IGF CultureWatch

(Update: If you read to the “final update” at the end, A&E announces Phil Robertson is back and filming will resume as normal. GLAAD’s strong-arming proved not just ineffective, but has made the LGBT community look authoritarian and censorious. Just as with GLAAD’s anti-Chick-Fil-A campaign. Please, let’s pull the plug on this organization!)

Phil Robertson, the patriarch of the redneck “Duck Dynasty” unleashed a torrent of benighted views about gay people in an interview with GQ, not on the family’s megahit A&E reality show.

In response, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation issued a statement with a thinly veiled call for sponsors to boycott the show. Said GLAAD spokesperson Wilson Cruz: “Phil’s decision to push vile and extreme stereotypes is a stain on A&E and his sponsors who now need to reexamine their ties to someone with such public disdain for LGBT people and families.”

Aside from addressing Robertson as “Phil” (are they buddies?), Cruz’s suggestion that sponsors reexamine their ad buys isn’t likely to garner much traction. So why call for it, except as an auto-reflex meant to gin up donors? In particular, given that Robertson’s views were not expressed on the A&E show (but in a sophisticated men’s style magazine, where no doubt the editors expected they would be met with derision), the best response would have been to rationally counter his arguments publicly, rather than engage in an impotent attempt to drive his brood off the air.

Update 1: A&E has suspended Phil Robertson indefinitely from filming “Duck Dynasty.” [Added: But will air a “Duck Dynasty” marathon that prominently features him.] I maintain my position that debate is preferable to silencing the opposition.

Update 2: I’m not the only one who had this response. Brandon Ambrosino writes, “Why is our go-to political strategy for beating our opponents to silence them? Why do we dismiss, rather than engage them?”

Update 3: Sponsor responds, “It’s a free country and Phil has a right to his opinions.”

When your first impulse toward somebody who says something anti-gay is to try to get them fired, something is very wrong. And let’s not forgot the hypocrisy factor. Progressives never tire of telling us that those who cooperated with the Hollywood blacklist were terrible, horrible, unforgivable people for pressuring the movie studios to fire those well-meaning liberals in a hurry who joined the Communist party and supported Stalin.

Let me clarify for those who seem determined to willfully misconstrue, the issue is not whether A&E has a right to fire Robertson for not being the sort of person it wants to be associated with—of course it does. The issue is whether GLAAD’s immediate response should have been to try to pressure A&E, through its sponsors, to fire Robertson.

Not so very long ago, before the proverbial worm turned, religious conservatives would routinely target sponsors of TV shows with gay characters. This could be effective, leading to script changes that prevented open displays of affection between same-sex couples, for instance. Now, those campaigns have lost their teeth, as shown by the failed attempt to intimidate Penny’s after the retailer hired Ellen Degeneres as a TV pitchwoman. And now that the power has shifted, gay activists are deploying the same tactics against religious conservatives. You’d think that would make them at least queasy, but it doesn’t. Again and again, yesterday’s victim becomes tomorrow’s inquisitor.

Update 4: Cultural critic and open lesbian Camille Paglia weighs in:

“To express yourself in a magazine in an interview — this is the level of punitive PC, utterly fascist, utterly Stalinist, OK, that my liberal colleagues in the Democratic Party and on college campuses have supported and promoted over the last several decades,” Paglia said. “This is the whole legacy of free speech 1960’s that have been lost by my own party.”

“I speak with authority here, because I was openly gay before the ‘Stonewall rebellion,’ when it cost you something to be so. And I personally feel as a libertarian that people have the right to free thought and free speech.”

And yes, Ted Cruz and other conservatives are making hay out of this. If you open the door for them (as was also done with the misguided Chick-fil-A fiasco), don’t be surprised if they walk in.

Update 5: Log Cabin Republicans suggest mediating this dispute with a “Moonshine Summit.” There was a time when those on the left also thought changing hearts and minds was important. Now it’s about power and punishment.

Update 6: A broad overview of the controversy from Da Tech Guy:

“Apparently A&E didn’t realize that the ‘Duck Dynasty’ customer base were not the same audience as Will & Grace. … Nor did the cultural elites figure out that the advertisers know who is actually buying their products.”

GLAAD will only succeed in getting “Duck Dynasty” merchandise off the shelves in liberal jurisdictions, while customers in areas GLAAD views as benighted are flocking to purchase said merchandise in a show of support for the Robertsons. But then, it’s always been about fundraising and appealing to the base.

