IGF CultureWatch

Fun in the Hawaiian Sun. On Hawaii's gubernatorial election, the Hawaii Reporter website related the following:

Yesterday, Hawaii Reporter talked to a handful of people outside the Republican Party who had direct knowledge of a new secret whispering campaign against Republican Gubernatorial Candidate Linda Lingle. Apparently a woman claiming to be the former lover of Lingle is calling targeted Republicans as a part of a smear campaign against Lingle. Lingle says she is not gay and in fact has been married twice.

Lingle supporters says smear mongers are hoping to distract voters from the real issues like the fact that the state has hit rock bottom in almost every category -- education, business, social problems, importation of drugs, domestic violence, theft -- because of poor political leadership.

Democrats tried this same smear in 1998 against Lingle when she ran for governor against incumbent Benjamin Cayetano and against some of their own candidates in years prior who weren't the "chosen" party candidates, including a Democrat candidate for mayor and a Democrat candidate for governor.

And then there's this, as reported by the Washington Times:

When [Lingle] denied lesbian rumors, Democratic Gov. Benjamin J. Cayetano, who is term-limited, said that her denial suggested she felt that homosexuality is "something to be ashamed of" and therefore she was "denigrating gays."

She says her opponents have falsely accused her of everything from wanting to privatize the whole state government to wanting to cancel Christmas as a state holiday.

She says they have lied about her favoring the legalization of same-sex "marriage" and physician-assisted suicides and making Hawaii a right-to-work state.

So first her opponents spread a gay rumor to hurt her, and when she denies the rumor they call her homophobic. No wonder people hate politics.

(Note: The Hawaii Reporter story was first noted on the blogsphere by David Hogberg's Cornfield Commentary site and andrewsullivan.com)

Destructive Therapy. A sad but interesting piece ran in the San Jose Mercury News about the self-destructive behavior and ultimate brutal murder of transsexual teen Gwen/Eddie Araujo. Of particular interest is the following:

People offered Eddie their help, including Linda Skerbec, a therapist associated with the Focus on the Family ministry who had known the family for years and saw Araujo between the ages of 14 and 16. She said she was on the verge of persuading Araujo to "move beyond the label" of transgender and "claim the sexual identity that matched his anatomy."

We"re also told, however:

This would have been Araujo's senior year at Crossroads High School, but he never showed up".Araujo's behavior grew more self-destructive, and his mother concedes now that she "never understood the magnitude of his pain."" Aaraujo attempted suicide and drank more frequently. He had no job and wasn't studying. Friends told police he traded sex for beer and marijuana. Last month, Araujo was found unconscious"passed out after a night of drinking. But it wasn't unusual. He often wouldn't come home at night.

Sounds like the fundametalist, homophobic "therapy" was of great help, right? Shouldn't this quackery be considered a form of child abuse?

[Update: Read Ms. Skerbec's letter to us, stating that the allegations against her were false.]

Speaking of ex-gay quackery, here's a not-too-bad piece on the re-emergence of ex-gay activist John Paulk, from the conservative Washington Times.
--Stephen H. Miller

Partisan Grave Diggers. Glad I wasn't the only one who found the televised stadium rally, ahem "memorial service," for Paul Wellstone deeply offensive. No wonder the organizers told Vice President Cheney not to come.

They"ve Surrendered! Not quite, but the recent lament from syndicated columnist Cal Thomas, a Christian conservative who once worked for the Moral Majority, is revealing. Writes Thomas in his column titled The Gay Rights War is Over and We Lost:

Let's be honest. The battle over so-called "gay rights" is over. Politicians, the media, and the medical and psychological professions -- everyone is completely on board. It's simply a matter of time -- weeks, months, but not more than a few years-- before homosexual "marriage" and child adoption are made completely legal.

New York Republican Governor George Pataki has pushed his state senate to pass gay rights legislation in December. -- When Republicans -- the "family values" party -- start signing off on this stuff, you know the war is officially over.

More Democrats Behaving Badly. The Wall Street Journal's opinionjournal.com - Best of the Web column on Monday included the following item, titled "If He Were A Republican, This Would Be Hate Speech," with a link to a story from Columbia, South Carolina's The State newspaper, and this summary:

Alex Sanders, the Democratic nominee for Senate in South Carolina, is blasting his Republican opponent, Rep. Lindsey Graham, for running an ad featuring an endorsement from former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, the Columbia State reports. "He's an ultraliberal," Sanders said of Giuliani during a debate Friday. "His wife kicked him out and he moved in with two gay men and a Shih Tzu. Is that South Carolina values? I don't think so."

