IGF CultureWatch

A Wild & Crazy Guy. Richard Nixon was one of the scariest men ever to occupy 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Not widely reported, however, was his fixation with "homosexuals." According to a March 21 Washington Post story based on newly transcribed White House tapes (yes, he taped EVERYTHING -- for posterity), Tricky Dick launched into the following tirade in May of 1971, while top aides H.R. "Bob" Haldeman and John Ehrlichman laughed nervously at their bosses increasingly demented history lesson. Proclaimed Nixon:

Gosh, I guess those homos created classical civilization just so they could destroy it, huh? Nixon continues:

One gets the clear sense that Nixon actually admired the efficiency of repression in the Soviet Union, the way the commissars simply made homosexuals and other undesirables disappear. It's just those damn commie hippies in the U.S. that were the problem.

Mitt's Not Dick. Fortunately, there has been progress since the 1970s, and that includes progress within the Grand Old Party. Businessman Mitt Romney, who spearheaded the recent, very successful Winter Olympic games, is now the likely GOP candidate for governor in Massachusetts (after the hapless Jane Swift, the unelected incumbent, dropped out of the primary). Here's something positive to report, from the Log Cabin Republican's "Inclusion Wins" e-newsletter:

Sounds promising -- a hopefully non-RINO (Republican in Name Only) who also appears to be good on gays. Stay tuned.

Wedding-bell Gender Blues. Look for more legal confusion over whom a transsexual may marry, if anyone. As reported in the Kansas City Star last week, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled that male-to-female transsexual J'Noel Gardiner's marriage to her late husband, Marshall Gardiner, was invalid, thereby providing a victory to her husband's son, who successfully sought to deny J'Noel's inheritance of Marshall's $2.5 million estate. Not of particular relevance, but of salacious interest, J'Noel was 45 years junior to her 85-year-old-husband, who passed away less than a year after their nuptials (oh, what a plot fit for "Dynasty"!).

The state Supreme Court's unanimous ruling said that despite her sex change surgery and body altering treatments, J'Noel remained a man for purposes of marriage. It thus overturned a decision by the Kansas Court of Appeals, which approved the marriage as valid after finding there's more to gender than "simply what the individual's chromosomes were or were not at the time of birth."

Here's the tricky part -- various courts in other states have reached different conclusions on whether transsexuals may legally wed members of their same birth sex or not. And, according to a New York Times story posted on gaylawnet, several legal experts believe if male-to-female transsexuals are barred from marrying men, they are consequently allowed to marry women -- despite the fact that their legal identification (including, in many cases, a revised birth certificate) lists their gender as female. In fact, after a Texas court invalidated a marriage similar to the Gardiner's, at least two male-to-female transsexuals have married (other) women in that state. Are these marriages, then, legal lesbian unions? It's at least debatable.

Pro and con advocates on same-sex marriages, of course, are having their say. In the gaylawnet article, Jennifer Middleton of the Lambda Legal Defense Fund asks, "How much of what we think of as appropriate for a woman or a man is biologically determined versus socially constructed?" However, I'm not sure the premise that sexuality is a social construct is going to win the day outside of the academy. On the other side, as quoted in the Kansas City Star, Bill Duncan of the Catholic University of America's Marriage Law Project declares, "We have a mission to reaffirm the legal definition of marriage as a man and a woman," noting, "but we haven't thought that much about what makes a man a man and a woman a woman." And with transsexuals, squaring that circle ain't so easy. The solution, of course, would be to allow any two consenting adults who are not incestuously related to wed -- but, apparently, that's TOO easy.

Too Much Choice! There are those PC types who feel it's wrong to let McDonald's set up outlets in developing nations because "the people" might be seduced into eating there, and thus become victims of globalized exploitation. Similarly, some of the arguments those on the Left are making against the proposed new 24-hour gay cable channel (a joint venture between Showtime and MTV) seem to imply with trepidation that gay people might, well, choose to watch it. Take Rick Whitaker's opinion piece, We've Come to Far to Be Reduced to the Small Screen, in the March 17 Washington Post. Of the new channel, and television in general, he writes: -- "the words 'lowest common denominator' come to mind -- along with 'corporate exploitation' and 'crass commercialism'." Want more? How about this bit of history:

But here's the gist of his opposition:

Whew. It seems those conniving capitalists are (shudder) out to MAKE MONEY, and not to advance the Left's political agenda. And they've come up with yet another evil scheme -- creating a gay cable channel that gay folks might watch and enjoy, thus feeding the greed machine. Why, it's the new opium of the people!