Update 7. Via James Kirchick, writing in New York’s Daily News:

All of the comments in question were uttered in forums other than the TV show, rendering the accusation that A&E or its corporate sponsors somehow endorse Robertson’s views even more preposterous.

Nevertheless, the remarks set off an avalanche of righteous outrage from gay rights organizations. You’d think that with India rebanning sodomy, Uganda reinstituting lifetime prison sentences for gays and Vladimir Putin leading a crusade against homosexuality, that America’s relatively comfortable gay establishment would have bigger homophobic ducks to fry.

But in the minds of many of America’s leading gay activists, the barely literate comments of a Louisiana yokel rise to the level of national crisis.

Indeed!

Final update? A&E announces “Duck Dynasty” will resume filming in the new year—with Phil Robertson. GLAAD bet it all on having enough muscle to strong-arm A&E by threatening to pressure sponsors, and lost. What a foolish, impotent, and counter-productive effort. Shame on GLAAD and (let’s take a page from the GLAAD playbook), those who support it. Let’s boycott ’em.

Also worth noting:

Before joining GLAAD [Wilson] Cruz worked for The National Gay & Lesbian Task Force. This same NGLTF honored Raul Castro’s daughter Mariela at the New York Public Library in May 2012 with a forum to spout her regime’s anti-American propaganda. Needless to add, Raul Castro’s daughter–an official of the only regime in the history of the Western hemisphere to herd gay men and boys at Soviet bayonet-point into forced labor camps and torture chambers–received a standing ovation at the event sponsored by this gay rights organization.

In brief, according to Wilson Cruz, Phil Robertson simply cannot be allowed to express his views (which happen to coincide with a majority of Americans’) in a free-market venue. This amounts to “pushing lies.” But Mariela Castro must be allowed to spew Stalinist propaganda at New York taxpayer’s expense. Apparently this amounts to spreading the enlightenment as reckoned by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

Any questions why so many flyover Americans question the agenda of outfits like GLAAD and The National Gay & Lesbian Task Force?

As I shared from commenter Jared123 in my November 2013 post “GLAAD Needs a Mission Update“:

Groups like GLAAD attract LGBT progressives who want to work to advance a partisan left-liberal agenda. Unfortunately, when your message to conservatives isn’t “we think you should support civil equality and social inclusion of gay people,” but rather, “we think you’re wrong about everything and should become liberals,” you’re not going to accomplish much, although your fellow progressives will invite you to their parties and tell you that it’s wonderful you’re advancing the cause (of progressivism).

COMMENTS CLOSED. THIS PAGE IS AT ITS LIMIT AND ADDING ADDITIONAL COMMENTS WILL CAUSE EXISTING COMMENTS TO DISAPPEAR FROM VIEW.

The New York Times presents a debate on polygamy that includes IGF friend John Corvino, who says:

Polygamy raises a number of public-policy concerns that same-sex marriage does not. … While I’m skeptical about extending state recognition to plural marriages, a free society has no more business outlawing “cohabitation” — as the Utah law did—than it has outlawing consensual romantic relationships. Instead of fearmongering, it’s time we debate polygamy on the merits.

I would agree. There are strong arguments against extending marriage recognition to polygamy, but also major differences between fundamentalist religious polygamy, in which women have few if any rights, and what might be termed contemporary polyamory, in which long-term trios, for instance, see themselves as real families that deserve the rights of families. Without question, the topic will continue to be used by social conservatives to discredit same-sex marriage equality as a “slippery slope.” But the issue should nevertheless be addressed and debated.

Pennsylvania state representative Mike Fleck came out last year but said the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund advised him to stay in the closet, even after winning re-election, reports the Washington Blade, in a story first reported by the Philadelphia Gay News. According to the Blade:

Fleck’s comments to PGN prompted lesbian commentator Faith Elmes to write a column for the Pennsylvania blog Keystone Student Voice questioning the Victory Fund’s motives…. Elmes accused the Victory Fund of pushing for Fleck to stay in the closet long enough so that gay activist and attorney Brian Sims, a Democrat, would emerge as the state’s first openly gay member of the Pennsylvania House.