Nice, huh. Coming on top of Montana Sen. Max Baucus's sleazy "Not in Our State!" ads, those who argue all we need is a one-party movement have some spinning to do.

Iraq a Gay Issue? This weekend saw another rally in our nation's capital opposing military action to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. On this matter, IGF contributor Rick Rosendall has a timely column in the Washington Blade taking issue with those, such as gay Muslim activist Faisal Alam, who argue gay groups should oppose the war, in Rosendall's words

"without showing the slightest awareness of which side actually treats gays better. (Hint: It's the one that allows gay Muslims to organize and publish op-eds.)"

Also of interest is syndicated columnist Hastings Wyman's recent roundup of where gay movement organizations stand in relation to the question -- and the not surprising fact that many on the LGBT left favor joining the alliance opposing action to free the Iraqi people, and the world, from this monster.

Sen. Wellstone, in Perspective. The tragic death of Sen. Paul Wellstone, perhaps the Senate's most left-leaning lawmaker, is being noted by the Human Rights Campaign, which issued a statement that lauds him as "a hero of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender movement," as well as "a powerfully eloquent and passionate voice for fairness today," whose death represents "a devastating loss to our community." And, indeed, Wellstone was a leading advocate for the proposed Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), a federal bill that would forbid private companies from discriminating against gays and lesbians.

But it's also important to remember this, as reported by the Associated Press:

Labeled by a magazine, Mother Jones, as "the first 1960s radical elected to the U.S. Senate," Wellstone still managed to disappoint liberal followers on occasion. In 1996, he angered gay rights supporters by voting for the "Defense of Marriage" bill, which allowed states to withhold legal recognition of same-sex unions from other states [and bars the federal government from recognizing such unions].

HRC considers ENDA, which the group carefully crafted and which it promotes to contributors as its chief product, as the most important issue on the gay agenda (so to speak). Many of us feel that the denial of gay marriage and government discrimination toward gays in the military -- the nation's single largest employer -- impact more gay lives to a far greater degree than private-sector employment discrimination, given that surprisingly few cases can truly be documented, that a rapidly growing number of companies are formally adding gays to their non-discrimination policies on their own despite the lack of government decree, and that a libertarian case can be made that employers should be entitled to hire the workers they choose, and that ENDA paves the way for both baseless lawsuits (profiting trial lawyers, if no one else) while creating an incentive not to hire open gays (for fear that you could never fire them).

I"m not among those who oppose ENDA; on the whole, it would be a nice symbolic statement. But discrimination sanctioned and practiced by our government, especially denial of the right to marry, should be our main focus, and it's not. And it certainly wasn't for Paul Wellstone, and it isn't for HRC, NGLTF, and many other movement leaders.
--Stephen H. Miller

The Political Zoo. If I don't often focus on the bad stuff coming out of the GOP camp, it's because mindless Republican-bashing is the heart of most gay websites, which obscures the real progress that's been made as of late. But as it is campaign season, there are plenty of instances of Republicans behaving badly that can, in fact, be noted. And some examples where they"re getting a bad rap as well. Among the transgressors, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush disgraced himself in a recent debate with Democratic challenger Bill McBride, who quite rightly called Florida's law prohibiting gay couples from adopting children discriminatory and ''not the American way.'' Bush the younger defended the ban, saying that children should find permanent homes only with couples who are ''a man and a wife.'' He added, for good measure, ''It's the law of the land, but I believe it personally.''

Sadly, Bush is on target about most issues in this campaign. For instance, McBride thinks the school problem can be solved be shoveling still more money down the system's bureaucratic rat hole, while his backers at the teachers" unions oppose the sort of real reforms that could, finally, make schools accountable for their wretched performance. Too bad Jeb is combining his support for innovation and enterprise with subservience to the religious right on an important matter of equality and fairness. If I were a Floridian, I might vote Libertarian in this race.

As an international aside, the British have also been debating the adoption question, and Lady Thatcher made a special appearance at the House of Lords to take part in "heated exchanges" and drive a stake through the heart of Tony Blair's bill to allow gay and unmarried partners to adopt. Of course, if gays could marry then the matter wouldn't be confused by throwing unmarried heterosexuals (who can, but don't , make the commitment) into the mix. But it's not like conservatives are supporting that idea, either.

