Here's a nice column from USA Today in which a gay couple from
Washington state discuss their decision to legally wed in Canada
[note, when originally posted I mistakenly described the couple as
Canadian]. It's called "Marriage
Strengthens Bond of Same-Sex Couples, Too."
More Recent Postings
There's a fair amount of misleading reporting around Vice
President Dick Cheney's recent comments on a proposed anti-gay
marriage amendment. Cheney
said in an interview that "the president is going to have to
make a decision in terms of what administration policy is on this
particular provision, and I will support whatever decision he
makes." Cheney declined to say whether he has discussed the issue
of same-sex marriage with the president, the Denver Post reports,
or shared his perspective as the parent of a gay daughter.
"I don't talk about the advice I give the president," Cheney said.
"That is why he listens."
Some media are reporting that "Cheney says he will support a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage," choosing to ignore the conditional tone of his statement, just as the New York Times misreported the story when Bush said he'd support such an amendment "if necessary" (and instead reported it as "Bush will").
It should come as no surprise that Cheney promises to support any decision the president might eventually make. That's his job. But it's not the same as saying that he personally favors such a ban. And it certainly doesn't tell us what Cheney is advising the president to do.
You don't have to be Bush backer to believe that getting the
facts right is important when it comes to trying to prevent
Bush/Cheney from making an actual endorsement of the amendment.
They have not done so, though they may be floating trial balloons,
or trying to placate the religious right without taking any action.
As I've
said before, declaring that they have endorsed the amendment is
not only bad reporting, it's surrendering well before the battle's
over.
"Group opposed to gay marriage assailed for hiding poll results," reads the Boston Herald headline. Seems that the Massachusetts Family Institute / Coalition for Marriage released only those portions of a new Zogby poll that supported their position - and hid the fact that a narrow majority in the Bay State oppose their drive to ban gay marriage by amending the state constitution.
The Boston Globe followed up, quoting a coalition spokesman who says he merely "misspoke" on the poll findings. By the way, they also have a bridge in Brooklyn they're looking to sell.
Adventures in Hetero-Marriage Land.
Libertarian-minded columnist and IGF contributing author Deroy Murdock takes a look at the Britney Speakrs/Jason Allen Alexander quickie nuptials and quicker annulment. He writes (on the conservative National Review Online site):
Whatever objections they otherwise may generate, gay couples who desire marriage at least hope to stay hitched. Britney's latest misadventure, in contrast, reduced marriage from something sacred to just another Vegas activity, like watching the Bellagio Hotel's fountains between trips to the blackjack tables. "
"social conservatives who blow their stacks over homosexual matrimony's supposed threat to traditional marriage tomorrow should focus on the far greater damage that heterosexuals are wreaking on that venerable institution today.
And liberal columnist Ellen Goodman had
this to say:
Britney and Jason were granted an annulment in 55 hours on the grounds that they lacked "understanding of each other's actions in entering upon this marriage." Compare them to gay couples who "understand" each other and commitment but are kept legally single. "
And the idea that same-sex marriage somehow disparages heterosexual marriage? We can put that to rest. Who needs gay couples when you have Britney and Jason?
Gays a Threat to Marriage?
According to a new survey, typical urban-dwellers now spend much of their adult lives unmarried - either dating or single (or, in the case of gay couples, unable to wed). According to the Washington Post:
"What's going on now is making the sexual revolution of the '60s and '70s pale in comparison," says Eli Coleman, director of the Program in Human Sexuality at the University of Minnesota. He called [the new survey from the University of Chicago] the most comprehensive since that of acclaimed researcher Alfred Kinsey, who surveyed people about sex in the 1940s
However,
"social services, the church and law enforcement have been slow to address this latest sexual revolution. -- "It's not approved. It's not talked about," [project leader Edward] Laumann says. "Or they just look the other way."
Or they pretend that gay marriage would somehow be the real threat to the culture of marriage!
IGF's Paul Varnell has more to say on the hypocrisy of gay
marriage opponents in his new posting, "Anti-Love
Isn't Pro Marriage."
- Stephen H. Miller
More Recent Postings
A suburban San Jose school district agreed to pay $1.1 million to settle a lawsuit brought by six gay students who said they were subjected to beatings, death threats and other harassment. The Morgan Hill district, which did not admit wrongdoing in the settlement, also agreed to hold training sessions for students and teachers to discourage anti-gay harassment.
Although I'm against the epidemic of frivolous lawsuits that's overtaken the country, if what these students charge was done to them is true, then the school district deserves to be held accountable. While I'd prefer real school choice so that children can escape the clutches of uncaring educrats who can't or won't ensure their safety, as long as government schools use our tax dollars we should demand that gay kids not be treated as expendable.
The Right to Fire
Hewlett-Packard did not violate the rights of a devout Christian employee when it fired him for posting Biblical scriptures on his cubicle that were critical of homosexuality, the San Francisco-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has ruled.
Those who believe that private (or shareholder-owned) companies
should have the right to hire or fire at will should see nothing
wrong with HP giving the sack to a homophobe. But those who believe
companies should not be able to fire (or not hire) on the basis of
an employee or applicant's personal beliefs may have to contort
themselves to explain why some expressions of religious conviction
are more equal than others.
The experience of teen girls who have same-sex relationships is markedly different from that of gay males, recounts the Washington Post in "Partway Gay?":
Outside of conservative religious circles, the common understanding for years has been that homosexuality is largely genetic, based on physical attraction, and unchanging. Though an easy model to understand, if not accept, it has a major flaw: It is derived almost exclusively from male subjects.