The Victory Fund and the Human Rights Campaign are closely aligned with—and many would say controlled by—the Democratic party, and their leadership typically consists of Democratic party activists. As I’ve often said and firmly believe, many “progressive” LGBT activists’ worst nightmare is a Republican party with more openly gay and gay supportive office holders.

Added: The Victory Fund has supported gay Republicans over the years who met its stringent pro-choice on abortion criteria, but excluded openly gay Republicans who have not. Let’s hope publicity over the above incident serves to deter a further HRC-type decline into rank partisanship.

There was grim news from India this week, when the nation’s highest court reinstated a draconian law outlawing sexual relations between consenting same-sex adults (the law, which imposes long prison sentences on violators, was struck down by a lower court in 2009).

India remains a deeply socially reactionary country, in large part due to fundamentalist Hinduism, Islam and, to a lesser extent, Christianity. Despite being officially outlawed, the caste system, deeply rooted in Hinduism, remains a major determinant of success and social standing (and who socializes with whom). And with its ties to “honor killings” and other murderous violence often given sanction by a corrupt judicial system, caste discrimination makes contemporary American racism look benign. In a sense, caste legitimizes a culture of discrimination. (All those American and European hipsters who trekked to India beginning in the 60s to get enlightened from authoritarian Hindu gurus hadn’t a clue about this, or much of anything else, it seems.)

Fortunately, in the wake of international outrage, there are signs the Indian government could seek to get rid of the anti-gay law.

We are not accustomed to perceiving India in the same disparaging way we view Russia or Uganda; but if the law remains it will be necessary to do so and to engage in the full range of boycotts and other actions that express international outrage.

It’s not surprising that a GOP House member (in this case, Rep. Randy Forbes of Virginia), would call on his party to withhold support for openly gay Republicans running for Congress (that would be former San Diego city councilman Carl DeMaio and, in Massachusetts, Richard Tisei, who narrowly lost to Democratic Rep. John Tierney in 2012.)

What is surprising is that the House leadership would make it eminently clear it will support gay Republicans who secure their party’s nomination in congressional races, as Politico reports:

When asked if his party should support gay candidates, Boehner simply said, “I do.”

Why Republicans matter. From pollster Charlie Cook:

The Democratic numbers from the generic-ballot test dropped from 45 percent to 37 percent, and Republicans moved up to 40 percent. This 10-point net shift from a Democratic advantage of 7 points to a GOP edge of 3 points in just over a month is breathtaking…

That won’t dissuade the one-party-is-all-we-need crowd, nor should anyone expect the once-nonpartisan Human Rights Campaign to begin endorsing openly gay Republicans (they opposed Tisei in his last run for Congress). Gay activists is San Diego also worked against DeMaio when he ran, and narrowly lost, the San Diego mayoral race to a Democrat who has since resigned due to serial sexual harassment charges.

Another sad story of the perversion of the struggle for gay civil equality and social inclusion into something draconian and ugly, this time from Britain.

Of course, there are real cases of outright anti-gay intolerance, and some of them aren’t even faked. That doesn’t justify this kind of persecution against people of faith — and please, spare us all the comments about how their faith is wrong so this is perfectly ok and anyway, serves ’em right. Or that fealty to the state must trump personal religious conscience, as if that were the American way instead of its opposite.

My hope is that the U.S. Supreme Court does not make the same appalling decision when it hears a similar case.

More. As the case of a Colorado cakeshop owner Jack Phillips, who refused to prepare a wedding cake for a gay couple, heads to court in Denver, the Washington Times reports that:

Denver talk-show host Peter Boyles of KNUS-AM is championing Mr. Phillips‘ cause…even though Mr. Boyles says he’s in favor of same-sex marriage.

“I’m a huge supporter of gay rights, gay weddings, gay marriage, adoption rights, but these guys are wrong and the Masterpiece Cakeshop is right,” said Mr. Boyles on Monday’s broadcast.

Mr. Phillips “doesn’t say, ‘You can’t come in here and buy’; he says, ‘I’m not going to make you a cake of two men getting married,’” said Mr. Boyles. “As much as I support two men getting married, I support his right to say no.”

There are issues on which libertarians and left-liberal progressives are allied—such as support for marriage equality on the part of the state—and issues on which advocates of liberty and advocates of statism are firmly opposed. Forcing self-employed individuals to engage in expressive activities that violate their religious beliefs is one of the latter.

As the Washington Blade reports, media executive Sarah Kate Ellis will become the next president of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.