Now there are, in fact, some reasonable arguments for questioning whether an all-gay channel would promote cultural integration or be a new sort of media ghetto. But can't this be debated without resulting to knee-jerk attacks against the very free market/consumer choice system that's been the engine not only of Western prosperity, but of our open and, yes, increasingly tolerant society to boot?

Everything's Coming Up Rosie. No question, Rosie O"Donnell is the Next Big [Gay] Thing, following her much publicized, nationally televised coming out last Thursday in a mega-interview with ABC-TV's Diane Sawyer. As I wrote previously ("Really Rosie", March 4), I"ve had issues with O"Donnell, but her current crusade on behalf of overturning Florida's odious ban on gay-parent adoptions is a noble crusade. As ACLU rep Eric Ferrero told the Ft. Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, "Twenty-five years ago, celebrity helped get support for the gay adoption ban," referring to singer/anti-gay rights activist Anita Bryant's push to pass the law in 1977. "If the power of celebrity can now help turn that around, that's fine."

When a spokeswoman for Florida Gov. Jeb Bush was asked for a comment, she would only say that "the state of Florida is complying with current law." Jeb's gonna have to do better than that -- either he"ll be forced to defend a hateful and hurtful law that nevertheless may be supported by most of the state's GOP establishment, or he'll rise to the occasion and take a principled stand -- for the controversial position that gays and lesbians deserve equality under the state's laws.

Frozen in Time? My partner just received a mailing from the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force inviting him to become a new member. What's interesting is that this could have been mailed 10 years ago. The big draw is a photo and quote from Jerry Falwell. Sure, he's still saying nasty things, but get real -- he no longer has any measurable political influence. The mailing dredges up Lou Sheldon as well, as if the RADICAL RIGHT were about to storm the gates, take over the nation, and send us all to the camps.

Also of interest: I didn't see the word "gay" used anywhere in the 4 pager other than in the organization's own name. It's all "GLBT people." That may be standard activistspeak these days, but what do Gary Gay Guy and Laurie Lesbian make of it?

Changing Times. Last week, the White House's Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS held a wine-and-cheese reception in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building and invited members of AIDS Action, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), and other AIDS advocacy groups so that, according to an official memo, "members of the community might meet members of the Council and so that members of the Council might get better acquainted with each other." Scott Evertz, head of the White House Office of National AIDS Policy (and the former head of the Wisconsin chapter of the Log Cabin Republicans) was also at the meeting. OK, no big deal. Except that this is the sort of routine interaction that we were told would NEVER, EVER happen if George W. were elected -- a sentiment expressed during the campaign by many of those relaxing and shmoozing with top Administration AIDS-policy officials last week.

A Measure of Progress. The U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has dismissed a lawsuit brought by a Wisconsin public school teacher, Tommy Schroeder, who claimed he suffered years of crude anti-gay heckling by elementary and middle-school students. Schroeder sued the school board, charging it had refused to require sensitivity training and did not adequately punish harassers (the board claimed it did punish students who could be identified, and that Schroeder exaggerated the problem).
I don't necessarily agree that the suit lacked merit, but I found it significant that one of the judges who ruled with the majority opinion to dismiss, Reagan appointee Richard A. Posner, wrote the following:

For a conservative federal judge to be moved to affirm that the law protects gays -- even if finding that in this instance a gay claimant had no case -- is a sign that, despite a few neanderthal state judges, we"re making irrefutable progress toward achieving equality under the law.

Unqueer. Keith Boykin is a black gay writer/activist and a man "of the left." Still, I enjoyed reading his recent article "Queer as White Folk" in which he takes on the use of the Q word. "Despite the claim that "queer" is more inclusive than "gay" and simpler than "LGBT," the word "queer" is just as white as the television show that bears its name," Boykin writes. "It does not represent the vast majority of black homosexuals and bisexuals." He concludes, ""progressive activists should think twice before promoting the term "queer" as inclusive language, especially to blacks." I hope that ruffles a few feathers on the "more correct than thou" gay academic left, and helps derail once and for all the "call us queer" bandwagon.

