IGF CultureWatch

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

12/28/03 - 1/3/04

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

12/21/03 - 12/27/03

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

12/14/03 - 12/20/03

The always shrill National Gay & Lesbian Task Force responded to President Bush's triangulating comments on gay marriage (see yesterday's posting) with this bit of off-the-wall hyperbole:

Bush's Support of the Federal Marriage Amendment Deemed a Declaration of War on Gay America. Crossing this line in the sand will provoke civil disobedience across country, says National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

If NGLTF's leadership wants to personify infantile leftism, that's their business, but when they misreport to their members on matters of fact, it's serious. Bush did say it might become necessary, in his view, to pass an amendment that would "honor" or codify marriage as between one man and one woman. For that, he should be criticized. But Bush did not support the current wording of the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) now before Congress. In fact, as I noted yesterday, he pointedly left the door open for state-recognized civil unions and domestic partnerships, which the FMA would also ban, thus angering the religious right.

Think about that -- a conservative GOP president who has no problem with states recognizing civil unions for gay couples. Then ask yourself if this amounts to declaring "war" on gays.

It's worth remembering that just a few months ago NGLTF's Matt Foreman stood with black ministers who are leaders of the anti-gay Alliance for Marriage, at the 40th anniversary civil rights rally in Washington, and in his remarks failed to even mention gay marriage -- as Dale Carpenter noted in his syndicated column.

The Washington Post gets the story right:

President Bush said for the first time yesterday that he could support a constitutional amendment opposing gay marriage, but he drew criticism from some conservatives for leaving the door open to state recognition of civil unions. "

He appeared to leave open the possibility of supporting the right of states to confer some form of legal recognition on same-sex couples, such as civil unions, which are opposed by many Christian conservatives.

But for the Bush-haters at NGLTF, the facts don't matter as long as you have a chance to incite the passions of your donors. Just like over at the religious right groups that are their mirror opposites.

Hinged.

Andrew Sullivan writes:

"hitching the Constitution to a position that is fast losing popular support [banning gay marriage] seems to me to be an abuse of that document. It should be amended only when there's an overwhelming consensus on a strictly Constitutional matter -- not when the country is deeply split on a social and cultural issue. "

The gay issue does strange things to presidents. Clinton said all the right things -- and then enacted and supported some of the most anti-gay measures ever (DOMA, "Don't ask, Don't Tell"). Bush still cannot even say the words 'gay' or 'lesbian' but hasn't done anything that damaging to gay men and women; and, by his ambivalence, might help kill an anti-gay Constitutional amendment. Go figure.

President Bush is the target of critical missives by both gay and anti-gay activists over his comments to ABC's Diane Sawyer Tuesday night, when he was asked about his position on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. The president said he supports an amendment "which would honor marriage between a man and a woman." But he added, "The position of this administration is that whatever legal arrangements people want to make, they're allowed to make, so long as it's embraced by the state or at the state level."

Just what this means is not entirely clear (surprise, surprise). Sadly, the president has gone on record in support of amending the Constitution to prevent gay marriage in some fashion, although the fact that he said he favors an amendment to "honor" marriage between a man and a woman, rather than an amendment that stipulates marriage as between a man and a woman, could provide some wiggle room.

And he fell far short of endorsing the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment now before Congress, whose language is widely interpreted as barring states from recognizing not only same-sex marriages, but also civil unions and domestic partnerships. This reticence on Bush's part was recognized by the anti-gays. In the words of the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins:

"I'm very concerned about his additional comments which seem to suggest the definition of marriage, which pre-dates western civilization and the United States Constitution, can be redefined at the state level. This sounds as though the administration would support civil unions which are counterfeits of the institution of marriage. The President's remarks also undermine state legislators who are fighting to protect the institution of marriage in states like Massachusetts."

But an opposite view (though similar tone) was expressed by Winnie Stachelberg of the Human Rights Campaign, the Washington-based lesbigay lobby:

"We are gravely concerned by reports that the president would join in these attacks on American families. -- The amendment pending in Congress would go much further than defining marriage as between a man and a woman. It could strip away any legal protection for millions of hard-working, tax-paying Americans and their children, including the right to Social Security survivor benefits, to the right to inherit a partner's property without heavy tax penalties, even the right to visit a loved one in the hospital."

But Bush clearly has not come out in support of the Federal Marriage Amendment now before Congress, and indicated he'd be against stripping states of their ability to recognize civil unions and domestic partnerships, which is why the anti-gays are so unhappy. In fact, the limited amendment he suggests he'd favor could be a complete non-starter with the religoius right, derailing their whole effort.

On another point: HRC can't seem to get away from the view that marriage is primarily about benefits -- ultimately not a strong argument, as Dale Carpenter explains in his recent column, Bad Arguments for Gay Marriage:

Very few people marry in order to experience the magic of filing a joint income tax return. They marry because, in our tradition and history, marriage is the way couples in a community signal the depth of their commitment to one another. Their family and peers reciprocate by supporting and celebrating that commitment, which in turn reinforces it. Everyone understands the stakes.

But this is something that the "rights" obsessed HRC doesn't, in fact, seem to understand.

More Recent Postings

12/07/03 - 12/13/03

Two generals and an admiral, all retired, are among the most senior uniformed officers to criticize the "don't ask, don't tell" policy for gays serving their country in the military, the New York Times reports. In a joint statement, they called the policy ineffective and charged it "undermines the military's core values: truth, honor, dignity, respect and integrity."

Oh, and by the way, all three are now openly gay.

In terms of politics, Bush clearly won't touch the "gays in the military" issue before the election. But in a second term, he'd have the clout to change the policy if he were of a mind to do so, and Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney have given indications in the past that they'd be supportive (while Colin Powell, who favors the ban, may be gone). However, it's certain that Howard Dean would have even less clout than Clinton had with the military (and not just over capitulation in Iraq, but the whole "how I spent months skiing while enjoying my bad-back draft deferment" thing), and would ignite a firestorm if he tried to alter the ban.