IGF CultureWatch

The International Olympic Committee has the authority to do Vladimir Putin’s dirty work for him.  The NY Times reports the IOC charter prohibits political expression by athletes.

The issue is coming into focus after Frank Bruni proposed a silent rainbow flag protest by American athletes — or any athletes — during an Olympic ceremony.

There is no doubt that, while it is possible the Russian government might try to go after openly gay or lesbian athletes — there are very few of them, after all — they could not possibly go after every straight athlete who expressed support for gay equality, which would be a clear violation of the law prohibiting propaganda.  While the Russian people clearly retain much of the world’s remaining prejudices about homosexuality, it’s hard to think they would have the stomach to really punish thousands of Olympic athletes for simply articulating — possibly silently — a widespread political opinion.  Let’s not forget that these athletes are overwhelmingly young, and well within the demographic of greatest support for gay equality.

The IOC, though, has much greater control over the athletes than the Russian police.  They have their political expression rule for their own administrative reasons, and the athletes would obviously have to take a public pronouncement seriously.

This would be collaboration of the ugliest sort.  I don’t think there is any reason to believe the IOC would actually do this.  But if they do, I think it’s pretty likely Putin would greet the news as a public relations victory and an enormous gesture of assistance.

 

Via Politico: Bob Filner’s 9th accuser comes forward. But at least he’s a Democrat! Sure glad the LGBT activists in San Diego went all out to back for mayor this noble exemplar of their political values rather than, gasp, his openly gay Republican opponent. Now, that would have been beyond the pale!

The blowup between Chris Christie and Rand Paul is highlighting differences between libertarians (with a small “l”) and Republicans (with a cap “R”). From the Washington Post:

In the 1992 election, for example, a Cato Institute analysis found that the 13 percent or so of voters who were libertarian-minded—those who told pollsters they wanted smaller government but tolerant social policies—split almost evenly among Republican incumbent George H.W. Bush, Democrat Bill Clinton and third-party candidate Ross Perot. …

When libertarian Clark Ruper was a University of Michigan student from 2004 to 2007, he recalled, “there were, like, five of us on campus, and we all knew each other.” Now vice president of a rapidly growing organization called Students for Liberty, Ruper says of the dust-up between Christie and Paul: “I think it’s fantastic. When guys like Chris Christie are attacking us, we must be doing something right.”

Ruper, for one, rejects Reagan’s depiction of conservatism and libertarianism as being one and the same. “We are not a branch of conservatism,” largely because of social issues like same-sex marriage and drug legalization, Rupar said. “Those are real deal-breakers where we can’t get along with conservatives. We find our allies there on the left.”

And this:

Libertarians still count relatively few elected officials as their own. Rand Paul comes the closest. Libertarians have cheered his stance on surveillance and his 13-hour filibuster in March to protest the Obama administration’s use of unmanned drones. That filibuster brought withering commentary from the conservative establishment. …

Yet even Paul draws some skepticism from libertarian purists. They are leery, for instance, of his recent overtures to the Christian right, a constituency he cannot afford to alienate if he hopes to win his party’s presidential nomination.

Too often, it’s pick your poison—Republican religious rightists or Democratic total statists. But I think it’s evident that libertarians gay and straight in the GOP know they are battling for the soul of their party, whereas LGBT activists in the Democratic fold often embrace the worst aspects of their party’s bigger-bigger-bigger government agenda.

More. Enjoy 23 Libertarian Problems.

The Washington Post reports that a “coalition of civil rights groups” is launching a $2 million campaign “aimed at mobilizing support for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which has languished on Capitol Hill for nearly two decades.” Moreover:

The coalition, which also includes the American Civil Liberties Union, American Federation of Teachers, National Center for Transgender Equality and National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, will focus on senators in Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. With the exception of Democrats Mark Pryor (Ark.), Bill Nelson (Fla.) and Joe Manchin III (W.Va.), all the targeted senators are Republican. HRC President Chad Griffin said he was optimistic the campaign, which will also include business leaders, would be able to persuade conservative and centrist lawmakers to support the law.

If they think Democratic-front “civil rights groups,” including those that consistently work to defeat openly gay Republicans running in non-incumbent races, are going to be effective at targeting members of the Grand Old Party, they’re delusional.

While it’s good that Pope Francis is willing “not to judge” celibate gay clergy who are devoted to serving the Church of Rome, I think some of the joyous responses are overblown. But I guess we will see if this is a small sign of a larger shift or just a small step back from Joseph Ratzinger’s view that homosexual orientation itself is an intrinsic moral evil that should disqualify even the celibate from serving as priests. You remember Ratzinger, the former Hitler Youth, Third Reich gunner and head of the inquisition, and, oh yes, Pope Benedict XVI. Compared to that, I guess Francis is a saint.

Still, I’d bet Austin Ruse isn’t happy.

In Chris Christie’s increasingly small-tent GOP, only neo-con hawks and religious conservatives are welcome. As for gays and now libertarians, who needs ’em.

I liked Rand Paul’s tweeted response, reported in the Washington Post: “Christie worries about the dangers of freedom. I worry about the danger of losing that freedom. Spying without warrants is unconstitutional.”

I want to go behind the problem Steve calls out.

Activism loses the oxygen of victimization with every success, and eventually becomes indolent and tedious.  The proposed boycott of Russian vodka (or, as Scott Shackford argues, “Russian” vodka) is the knee-jerk, conventional response of a gay rights movement that is settling into its golden years.  It has little chance of doing anything, except possibly harming a fairly stable gay-rights supporter.

Vodka is a symbolic product, and the only value of a boycott is the calling of the boycott — which draws some attention to the problem.