A Defense Worth Making. Bravo to the Log Cabin Republicans for their strong declaration of support for embattled Judge Charles W. Pickering, nominated by President Bush to fill a long vacant slot on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Pickering has been a victim of the ugliest kind of character assassination by Democrats who control the Senate Judiciary Committee and their allies, who've twisted and contorted his history so as to support their allegations of "racial insensitivity" -- an inflammatory tactic aimed at mobilizing voting blocks on the Left. Those who've looked into the matter know better, of course; Judge Pickering has a long and distinguished civil rights record that includes bravely testifying for the prosecution in a criminal hate-murder case against the Ku Klux Klan. What I didn't know is that he holds strong beliefs that gays and lesbians should be treated equally under the law. According to LCR, in 1991 Pickering sharply rebuked an attorney who tried to use a plaintiff's homosexuality in a fraud trial, saying "Homosexuals are as much entitled to be protected [under the law] as any other human beings." And in 1994 he stopped an anti-gay citizens group in the town of Ovett, Mississippi, from using the courts to harass Camp Sister Spirit, a lesbian community.
"The judge who threw out the anti-Camp Sister Spirit case and rebuked homophobia from the bench in the Deep South over ten years ago deserves a promotion," said LCR's Rich Tafel, who spoke with Judge Pickering at length. I'd add that the political demagogues who believe distortion, lies, and vilification are just dandy if they serve to advance their goals ought to be ashamed of themselves (but they won't be).

"The O'Reilly Factor" on Fox News aired a segment recently about Providence, R.I. firefighters who say they were required by the city government to ride in a gay pride parade last year, despite some of the firefighters religious and moral objections (Firefighters Protest Appearance in Gay Pride Parade). Three of the firefighters are threatening to sue unless officials make participation in future gay parades optional. On the show, an ACLU rep sided with the firefighters on free speech grounds. But Wayne Besen of the Human Rights Campaign, the largest Washington-based lesbigay lobby, felt forced participation was a good thing. As justification, Besen used the case of Tyra Hunter, a pre-operative transsexual in Washington, DC who died after reportedly being mocked and denied treatment by District paramedics following a car accident (Hunter's family subsequently received a settlement of $1.75 million from the DC government).

This did not go over well with one viewer - Rick Rosendall, vice president for political affairs of the Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance of Washington, DC (www.glaa.org), who shares his letter to host Bill O'Reilly (and it's a good one). Rick writes:

Well said, Rick.

Ramblings of a Confused Mind. I can't get over an interview that the Winston-Salem (N.C.) Journal conducted with our fav demented legislative homophobe, Sen. Jesse Helms, (and which I first wrote about in a March 7 posting, below). Some context: Helms spoke at a Prescription for Hope conference organized by an international Christian organization led by the Rev. Franklin Graham, who had called for a worldwide campaign against AIDS. In his remarks, Helms seemed to be on board, saying he was "so ashamed that I've done so little" about AIDS. But in his subsequent interview with Journal reporters Kevin Begos and John Railey, published March 6, he delivers the following statement, which is well worth parsing:

Now, at first, Helms seems to describe his questioning of AIDS funding as a "sin," which would gel with his being "ashamed that I did so little." But as he goes on to describe why he opposed the funding, he gets caught up in his own hateful rhetoric ("dumping funds on AIDS"), and winds up reaffirming his opposition to AIDS funding as "reasonable" after all. Amazing.

Change of Heart. The ACLU Lesbian & Gay Rights Project has found several former state legislators who voted for Florida's gay adoption ban 25 years ago, and who now wish to recant. Nine former Florida legislators - including a former Speaker of the State House of Representatives and a former President of the State Senate - have signed ACLU statements saying, "In 1977, we were among the state legislators who helped pass Florida's law prohibiting gay people from adopting children. We now realize that we were wrong. This discriminatory law prevents children from being adopted into loving, supportive homes - and we hope it will be overturned." This is reminiscent of a statement made by the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Lewis "throw in the towel" Powell, who - after retiring from the bench - publicly regretted his tie-splitting vote in favor of upholding state sodomy statutes which turn same-sex partners into criminals. If nothing else, these conversions show that, ultimately, hearts and minds can be changed - perhaps by seeing more of life than by any particular argument. Better late then never, I suppose.

