federal government that is dictating to all what they ought to call their romantic unions.

Machan also has this aside:

...among [those faithful to] the Reverend Moon, people get married en masse, without even knowing to whom they are to be married; talk about a bizarre idea for American culture, yet nothing the law should prevent it.

Worth Noting.

This is from the Blade's "On the Record" compilation. It was sent to the S.C. legislature by James and Irene Smith:

The institution of marriage doesn't need protection from loving, caring gay South Carolinians like our son and his partner; it needs protection from demagogues and hypocrites like John Graham Altmann III who spew bigotry and who have more ex-spouses than they have clean underwear."

Rep. Altman, a leading gay-marriage opponent, is now on wife no. 3.

History Lesson

Theodore Roosevelt wanted a constitutional amendment limiting divorce and barring polygamy. It went nowhere, too.

Lest we forgot: "Kerry Backs State Ban on Marriage" was a headline Thursday in the Boston Globe.

Presidential candidate John F. Kerry said yesterday that he supports amending the Massachusetts Constitution to ban gay marriage and provide for civil unions for gay couples. In his most explicit remarks on the subject yet, Kerry told the Globe that he would support a proposed amendment to the state Constitution that would prohibit gay marrriage so long as, while outlawing gay marriage, it also ensured that same-sex couples have access to all legal rights that married couples receive.

Slightly better than Bush, but only slightly. While Bush doesn't support civil unions, he hasn't condemned them. So we're left with Bush wanting to amend the federal Constitution, and Kerry wanting states to amend their own individual constitutions. No, I'm not, and will not, support Bush. But the Democrats had better get their own house in order before pontificating about the evils of gays who work within the GOP.

A side observation: if more gays had worked within the GOP, Bush would have had reason to fear alienating us. Abandoning the GOP to the religious right simply ensures that only the religious right's concerns will be taken into consideration. Leaving aside Bush, who is now unsupportable, there is a greater need than ever for moderate, conservative, and libertarian-minded gays to work to reform the Republican party, at all levels.

Fair-Minded Conservatives Oppose Anti-Marriage Amendment.

From the NY Daily News:

Senate sources said Bush will have an even tougher time winning votes there, where maverick Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is an opponent. McCain believes states should handle the issue and that it isn't appropriate to change the Constitution.

From the NY Post:

Gov. Pataki, normally a loyal ally of President Bush, yesterday broke with him over gay marriage, saying he opposes a constitutional amendment to ban it. -- [Republican] Mayor Bloomberg came out against a constitutional amendment a day earlier.

Not Surrendering.

"Gay Conservatives Fight Bush on Wedding Vow" is an LA Times headline. It may be a long, hard fight, but it's one that must be made.

By the way, IGF's co-manaing editor Jonathan Rauch (who is neither a Republican nor a conservative) answered questions about gay marriage and politics Thursday in a live chat on the Washington Post's website. Here's the transcript.
Jon says:

My answer: go state by state. Marriage is a community-based institution and works best when communities are ready for it. That helps protect against unintended consequences, while recognizing gay unions. "

Most of the conservative arguments against[same-sex marriage] are really, on unpacking, arguments for it. -- Marriage is indeed a fundamental institution necessary for societal existence and well-being. That's why gay people should be included.

The whole transcript isn't long, and is well worth reading.

Much commentary today about President Bush's formal endorsement of the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment. Here's a sampling of two of the more interesting pieces.

From James Glassman, on the website of the conservative American Enterprise Institute:

"by supporting the FMA, the President is turning his back on conservative principles of federalism and limited government. Gay marriage arouses hot emotions on both sides. But there is a sensible solution, and it's being followed: Let each state decide on its own.

That is the view of Vice President Cheney. "Different states are likely to come to different conclusions," he said during the 2000 campaign, "and that's appropriate." "Many staunch Republicans agree with Cheney's approach. "I hold the Constitution in highest regard and I don't like to see it trifled with," says former Rep. Bob Barr. "I'm a firm believer in federalism. Even though I'm not an advocate for same-sex marriage, I want the states to decide the issue."

If the President is hunting for amendments, he might try one limiting federal spending".

"this divided country needs a compassionate conservative, not a cynic who panders to the meanest instincts.

And, from libertarian-minded, conservative-friendly columnist James Pinkerton, in Newsday:

The gay rush to the altar has been compared to earlier spontaneous political combustion, in which old rules go up in a sudden whoosh of smoke. "

But now George W. Bush is gearing up to support a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, backed by a solid majority of Americans. Well, here's a prediction: Such an amendment will never pass. Why? Because there are too many gays and lesbians living a conservative lifestyle, now aspiring to be even more conservative by getting legally hitched. And in the final analysis, the political establishment will not be hard-hearted enough to crush their legal and human rights.

There is a crying need in America for the leadership of a fiscally conservative, free-trade supporting, excessive-regulation restraining, tax limiting, entitlement reforming, strong-defense minded, internationally engaged, limited-government president. That does not describe George W. Bush, whose domestic spending has been fiscally profligate and who has made a habit of over-reaching into areas where the federal government has no business being.

But it's certainly not John Kerry, whose muddled foreign policy pronouncements sound like warmed over Jimmy Carterism, and who will certainly increase taxes and business regulation, block fiscally prudent entitlement reform, placate the trial lawyer lobby by nixing much needed tort reform (especially if Edwards is veep), and appoint the liberal version of intrusive government meddlers to positions of power throughout his administration. Pick your poisons.

These past few days, I can't help thinking of what the country, now torn apart with the ugliest partisan rancor in memory, might have been like if John McCain had managed to buck the GOP establishment four years ago and win against crazy Al Gore.

George W. Bush has now pushed the religious right's battle to ban and nullify gay marriages into the forefront of the 2004 presidential race. As Andrew Sullivan writes, he may have "succeeded in ensuring that almost no gay people will vote for or support the Republican party for a generation." I'd say that if enough congressional Republicans come to their senses and help derail the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment, there may still be hope for the party -- especially if the Democrats veer as far to the economic left as Bush is steering the GOP to the cultural right.

Nevertheless, the outpouring of emotion unleashed today rivals that felt back in 1986 when the Supreme Court's infamous Bowers v. Hardwick ruling upheld sodomy laws that made gay people a criminal class. It took 17 years to right that wrong. Hopefully, we can keep the FMA from defacing the Constitution and again making second-class citizenship for gays and lesbians the law of the land.

And I do think the odds are in our favor. While Americans don't support gay marriage, a majority think mucking with the U.S. Constitution to enshrine discrimination is beyond the pale. And the more they think about it, I believe, the more Bush's pandering to "the base" is going to seem like an extremist act. Bush II is repeating the "culture war" embrace that helped doom Bush I, and he's too limited a human being to see it.

I think the Log Cabin Republicans have struck the right chord. Their statement says:

As conservative Republicans, we are outraged that any Republican -- particularly the leader of our party and this nation -- would support any effort to use our sacred United States Constitution as a way of scoring political points in an election year.

We are disappointed that some Republicans leaders have abandoned the conservative principles on which this party was built. Liberty, equality and Federalism form the bedrock of Republican values. The President and some other leaders in our party have turned away from these principles to satisfy the radical right in an election year.

I guess it may take another presidential loss before the GOP learns that pandering to extremism is not a winning platform.

On a lighter note, here's a nice bit of parody of anti-gay marriage paranoia from The Indepundit's website.