One of the most bizarre cases of reactionary Republicanism comes from Houston, Texas, where a GOP candidate for justice of the peace, who also happens to be openly gay and president of the Houston chapter of the Log Cabin Republicans, is being attacked by a GOP political activist who sent his party's voters an automated telephone message telling them not to vote the straight Republican ticket because, as the
Houston Chronicle paraphrased it, "If you vote straight, you vote gay." It's just a wacko case, but shows how deep the hatred is among the unreconstructed right.

The Other Side. On the other hand, there are some happier examples of Republicans behaving well. For instance, New York's Gov. George Pataki is successfully pushing a resistant Republican-controlled state senate to pass a gay rights bill, which he promises to sign. Regardless of the merits of such bills, his support indicates a more generally enlightened attitude towards inclusiveness. Pataki has also backed post-9/11 survivors benefits for gay partners.

Finally, there's an instance where a Republican may be getting a raw deal. In the Massachusetts gubernatorial race, the GOP's Mitt Romney has pledged: "As Governor, I will introduce legislation to establish a domestic partnership law in Massachusetts, and I support any city, medical facility or business that chooses to extend these rights and benefits to their employees." So of course he's being denounced as a homophobe. A Mormon, Romney endowed a management school with a $1 million donation to Brigham Young University, a Church school with clearly antigay policies (he is not on the board or otherwise affiliated with BYU). As the executive who ran the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics, gay groups praised Romney's outreach to gays and lesbians.
(A Human Rights Campaign press release from last January stated: "Our community's level of participation is unprecedented, thanks to the Salt Lake Olympic Organizing Committee's inclusive policies that respect all residents who want to help make this the most successful Olympics ever").

For a highly visible Mormon to support gay rights and domestic-partner benefits is a Big Deal, and perhaps of more value than support from a liberal, or even an ex-Mormon (which is what Romney would be if he took on his Church's anti-gay policies directly). If gay activists truly believe in the separation of Church and State, they might cut Romney a little slack on this one.
--Stephen H. Miller

Baucus Unbowed. Sen. Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, continues to dish out more "Not in Our State" slime, at least in the view of one anti-Baucus website .

Why Gays Hate (some) Republicans. Pennsylvania's GOP gubernatorial candidate Mike Fisher boasted he would veto any bill attempting to give state employees domestic partners insurance or other benefits, saying "I think it's even more important to protect Pennsylvania's traditional family values.'' Democratic front-runner Edward G. Rendell signed such a measure as mayor of Philadelphia, but it was struck down by the courts. As the AP story reports, Libertarian Ken Krawchuk "provided the biggest of several laughs of the evening" when he observed, "I think what's good for the goose and the gander is good for the goose and the goose, and the gander and the gander."

Down the Drain. Transgendered and gay students at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, calling themselves Restroom Revolution, have launched a petition drive and "mass mobilization" to create coed dorm bathrooms, the Boston Globe reports:

"Transgendered students have nowhere to go to the bathroom on campus," said Mitch Boucher, 33, a PhD candidate organizing the campaign". About 30 Restroom Revolution activists, including leaders of gay and transgendered advocacy groups, met earlier this month and announced their new focus". But at UMass-Amherst the prospects remain uncertain. Efforts to raise awareness of transgendered concerns led to sensitivity training sessions for adult dorm staff and student residential assistants this past summer that will now be conducted annually". But Stephen Pereira, assistant director of the Stonewall Center, a campus resource facility for gay, bisexual, and transgendered students, believes that until the campus community learns more about transgendered students, mobilizing broad-based support may be difficult.

This actually may be a real issue for politicized transgendered students, but it seems to me it's the one issue most likely to arouse primal opposition among those who prefer their public, multi-stall restrooms to be sex-segregated.

Certainly the transgendered, outside of the halls of ivy, face greater issues -- like not being murdered, as highlighted by the recent, awful killing of Eddie/Gwn Araujo, a 17-year-old beaten and strangled recently in California. As the AP reports, stories of attacks are familiar to cross-dressers, and rather transcend trendy on-campus restroom "mobilizations." Making straights use coed johns isn't going to improve matters in this regard.

Unexpected Source. The conservative, and typically very gay-negative, CNSNews.com ran a odd piece titled "Pink Pistols Say Media's Sniper Reporting Off-Target," about the gay and lesbian group that defends the right to bear arms. The story focused on firearms, not sexuality, and never used the words gay or lesbian. Still, it noted:

In addition to defending the Second Amendment, the Pink Pistols also advocates the "rights of consenting adults to love each other how they wish, however they wish."

