IGF CultureWatch

Maybe Dan Cathy isn’t a bigot.  And maybe Mitt Romney didn’t mean to insult the Palestinians.  Maybe.

All Cathy said was that he supports what he thinks is the biblical definition of marriage.  He didn’t even use the words “gay,” “lesbian” or “homosexual,” none of which would seem to come easily to his lips.  How could that be bigoted?

There was that aside about “God’s judgment” raining down on us for our “arrogance” in thinking we can define words that are His to delimit.  That was kind of taking sides.

But as Doug Mataconis notes, a fair definition of “bigotry” includes “. . . obstinately or intolerantly” holding to opinions and prejudices, particularly when that involves hatred or intolerance of some group.  I’m assuming Cathy thinks this is a God-approved definition, though Cathy hasn’t weighed in on that.

As Mataconis argues, some people who oppose gay marriage are bigots under this definition, some are not.  Responsible people can and do draw that kind of distinction before labeling someone with such a severe word.

Mataconis applies the test to Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association, and concludes Fischer is a bigot, which is a fairly easy case.  But he lets Cathy off the analytical hook.  I think he deserves the hot seat.

A fair test of the intolerance that properly characterizes bigotry should involve a look at whether the individual holds a humane and thoughtful view of the group (usually a minority), or really does seem to be intolerant toward them.

I can’t find any statements from Cathy about how he feels about homosexuals in particular, but I think it’s fair to say the view he holds of the bible’s position is obvious enough.  He doesn’t mention Leviticus or abominations or death, but those are all common enough citations.  If he thinks God is judging those of us harshly who support same-sex marriage, it’s probably not unreasonable to think he believes the bible supports a harsh judgment for such positions.  Perhaps he tempers his judgment with a more Christ-like understanding, but so far, Cathy hasn’t suggested he might think homosexuals, too, deserve love and family.  So he seems to think those who support gay equality deserve the judgment of an angry God.

Does the fact he has not explicitly said that get him off the hook?  That’s where Mitt Romney comes in.

Romney’s statement in Israel did not explicitly damn Palestinians.  Rather, he was praising Israelis.  In his inevitable walk back, Romney protested that he “did not speak about the Palestinian culture or the decisions made in their economy . . . . That is an interesting topic that perhaps can deserve scholarly analysis but I actually didn’t address that.”

There’s just enough truth in that to pass political muster.  Romney, like Cathy, intended to compliment the side he preferred, but that compliment is pregnant with an insult to the group not being addressed directly.  Sometimes, a speaker can honestly say he was not aware of the implicit insult.  Such people apologize.

The apology is an acknowledgement of wrongdoing, often unintentional.  It aligns the speaker with the insulted group, and demonstrates awareness of having caused some harm.  We have obviously defined offense down in our culture, lowering the bar to a Princess and the Pea level of hypersensitivity.  But some things really are offensive, and are meant to be.  And in our ever vigilant environment, where scouts are always on the lookout for possible offense, burying an insult inside a compliment is becoming a preferred strategy.

Those who are familiar with Maggie Gallagher know exactly how this works.  She perfected the art of a laser-like focus on the value of heterosexual marriage, and a polite but insistent obliviousness to what that might mean for the very people who are excluded from her thinking.  “I’m not insulting anyone,” her demeanor pleads.  “How could anyone think I’m a bigot?”

That is one way that bigotry hides behind the façade of the status quo in a debate that is about nothing else but changing the status quo.  It is the easiest way of avoiding the entire substance of the debate, claiming there is no debate to be had.

Unless Romney is an entirely unserious candidate, he cannot possibly have been ignorant of the fact that his comments praising Israeli culture necessarily involved insulting Palestinians.  And unless Dan Cathy has been utterly absent from the world his restaurants serve, he cannot plausibly claim that his comments supporting the “biblical family” were not plainly and quite naturally going to demean lesbians and gay men and their supporters.

If either man truly did not intend the silent insult, they can very easily correct the misimpressions.  They can acknowledge that the insult was there, hiding in plain sight, and they missed it.

Neither has shown even the remotest sign that they are interested in doing that.  And in both cases, maybe it’s time to conclude that the bigotry they shirk from really does have some substance.

updated from bottom, Aug. 6, 2012

Aug. 1 was Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day, even in Massachusetts.