No Change of Heart. One person who hasn't changed his views -- despite some misleading reports, is Sen. Jesse Helms of North Carolina. Last month, at a Christian conference called Prescription for Hope, he was moved to proclaim he was "so ashamed that I"ve done so little" about the AIDS pandemic, adding that "I have been too lax too long in doing something really significant about AIDS." Just what he thinks he ought to have done is a scary thought, given that the March 6 Winston-Salem (N.C.) Journal reports that, when it asked whether he was recanting his past criticism of homosexuality, Helms was adamant that he was not. "I"d make myself sick if I did such a thing, because I don't have any idea of changing my views on that kind of activity," said the senator.

Many conservatives decry the fact that for years gay activists claimed, erroneously, that heterosexuals were equally at risk from AIDS. What's forgotten is that Helms and his cohorts had made it illegal for the government to fund any AIDS educational campaign that treated gay sex as anything less than an abomination - meaning that generalized message were the only ones that could be promoted. So, if Helm's is "ashamed" he did so little, but still hasn't changed his views about gays, what does he wish he could have done for (or to) us?

California Dreamin". As I predicted in my March 4 posting, Dick Riordan went down to defeat in California's gubernatorial primary, bested by conservative Bill Simon Jr. Riordan, a strong gay rights supporter, was thwarted by his reputation as the ultimate Republican In Name Only -- with a history of contributing to and endorsing liberal Democrats like Gov. Gray Davis and Sen. Dianne Feinstein - whom he supported over Log Cabin-endorsed Tom Campbell in 2000. How anti-Republican a Republican was Riordan? Robert Novak writes in his March 7 column that when he visited him shortly after his 1994 election as L.A.'s mayor, Riordan "pointed with sardonic pride to a campaign button bearing the letters RINO. ... That attitude led to the humiliating end of Riordan's political career Tuesday."
But what to make of Bill Simon, a devout Catholic who has made several pilgrimages to Lourdes? According to the March 7 Los Angeles Times, Simon avoided discussing social issues in the days following his primary victory - with one exception. He stated he would have vetoed a bill that Davis signed last year expanding domestic partnership rights. "I don't think it's appropriate for the government to enter into legislation that has to do with sexual orientation," Simon said. Not a promising sign. To reiterate, the long-term strategy is to find (or convert) Republicans who are in tune with the party's base on a number of issues (school choice, gun ownership) but who understand that the right to live free of discrimination perpetuated by your own government - which includes the right to have your spousal relationships legal recognized - is on a par with these liberties.

Really Rosie. I have decidedly mixed feelings about Rosie O"Donnell. On the one hand, it's great that she's coming out. With her legions of television fans (her soon-to-end talkfest averages 2.8 million viewer per day), it's one more sign of the new "homonormative" world, as the queer theoristic critics of "heteronormality" might say. On the other hand, there's the hypocrisy issue -- including her fierce support for limiting legal gun ownership (excluding her own armed bodyguards, naturally). And, of course, all that insipid cooing over Tom Cruise a while back. On the other hand (yea, that's three; I can count) it's wonderful that she's speaking out against Florida's cruel and destructive ban on adoptions by gay couples -- many of whom have seen their foster children torn away from the only homes where those kids were every loved. Rosie, an adoptive (and foster) parent herself, has a home in Miami, so the issue touches her directly.
Even on the Cruise cooing, Rosie may have turned it around for me. As reported by Jeannie Williams in a Feb. 27 USA Today piece, she had this to say: ""Oh, but you were lying," the gay Nazis say. "You said you liked Tom Cruise." I said I wanted him to mow my lawn and bring me a lemonade. I never said I wanted (to perform a sex act on him)."
Hmmm. I just don't buy that Rosie's Cruisy comments per Tom Terrific weren't meant to come across as girlish infatuation of the straight kind, while her show was still aiming for Top Gun ratings. On the other hand (yeah, yeah), it was quite bold of Rosie to take on "the gay Nazis" who demand lock-step homo-uniformity, so maybe there's hope for her after all?