"We are dedicated to the legal, safe, and responsible use of firearms for self-defense of the sexual-minority community," says a statement on the group's website, which carries the motto, "Pick on someone your own caliber."

Being treated as a legitimate source by the right-wing media is some evidence of progress, I think. It certainly goes against the usual stereotype!

Gay Media Myopia. A report in the Boston Globe quotes attempted shoebomber Richard Reid explaining his motivation as follows:

"This is a war between Islam and democracy," he e-mailed his mother. A society that permits homosexuality and sex outside marriage (and that is marred by alcoholism and drug addiction) also violates God's will, he believed.

It's now undeniable that Islamic extremists would seek to exterminate us, given the chance. Yet there's still a politically correct queasiness about saying so. The current issue of the Washington Blade, one of the nation's largest circulation gay papers, ran (several weeks after the fact) a short article on the stabbing of the openly gay mayor of Paris, Bertrand Delanoe, and simply neglected to report that the attacker was at least to some extent motivated by Islamic homo-hatred. The story simple states: "Azedine Berkane, 39, has told investigators that he committed the crime out of dislike of gays and politicians" But as I noted in an earlier posting, the AP reported that he also explained to police that he was a devout Muslin, which is the context for his beliefs. I repeat, yet again: can you imagine how completely different the story would have been reported in the gay press if the perpetrator had been a Christian fundamentalist? Demented multiculturalism, holding that only Western Civilization and Judeo-Christianity are worthy of criticism, is Orwellian indeed.

I"m Back. A bit jet-lagged, but ready to pick up where we left off.

More on Montana. When last we blogged, the news of Democratic Sen. Max Baucus's slimy attack ad had just hit, and I wondered what the response might be. In fact, the Democratic-leaning Human Rights Campaign did come out with a critical statement saying, "HRC deplores any attempt to make a political issue of a candidate's real or perceived sexual orientation," and that "This type of ad has no place in politics, it is an affront to gay people and we hope we have seen the last of this campaign tactic." The HRC release, however, includes a lengthy excerpt from the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee denying that the ad traded on anti-gay stereotypes. HRC does not comment on the DSCC statement. Are they trying to have their cake (denouncing a clearly homophobic tactic) and eat it, too (by avoiding giving too much offense to Democrats)?

Mickey Kaus of Slate's kausfiles had an item that includes a link to the ad. Comments Kaus, "It's a fabulous, highly-refined exercise in sleazy, leering innuendo, especially the final few nanoseconds in which Taylor's hand reaches down, down. ...." [toward his customer's crotch]

And finally, it was nice to see Marc Racicot, former governor of Montana and current head of the Republican National Committee, criticize the ad by telling the AP that "What is particularly insidious is that the Democratic Party has tried to present itself as a champion of fair and equal treatment of everyone, including those who are victims of judgment based on sexual orientation." Still, his comments come close to suggesting that labeling someone as gay is what's unacceptable, rather than the offensive stereotypes and, as Kaus says, leering innuendo.

More Political Slime. A Campaign Update from the Democratic National Committee's Office of GLBT Outreach that's making the e-mail rounds (but not posted online) focuses on the race between Oregon's GOP incumbent Sen. Gordon Smith and his opponent, Democrat Bill Bradbury. It's titled "Bradbury Calls on Gordon Smith to Explain Comment Comparing Homosexuality to Adultery and Implying that Gays and Lesbians Should be 'Saved"."

Gordon Smith, you might not realize, is a pro-gay moderate Republican who supports both the proposed federal Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and the proposed federal hate crimes statute, two key items on the liberal gay movement's agenda. His transgression, apparently, was to appear before a group of religious conservatives and to try to mute their opposition to a hate crimes law that would increase penalties for attacks motivated by anti-gay bias. Smith reportedly told them, "If Christ can save a woman's life caught in the act of adultery -- without endorsing her lifestyle, but saving her life -- why can't we do that?"

Said Bradbury, "Smith's quote equating homosexuality with adultery undermines his claim that he supports the gay and lesbian community." Now think about this. Here is Gordon Smith trying to talk to religious conservatives in the language they understand, telling them that even if they don't accept homosexuality based on their religious literalism, they should still support -- or at least not mobilize to oppose -- efforts to curtail anti-gay violence (and, by the way, this is regardless of our own debate about whether a hate crimes bill actually will accomplish this). But oh, he used the word "lifestyle" and drew on a religious parallel. For shame! He's a HOMOPHOBE, so vote him out of office.