There’s some value in that, but by focusing on this tired tactic, we are missing the bigger opportunity.  Rather than attacking a company that is (supposedly) doing a harmful thing by providing financial support to Russia, or something, we should leverage some of the corporate successes we’ve had in the U.S. and around the world.

NBC will be the face of the American media in Sochi, and they have blandly, corporately told Chris Geidner that they’re all in favor of equality, of no specific sort.

So how about if NBC had an openly gay or lesbian co-anchor in Sochi?  Neil Patrick Harris has conquered most of the other forms of entertainment spectacle, and this is exactly the kind of challenge he might be up for.  Or Ellen, for color commentary.  There’s no shortage of high profile, openly homosexual celebrities who I’m sure would make a fine addition to NBC’s coverage, including some (I’m sure) who are actual athletes.  Or straight supporters who would have no problem mentioning a gay athlete’s husband, a lesbian producer’s wife, or some other innocuous fact that punctures the law’s fiction.

The Russian No Promo Homo law at issue is the kind of thing that only a country without a vibrant first amendment could even attempt, but that’s exactly the thing that a healthy corporate body like NBC could give the lie to.  Russia’s law is the last gasp of the closet, and the number of ways NBC, or any other nation’s supportive media could ruffle Russian feathers is limited only by the creative ideas of those who are ready to mock it.

It is creativity that our activists seem to have lost.  That is why the only idea that occurred to them was the boycott.  We can do better than that.

This certainly seemed like a worthwhile idea:

In response to the passage of anti-gay laws in Russia—and subsequent clashes between police and gay activists there—some Chicago gay bars are pulling Russian vodka and other spirits from their offerings in protest.

But there are those who make a strong argument otherwise:

Stoli sent out an open letter Thursday, declaring its support for gay rights, mentioning its history of activity within the gay community in America and other countries. But, Dan Savage posted, this isn’t enough. What are they doing about about the suffering of gays in Russia? Scheffler is one of Russia’s richest men!

There’s a big Western bias in this argument, assuming that Russia’s corporatism is like America’s or Europe’s corporatism. Because Scheffler’s rich, he must have some sort of government influence! There must be something he can do! … It doesn’t take that much research to see how difficult a position Scheffler is in. Russia wants [to renationalize] his company.

In any event, we can agree that Putin is a totalitarian brute at the head of an increasingly fascistic regime eager to terrorize and scapegoat gay people, not to mention allow Russian orphans to rot in monstrous state facilities rather than let any Americans, or same-sex couples anywhere, adopt them.

This, however, is inspiring. The Russian regime should face public opprobrium at every opportunity.

More. Aren’t we glad that Hillary and Obama “reset” this relationship.

Furthermore. Watching the American religious right embrace Putin and hold Russia up as a model is fascinating and appalling. More here.

Still more. The Russian Winter Olympics of 2014 are looking more and more like the German Summer Olympics of 1936.

In the Aug. 5 issue of The New Republic, Richard Posner, a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, writes (by way of reviewing books on the legal fight for same-sex marriage) that it’s “The Culture, Not the Courts” that’s the prime driver of marriage equality (now posted online with a revised title). Here are a few excerpts:

If there was a backlash to Lawrence [finding sodomy laws unconstitutional] it was slight, because Lawrence wasn’t that big of a deal. For by 2003, there was virtually no enforcement of laws against homosexual sex….

All in all, the judicial role in the rise of homosexual marriage seems to have been quite modest. Probably the courts have done little either to accelerate the trend in acceptance of such marriage or, through backlash, to retard the trend. In retrospect, the growing acceptance of homosexual marriage seems a natural consequence of the sexual revolution that began in the 1960s rather than an effect, even to a small degree, of litigation.

The point being that courts recognize social change, but rarely lead the way.

Posner also ponders what’s next, noting:

…the Supreme Court is unlikely for some time to force homosexual marriage on states by declaring it a constitutional right. That would be one bombshell too many. The most the Court is likely to do (how likely I don’t know) is to force states that do not allow homosexual marriage nevertheless to recognize such marriages made in states that do allow it. Most states recognize marriages made in another state as valid under that state’s law even if not valid in the state asked to recognize those marriages (Maybe the other state authorizes first cousins, or thirteen-year-olds, to marry and the state asked to recognize the marriages does not allow its own citizens to make such marriages). The Supreme Court may decide not to allow the state to make an exception for homosexual marriages.

That would be an important, and welcome, step. Somewhat contrary to Posner’s thesis, such a ruling seems like it would move things forward to a considerable degree. But I accept his contention that the Court will never get too far ahead of where the people are.

More. At Reason‘s “Hit & Run” blog, Jesse Walker writes:

Contrary to the chatter you hear in some quarters, gay marriage was not invented by social engineers and imposed on an unwilling country. It was invented by gay people themselves, who started getting married without anyone’s permission; their unions gradually gained acceptance in American communities and in the marketplace before state or federal governments were willing to recognize them. It is a classic example of grassroots social evolution…

An historic day for Britain (although Scotland, with its own Parliament, is left behind, for now).

Reading coverage of responses from various faith groups, I hope that denominations that welcome marriage equality will thrive. I particularly liked this:

Paul Parker, recording clerk for Quakers in Britain, said: “It’s wonderful to see same-sex marriage achieve legal recognition. Quakers see the light of God in everyone so we respect the inherent worth of each individual and each loving relationship.”

As for the Roman Catholic and many evangelical churches, it’s a different and predictable story. A bit more complicated with the Anglicans (Church of England and Church in Wales), which are now actually banned by law from performing gay weddings. Some Anglican churchmen were strongly against marriage equality, but others are opposed to the ban, which reminds us why state churches are a terrible idea.