She sounds like a savvy media pro, but do we really need GLAAD to remain a “media watchdog”? I’d prefer to see GLAAD return to its long-abandoned roots and actively engage and debate with those who don’t support gay equality. Instead, it either nitpicks at the networks for (still) not having enough LGBT characters, or issues press releases supporting the progressive agenda—denouncing the Supreme Court ruling that timed-out parts of the Voting Rights Act and the Trayvon Martin verdict, etc. To paraphrase snarkily, Give us money so we can keep sending out press releases and holding big fundraisers with our Hollywood celebrity friends.

In contrast, with no budget to speak of, IGF contributing authors John Corvino and Jonathan Rauch, among others, have done far more to actively engage and publicly debate those on the anti-gay right.

We’ll see if Ellis intends to move GLAAD beyond the limited role it has set for itself over the past decade in order to become, once again, a serious organization, like the Anti-Defamation League on which it was modeled. Or if GLAAD instead continues to be just another liberal bandwagon with few actual accomplishments.

More. One of GLAAD’s low points. As I noted earlier this year, Fox News anchors were courted by GLAAD to attend the group’s annual media awards hoop-la, and when they did, GLAAD issued a stinging denunciation of Fox News and its anchors for, among other things, attending the event. If the anchors hadn’t shown up, I suppose GLAAD would have issued a stinging denunciation. Which is all the more pathetic, since the views expressed by Fox News anchors and commentators aren’t monolithic and are becoming better on gay issues. No thanks to GLAAD.

Furthermore. Reader Jared123 comments, perceptively:

Groups like GLAAD attract LGBT progressives who want to work to advance a partisan left-liberal agenda. Unfortunately, when your message to conservatives isn’t “we think you should support civil equality and social inclusion of gay people,” but rather, “we think you’re wrong about everything and should become liberals,” you’re not going to accomplish much, although your fellow progressives will invite you to their parties and tell you that it’s wonderful you’re advancing the cause (of progressivism).

Liz Cheney’s opposition to marriage equality as she campaigns in Wyoming for the GOP senate nomination (against incumbent GOP Sen. Mike Enzi) has caused a rupture with her openly gay sister, Mary Cheney, and Mary’s wife Heather Poe. Anti-gay activists have also criticized Liz Cheney for not being more anti-gay (for these groups, you can never be too anti-gay, as Virginia’s failed GOP gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli learned (and here).

Liz would be better off not trying to delegitimize her sister’s wife (her own sister-in-law) and kids. That would be a principled stand that showed some integrity, rather than battling with Enzi to see who can be more intolerant.

More. Dick and Lynne back Liz. As much as I disagree with Liz Cheney, she is less awful than incumbent Mike Enzi, who wants to amend the U.S. Constitution to prohibit states from recognizing same-sex marriages. But she could have help saved the GOP from itself. Now, the betting is the family feud will only solidify Enzi’s substantial lead.

Furthermore. Matt Barnum writes in Politico Magazine, Free Mary Cheney!:

The Republican Party is on a collision course with an electorate that is rapidly shifting on gay rights. … At the same time, the gay rights movement needs the backing of Republicans now more than ever after its string of historic victories in deep blue states. Why? Because it’s the only way to win marriage equality in more conservative parts of the country.

Both sides need to face the same realization: There may not be many of us yet, but Republicans who support gay rights are both the future of the GOP and the future of the LGBT movement.

Via Reason.com (and much of the blogosphere): As he slurs gay men (once again) while justifying himself as pro-LGBT and a friend of GLAAD, Alec Baldwin was called out for his hypocrisy by some conservatives, including those at Breitbart.com. Baldwin responded by slurring libertarians (tweeting, “When did the Breitbart libertarian trash become defenders of gay rights?”). Actually, the late Andrew Breitbart favored gay inclusion in the conservative movement and focusing on fiscal not social issues (although the same can’t be said for everyone now posting at Breitbart.com).

I was going to write a post defending religious exemptions in the Employee Non-Discrimination Act passed by the Senate, and then got waylaid by some truly bizarre stuff regarding religious exemptions in the Hawaii marriage bill.