Time Off. I"ll be traveling for the next week and a half and won't be posting. But I"ll be back in touch after Oct. 20th.
--Stephen H. Miller

As I Depart. Let's see if all those liberal GLBT groups that were outraged by Florida Gov. Jeb Bush's joking about lesbianism will take offense at a campaign ad by Democratic Sen. Max Baucus (Montana) that seems to have traded on anti-gay stereotypes. In castigating GOP candidate Mike Taylor, who ran a beauty school (and who says he's straight), the Baucus ad shows a videotape of Taylor from the 1980s in which he's wearing an open-front shirt and gold chains while massaging a man's face. Hmmm.

Bears in Toyland. Newsweek's website has a nice piece about Gay Day at Disneyland. Writes Ana Figueroa in A Gay Old Time:

I noticed that throngs of red-shirted men had gathered at the "Grizzly River Rapids" to brave the water ride together.... "Bill," a middle-aged man from the San Fernando Valley, was wringing out his socks after a soaking from the ride. His red shirt read, BEARS LA and had a picture of the Grizzly Mountain attraction on it. The Bears, he explained, are a "Gay Day subgroup." From what I could tell, they are also a rather hirsute subgroup. All the Bears on the ride seemed to have beards, and from what I picked up, a fixation not only with the Grizzly River Rapids but with the "Country Bear Jamboree" attraction at Disneyland.

After trying unsuccessfully to steer me away from the red shirts, my media guides exchanged heated words under their breath. No doubt each blamed the other for letting me stray off the pre-arranged press program. But they needn't have worried that I"d hear anti-Disney utterances. Throughout the park, groups of Gay Day attendees strolled around, enjoying themselves. Perhaps this wasn't the crowd Disney would have liked as a backdrop for its new attraction of rides for little kids. But, then again, there were numerous gay parents there with their children. I asked countless red-shirted patrons if they"ve been hassled by security, or made to feel in any way unwelcome. All replied in the negative.

Just another all-American outing -- and just as it should be.

Too Much of a Good Thing? A new Gallup poll reveals that Americans estimate approximately 20% of the general population is gay or lesbian. About a quarter of the public thinks that more than 25% of Americans are gay or lesbian. Note: this is a survey of public perceptions only, not a count of gay people. Actual studies of the gay population often show from 3 to 5% are gay. Activists, twisting a figure from an old Kinsey study, like to claim we're 10%. But it's startling to think that so many Americans think that we are so many.

Comments Cathy Renna of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation in a press statement: "Clearly, the public realizes that the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community is sizable. Our hope is that this represents a better understanding of the complex nature of sexual orientation and a growing trend of respect and acceptance for our community and our lives." But I"m not so sure that the oversized guesstimate in this or another poll GLAAD references (but neither of which, contra GLAAD, asked about the transgendered) is necessarily a good thing. All it says, in and of itself, is that Americans think there are more of us -- which for some means, I"m sure, that we"re a larger threat.

Here's another interesting finding by Gallup:

While just slightly more than 50% of the public says that homosexual relations should be legal, well over eight out of ten say that homosexuals should have equal rights. These two questions may play to different norms that exist in contemporary America. The legal question may tap into a general sense of morality, and a reluctance of a more conservative segment of society to sanction what they consider to be deviant behavior. The question about equal opportunity, on the other hand, may invoke the public's attitudes about discrimination, fair play and equal treatment.

Read that again; just over 50% thinks we should be legal, or at least legally allowed to have sex (although I think it's possible some respondents were confused by the term "homosexual relations" and may have thought it referred to gay marriage).

Despite what any poll may mean by itself, if anything, gay people will keep on being who we are, and eventually the American public, however bad with numbers -- or with the concept of equality under the law for all -- will come around.
--Stephen H. Miller

Someone Else's War. During a rally on Monday organized by Harvard Law School's student-run gay rights group, faculty members urged the university to file suit against the U.S. government. Their aim is to keep the military's Judge Advocate General Corps (JAG) from recruiting on campus. While I share their disdain for "don't ask, don't tell," do these people really think this is the time to be publicly undermining recruitment efforts? And doing so in the name of gay rights, as the nation prepares for what may be a necessary war to secure our safety from a foreign tyrant armed with weapons of mass destruction, can only cast aspersions on our patriotism -- just the message we don't want to send the military as we lobby to undo the policy.

Said Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz, one of O.J. Simpson's trial lawyers, "I don't see the downside of litigating"" They never do.
--Stephen H. Miller