RINOplastic. If, as appears likely, Dick Riordan, the former Los Angeles mayor and liberal Republican, loses the California GOP gubernatorial nomination on Tuesday to more conservative stalwart Bill Simon Jr., look for the pundits to proclaim that the Republicans just couldn't bring themselves to vote for a guy who's pro-choice (on abortion, not schools) and pro-gay rights. The pundits, as usual, will be wrong. The nomination has been Riordan's to lose, and he just may, mainly because he didn't have a response as to why he would support and contribute to liberal DEMOCRATS such as current Governor Gray Davis and Senator Diane Feinstein. As the Washington Times put it on March 4, "Even Republican centrists have quipped that Mr. Riordan has more big-name Democrats he counts as friends than does National Democratic Chairman Terry McAuliffe -- and has given more in campaign contributions to left-wing Democrats."
Now, it's one thing to be a RINO (that's "Republican in Name Only"), as conservative GOPpers dub those in their party who tend to vote left of center on most issues. But it's a step beyond that to be a RINO for whom the label really isn't hyberbole. Gay Republicans risk alienating their fellows in the party by embracing anti-Republican Republicans (a la Jim Jeffords); the better, albeit more challengng strategy is to get real Republicans to be more gay-inclusive and forgoing electoral alliances with "progressives" on the left.

This past Wednesday, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (or "HELP") held hearings on the proposed federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which seeks to ban workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Democrats are eager to use ENDA to energize lesbigay voters in this November's congressional races, although the last time their party controlled both houses of Congress as well as the presidency -- during Bill Clinton's first term -- they failed to move the legislation (it did come up later, but narrowly failed to pass the by then GOP-controlled Senate). Now, with the prospect of easy passage later this year in Tom Daschle's chamber, but blockage by the GOP's leadership in the House, or better yet, a possible presidential veto, they're happy to make it an issue.

Forgive me for sensing ulterior motives, but when the most visible sponsors are Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton, the game is firing up your base, not passing law.

Of course, the religious right is joyous over ENDA's re-emergence as well; it's more red meat for their own fundraising efforts. As reported in a Feb. 27 story on the conservative CNSNews.com headlined Kennedy, Clinton Promote Homosexual 'Rights' Bill, the Traditional Values Coalition's Lou Sheldon warned that "This will mean that homosexuals, bisexuals, transvestites, and even voyeurs could claim federal protection for their particular 'orientation.' Christians and other religious individuals will be silenced under this law." And then be fed to the lions in RFK Stadium, no doubt.

Keep the Faith. Speaking of the religious right, they're none too happy with the newest version of George Bush's "faith-based initiative" bill. The new proposal will NOT exempt religious groups getting federal money from local laws barring anti-gay discrimination, the Washington Times reported in February. Pro-family groups decried Bush's "caving" on the bill and said they "feel betrayed, unless the president gives them a guarantee he will come back after this year's elections with a bill offering religious organizations protection against 'pro-homosexual' laws," the paper reported. Don' hold your breath, Lou, Pat, and Jerry. George W. isn' going to fall into that trap again.

The Religious Left. IGF's Mike Airhart supplies the following. Writes Mike:

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force recently concluded its annual National Religious Leadership Roundtable, a confab of bright stars from the religious left. Reps from the American Friends Service Committee, gay Muslim group Al-Fatiha, Amnesty International, More Light Presbyterians, and Reform Judaism criticized alleged excesses of the "war on terrorism"(their quotes, not mine).

"To be sure," writes Mike, "I'm glad to see someone criticizing U.S. foreign policy. However, these progressive leaders offered no constructive alternatives to the open-ended detention of Arab immigrants and White House saber-rattling against terrorist nations. The most these religious leaders could muster were vague appeals to 'justice' and 'human rights' for all."

Mike concludes, "The left has always been good at dictating finger-wagging lists of 'do nots,' but when it comes time to offer a list of 'do's,' these folks end the discussion. At a time when terrorist cells continue to lurk across America, empty protests such as these are a disappointment, to say the very least."

Why am I not surprised?