As Instapundit Glenn Reynolds blogs:

I don’t think this can be interpreted as opposition to gay marriage, so much as a response to bullying. But I do think that the bullying has probably tainted the gay-marriage brand, which is too bad. The gay-marriage argument is already winning — there’s no need to engage in Rahm Emanuel-style attacks, and doing so merely invites pushback.

But I think that’s far too optimistic, given the reported comments by the lined-up out-the-door patrons of the fast food chain, which donates millions to anti-gay groups. And it’s not so good for gay employees at the outlets these days, either.

On a more hopeful note, David Boaz blogs at Politico:

As Timothy Kincaid writes at Box Turtle Bulletin, “The company has a new label: ‘the brand of choice for anti-gay people.’”

That was good for the company on Wednesday. But I can’t believe it will be a good brand in the long run. Watch for an increase in sales of McDonald’s chicken sandwiches this week.

Let’s hope.

Further thoughts. I’ve reflected a bit more on what the Chick-fil-A eruption signifies, and I think it points to some gaping problems for us. As I’ve argued for many years, the fight for gay legal equality and liberty, while in obvious ways advanced by support from liberal Democrats, is also undermined by the close identification of our struggle with those who advocate ever-larger, more intrusive government and more control over the lives of America’s citizens by liberal government elites. The Obama mandate requiring employers, including those with religious affiliations, to provide contraceptive coverage that includes abortion-inducing drugs is an example of left-liberal arrogance and over-reach. The efforts by Chicago’s Mayor Rahm Emanual and a handful of other Democratic officeholders in various liberal jurisdictions to use zoning laws against Chick-fil-A is now being seen as part of the ongoing “attack on religious liberty.” The anti-gay bigots are lined up at Chick-fil-A, but so are large numbers of conservative leaners who don’t want liberal government dictating what people can say and think (lost in all this, of course, is the fact that Chick-fil-A, as a corporation, gives millions of dollars to anti-gay organizations).

The efforts by just a handful of our erstwhile friends (or, less charitably, pandering politicians), has cost us dearly and could very well undermine efforts in Maryland, Minnesota and elsewhere to fight anti-gay-marriage initiatives. We know who are enemies are; but with friends like these, we could be sunk.

Furthermore. Josh Barro writes in the Boston Globe How Boston Mayor Tom Menino turned bullies into martyrs with his Chick-fil-A stance. Along with Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee, Washington Mayor Vincent Gray, and New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn:

these city officials changed the subject, and not in a good way for advocates of gay marriage. Chick-fil-A no longer has to answer for its CEO’s position on gay marriage and its owners’ support of organizations that oppose gay rights. Instead, the company is on the much more comfortable ground of simply defending its CEO’s right to express a constitutionally protected opinion without reprisal from the government.

As Byron York writes in the Washington Examiner, “GOP Sees Opportunity in Dems’ Support of Gay Marriage“:

On Monday, Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., told the Washington Blade that the Democratic Party’s 15-member platform drafting committee has approved a plank supporting gay marriage for the party’s upcoming convention. … It didn’t take Republicans long to see opportunity in the Democrats’ decision. Shortly after the news came out, a spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee sent a press email highlighting a recent Wall Street Journal article that listed some Democratic senators running for re-election who have publicly distanced themselves from President Obama’s support of gay marriage. Missouri’s Claire McCaskill, Pennsylvania’s Bob Casey, West Virginia’s Joe Manchin, Florida’s Bill Nelson — all have laid low on the issue. Now that will be harder to do.

Republicans were perfectly happy to watch Democrats raise the profile of gay marriage…

At some point, the culture shifts and parties can find themselves on the wrong side of history. That may not be true in 2012—we’ll see how this one plays out—but it will be in the not too far future.

Incidently, York mischaracterizes the Democrats’ likely position on the Defense of Marriage Act, stating they want to force recognition of “gay marriage everywhere, now.” In fact, the challenges to DOMA currently consists of repealing the section that bars the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages that are already recognized by individual states. This widespread misrepresentation is also certain to be ubiquitous on the right.