Recent studies of relationships among women suggest that female homosexuality may be grounded more in social interaction, may present itself as an emotional attraction in addition to or in place of a physical one, and may change over time.
The greater fluidity of sexual orientation among many (not all)
women as compared with men can't be dismissed, though it makes for
a more complicated picture of gay life in the 21st
century.
GOP leaders have been abandoning their party's commitment to federalism in favor of further centralizing Washington's authority over the states. "States' rights," of course, has a dubious legacy and liberals love to associate the idea with discriminatory Jim Crow laws in the South. But the concept that the states are better suited than Washington to understand and respond to local needs has always been fundamental to our democratic republic.
The newest wrinkle is that even Republicans who champion local
autonomy are abandoning the idea in order to support a
constitutional amendment to prohibit states from recognizing gay
marriage. The AP quotes IGF contributing author David Boaz on the
Republicans'
waning enthusiasm for allowing states to act as laboratories of
democracy:
Traditionally the champions of small government and states' rights, President Bush and his allies in Congress have aggressively pursued policies that expand the powers of Washington in the schoolroom, the courthouse, the home and the doctor's office. "
David Boaz, executive vice president of the Cato Institute, which advocates limited government and individual liberties, said there are inevitable tensions when conservatives try to use federal power to override the actions of more liberal state governments. "
Cato's Boaz said the next big fight will be over GOP attempts to stop state moves to sanction gay marriages. "Some conservatives are saying we need one national policy, but that would be an unprecedented federal intrusion into marriage law that has always been controlled by the states,'' he said.
Of course, the Democrats support granting more power to
Washington over virtually all policy matters, and thus are ill
equipped to argue the federalism case when it comes to gay
marriage.
More Recent Postings
Back to work, and ready to meet the new year head on.
I'm not one to go out on a limb and make predictions for the year ahead. I'll leave that to IGF's own Paul Varnell.
But here are some of the stories that caught my eye this past week as possible portents:
It's nice to see grass-roots efforts within the Episcopal Church to counter anti-gay activists and clerics who would rather ferment schism than accept an openly gay bishop, as the Associated Press reports. But I still say, let 'em leave if that's what they want.
The controversy continues over an Iowa judge who terminated a local lesbian couple's Vermont-obtained civil union with a divorce ruling. If this case goes up the judicial ladder, it could prove precedent-setting.
The bogus "homosexual life expectancy" stats promoted by
anti-gay activist Paul Cameron still have legs, as in this
appearance in a new Walter Williams column.
Here's a
critique of Cameron's "science" by IGF's Mark Pietrzyk, penned
back in 1994, and another critical
look by IGF's Walter Olson, in 1997. The ability of junk
science to pass itself off as the real thing, whether promulgated
by the right or the left (as in so much spurious environmentalism),
is astounding.
The Washington Post looks at Howard Dean's
gay supporters. And here's the Post's
unexpectedly critical look at Dean himself.
Dean's penchant for, shall we say "mistruths," is providing his
critics with plenty
of ammunition. His recent claim that his late brother served in
the military (when, in fact, he was an opponent of the Vietnam war
who never served, but was slain in Laos while visiting that country
as a tourist) is breathtaking in its mendacity. But I suspect that
most politically active gays will continue to embrace Dean, all the
way over the cliff.
More Recent Postings
The anti-gay American Family Association's online poll of support/opposition to "homosexual marriage" is producing some surprising results.
The en
banc blog
makes mincemeat out of the New York
Times's claim of "strong support" for a constitutional
amendment to ban gay marriage. In fact, the reported figure of 55
percent favoring an amendment shows a country pretty evenly
divided. And by any measure, it's less than the overwhelming
majority needed to push an amendment through Congress and
three-fourths of the state legislatures.
This, coupled with the Times's mangling of the Bush quote (see below) to purport that the president is now supporting such an amendment (he's not, but says he might "if necessary"), begs the question of why the NYT wants its readers to think the news is much worse than it is. Recall that the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force also is telling its followers that Bush supports the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment now before Congress (wrong again - while Bush "if necessary" might endorse some amendment, he also indicated he favors the rights of states to offer civil unions and domestic partnerships, which the proposed FMA would ban).
One explanation: the liberal-left would rather (a) demonize Bush
and (b) luxuriate in victimhood than deal with the practical
politics of lobbying an administration they despise -- even to the
point of declaring defeat while others choose to engage the
battle.
In its Sunday, Dec. 21
story on gay marriage, the New York Times reports, in referring
to President Bush's comments during an interview with ABC's Diane
Sawyer:
But last week Mr. Bush for the first time voiced his support, saying, "I will support a constitutional amendment which would honor marriage between a man and a woman, codify that."
Well, not exactly. The Times chopped two words out of Bush's quote: "If necessary, I will support..." Bush also said during his interview with ABC's Sawyer, "We may need a constitutional amendment."
Nuance is important when parsing a politician's emerging stance on a contentious, politically charged issue, and the New York Times surely knows this. Bush may, in fact, come out in support of a constitutional amendment, but he has not yet done so, and that's important.
If it looks like he'll cruise to an easy re-election, Bush won't
want to risk seeming "intolerant" to swing voters (and, in truth,
he has never shown any desire to play this card). But if the race
tightens and he needs to firm up his right-wing base, who knows.
But misreporting the facts, as the Times did -- along with many gay
activists -- doesn't help those who are actually working to keep
Bush from doing what the Times has reported he already did. [Hat
tip to Andrew Sullivan.com]
More Recent Postings