First, ENDA, where I support religious exemptions for faith-based organizations including hospitals, universities and charities. But Brian Silva, executive director of Marriage Equality USA, and Heather Cronk is co-director of GetEQUAL, blasted such exemptions in their op-ed in the Washington Blade. They wrote:

This version of ENDA, however, creates such broad religious exemptions that even a nurse at a Catholic hospital or a secretary at a Baptist university would be subject to discrimination for no other reason than being LGBT. … The legislative process is always a matter of compromise — but our core values should never be up for negotiation.

That objection seems reasonable, if you think it’s reasonable for the state to use force to coerce employers to violate their religious beliefs because you think those beliefs are in error. ENDA is sweeping enough (as I’ve said, I believe it would be better to limit anti-discrimination measures to government and government contractors. Race-based discrimination is an exception, given the systemic nature of anti-black hiring discrimination in the U.S. prior to the civil rights movement, often supported by state governments’ Jim Crow laws).

ENDA probably will never see the light of day in the House, but if it should come up, broad religious exemptions would be politically necessary for its passage. Trying to force traditional faith-based organizations to hire and promote openly gay people and transsexuals is the wrong way to go.

Another Blade op-ed, by businessman Mike Lee, makes a number of points I agree with. He writes:

Will there be more paperwork to complete and required cover-your-behind steps in hiring or firing? Will there be new human resource litigation-inoculation training to undergo? Will costly unfounded retaliatory claims by falsely aggrieved employees and applicants be instigated against employers honestly exercising the right to make employment decisions absent prejudice or violation of the law? Will pink-slip-chasing attorneys be beneficiaries? Yes, of course. …

Changing attitudes and behavior through coercion, whether concerning big things or small matters and no matter how soothing a salve to the pain of history, is the easy and empty act. We need to remember that.

But then, I find myself, along with many others, appalled by the fact that an openly lesbian state representative in Hawaii voted against their marriage equality bill because it has insufficient religious exemptions. As the Blade reports:

The Hawaii House of Representatives on Friday gave its final approval to a bill that would extend marriage rights to same-sex couples in the Aloha State.

But wait:

Lesbian state Rep. Jo Jordan is among those who voted against SB1. “I had come to the decision that SB1 needed to [be] amended,” the lawmaker told Honolulu Magazine. “It wasn’t protective enough for everybody.”

In the Honolulu Magazine piece, the reporter tells Jordan, “People are calling you the first openly gay legislator to vote against same-sex marriage,” and she responds, rather confusingly:

I really am not happy with the [religious] exemptions. Too narrow. … I haven’t figured out why I felt so compelled to fight for the religious exemptions … My religion is the mountain, the aina and spiritual. I’m still trying to figure out. I’ve always followed paths. I don’t find the path. The path finds me. This, obviously, is a path I’m supposed to go. You’re not supposed to question. Just ‘OK.’

Jordan added she was moved by the spectacle of those brought in by religious and conservative groups to testify against marriage equality, saying:

“when you’re outside the room and seeing people waiting three, four days to stand up there for two minutes. That spoke volumes to me. People coming back day after day, waiting for their chance when they got missed.”

Yes, they are very dedicated to making sure other people don’t receive equal legal rights. Jordan doesn’t get that.

The distinction is that ENDA is not about equal legal rights; it’s about limiting the rights of business, including faith-affiliated employers. But marriage is about equal rights under the law.

The Hawaii marriage bill has reasonable exemptions so that no denomination is forced to marry anybody. But civil servants should treat gay people equally, despite their religious beliefs, because the government should be neutral.

Beyond that, forcing private citizens and businesses to recognized legally married same-sex couples has more to do with anti-discrimination law (again!) than marriage law, which is where we get the bakers and photographers being sued to provide services to same-sex weddings and commitment ceremonies, which they believe is coerced behavior that violates their religious beliefs. Fault the anti-discrimination laws for not providing a sufficient religious exemption in those cases, not equal access to marriage under the law.

More. The Elane Photography case (in which a lesbian couple tried to force Elaine Huguenin, a conservative Christian, to photograph their commitment ceremony in Taos, New Mexico) could be heading to the U.S. Supreme Court. Is this really where we want to use our legal capital before the court, to force religious conservatives to bend knee to us? “Progressives” apparently think so. How truly sad and misguided.

Furthermore. Via Cato’s Walter Olson, “Why Is the ACLU on the Wrong Side of the Wedding Photographer Case?” and Reason magazine’s Jacob Sullum, “The Constitutional Right to Conscript a Wedding Photographer.”