Much blogosphere discussion on suggestions (now somewhat walked back) by Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and other Democratic politicos on using the zoning laws against Chick-fil-A due to the company’s anti-gay-marriage views (the company says it does not discriminate against gay customers or employees). Writes James Peron at the Huffington Post:

Boycott the hell out of them; even drive them into liquidation by popular refusal to support the company, if you wish, but when the law is used selectively to punish a business because of the owner’s opinions and donations, then the law is overstepping its bounds. If anything, the moral case against Chick-fil-A is tainted by such actions.

More from Glen Greenwald at Salon:

You can’t cheer when political officials punish the expression of views you dislike and then expect to be taken seriously when you wrap yourself in the banner of free speech in order to protest state punishment of views you like and share.

James Taranto at the Wall Street Journal:

The mayors were playing something of a game of chicken: making a threat they lacked the authority to back up in the hope of both scoring political points and intimidating Chick-fil-A into backing down. The latter might well have succeeded if public reaction had been favorable to the mayors’ efforts.

And Eugene Volokh at The Volokh Conspiracy:

A government official [Chicago Alderman Proco “Joe” Moreno] thinks that the proper “consequence” for a business owner’s “statements and beliefs” is the denial of the ability to do business.

A story in the Advocate asserts that Right Wing Uses Colo. Tragedy to Vilify Gays, Secularism.

However, it’s not clear that the examples given are blaming gay people for the tragedy. What’s reported is that:

Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association is apparently the first to play the gay card this time. Reacting to news that the Aurora Chick-fil-A was providing free food to police and other emergency personnel on the scene, Fischer tweeted, “Chick-fil-A provides free meals to first responders in CO. Let’s see Big Gay demonize that.”

A thoroughly churlish comment, but more about the LGBT boycott of the anti-gay rights fast food chain (see posting below) than about culpability for the shooting.

The Advocate further reports that:

Without mentioning LGBT people specifically, Fischer cites these phenomena as among the consequences [of ending school prayer]: “The nuclear family is breaking apart at culture-destroying rates. One of out every five adults in America has a lifelong, incurable sexually transmitted disease.”

Blaming the end of mandatory school prayer may be reactionary and theocratic, but I’m still not seeing the “vilify gays” part here. But the piece continues:

Also blaming the tragedy on “ongoing attacks on Judeo-Christian beliefs” was Texas congressman Louie Gohmert, who appeared on a Heritage Foundation radio show hosted by former congressman Ernest Istook of Oklahoma. “We have been at war with the very pillars, the very foundation of this country,” Gohmert said.

That’s closer to, but not quite saying, that same-sex marriage (for example) has degraded society and is thus responsible for the shooting. But less than “vilify gays” in my book. In addition, I’m open to the argument that a general move away from a widely shared focus on the importance of teaching ethics and morality, in their true sense, has, in fact, degraded our culture.

Even if the above veers on scapegoating, let’s note that it’s not just the rightwing that can be accused of making spurious accusations. Moments after the suspect’s name became known, Brian Ross of ABC News drew a possible, but ultimately specious, Tea Party connection with the shooter. And in fact, leftwing activists have been quick to accuse tea party activists of all manner of hate-incitement, with little or no evidence.

In a highly polarized political world, everything is seen as fodder for political gain.

The Boy Scouts of America recently affirmed that the organization will continuing banning gay scouts and staff, which includes the ousting of a lesbian den mother. In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the organization could ban gays whose conduct, the Boy Scouts argued, violated its values.

In other news, the president of Chick-Fil-A, the fast food chain which has reportedly donated millions to anti-gay organizations, stated that the company supports “the biblical definition of the family unit.”

On a much smaller scale, the Advocate reported that a Denver cake shop refused to make a gay couple’s wedding cake.

An iconic national youth organization, a major U.S. corporation, and a local small business each expressed their opposition to gay legal equality. The solution remains the same: to publicize and respond to their positions so that Americans can make informed choices. In the case of the scouts, this has meant keeping sons out of the group. As Rabbi Paul Menitoff wrote in 2000:

our response to the exclusionary policy of the Boy Scouts of America must be unequivocal; we must condemn it publicly, resign from the organization, refuse to sponsor or house Cub Scout or Boy Scout groups in our congregations, and ask groups (e.g. the United Way) that contribute to the Boy Scouts financially to withdraw their support. To do less is to condone discrimination and to contribute to an environment in our country that is already far too accepting of prejudice and violence against gays and lesbians.

Anti-gay groups are also free to voice their views and promote boycotts of businesses that support legal equality, as the American Family Association does. In time, however, the light will expand as darkness recedes, and ignorance, prejudice and discrimination give way as they become unacceptable.

More. The Boy Scout’s ability to deny gay members and staff was famously upheld by the Supreme Court, and no one doubts that Chick-Fil-A can give money to anti-gay groups. Regarding the Denver bakery, the owners say they serve everyone gay or straight, but they won’t make anyone a same-sex wedding cake. Whether this is disingenuous or not, I believe they have the right to produce the products they wish to produce. Others disagree. The comments to the Advocate article reflect two viewpoints, statist and libertarian: “It appears that Denver has a Human Rights Ordinance that bans anti-gay discrimination…. File a complaint with the city” vs. “They have the right not to make the cake. But we have the right to spread the word, and boycott the business.” Liberty is best served by the latter approach.

updated July 16, 2012

Young Conservatives for the Freedom to Marry is a new campaign to highlight and build support for the freedom to marry among young conservatives. According to its website, the campaign is reaching out to “the rapidly growing numbers of young conservatives across the country that agree all Americans should be able to share in the freedom to marry. The freedom to marry is not a partisan value and is consistent with basic conservative values of responsibility and community, limited government and individual freedom.” Moreover:

Last year’s Public Religion Research Institute Survey found that nearly half (49%) of Republican Millennials favor the freedom to marry, while 19% of Republican seniors and 31% of all Republican said the same. Clearly, the next generation of conservatives is driving these tectonic shifts in their party, and their thoughtful voices and willingness to depart from the perspectives shared by their older party members should be applauded and supported.

Our friend David Lampo has written a new book that fits in nicely with this effort, A Fundamental Freedom: Why Republicans, Conservatives, and Libertarians Should Support Gay Rights. He explains why “an anti-gay agenda succinctly exposes the hypocrisy of those who talk of limited government and individual rights but ignore both when it comes to gay rights and other personal freedom issues.”

More. Coverage at the Huffington Post, where David Lampo is quoted observing, “The religious right has ruined our brand. Hopefully they haven’t ruined it permanently.”

Furthermore. Rick Sincere covered the event for the Washington Examiner, taking note of featured speaker Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Florida) who remarked: “It’s bad enough that we have to deal with the overregulation of our economy. No one should have to deal with government red tape when it comes to committing themselves to those whom they love.”

More still. Here’s a link to Lampo’s July 16 op-ed in the Los Angeles Times. He writes:

Leading religious organizations and their spokesmen argue that gay rights are simply incompatible with conservative principles and policies. Yet an examination of polling data shows that most rank-and-file Republicans view gay rights issues — including the repeal of state sodomy laws, equal access to the same legal rights and privileges as heterosexuals, and the right to serve in the armed forces — as compatible with core Republican principles of individual liberty, limited government and free enterprise.

Eventually, the party’s leadership will catch-up to the rank and file.

The Russian Orthodox Church is ready to ask the government to block Facebook throughout the entire country.  The reason? Facebook has added two icons to its marriage set, which users can  post on their page to identify their relationship status – a gay couple and a lesbian couple.

Demonstrating that reactionary churches worldwide share a similar uncontrolled overreaction when it comes to same-sex couples, church leaders want Facebook to “stop flirting with sodomites.”  They are clear about what they want:

“We demand only one thing: Facebook should be blocked in the entire country because it openly popularizes homosexuality among minors…”

It’s unlikely many Russian minors will be getting married, much less gay-married, but you can see where these folks are coming from.  Facebook is a private company, and it has a lot of appeal, both to young people and those of us who are young at heart.

I don’t know much about the demographics of the Russian Orthodox Church, so I can’t tell whether this is another religion engaging in culture envy.  But as with their American evangelical and middle eastern Muslim counterparts, the hysterical rhetoric of the church leaders is revealing.  The vast, vast number of Facebook users are not homosexual, and will not be using the gay marriage icon.  But the simple fact that it is available to the small minority that is homosexual is enough to taint the entire company, so much that it should be banned by the government.

This disproportion has characterized prejudice for a very long time.  It is the One Drop Rule for gay tolerance: Any group anywhere that even acknowledges the existence of gay couples (or even gay singles, I’d imagine) is completely tainted by the stigma of that acceptance.  No tolerance can be tolerated.

I’m fairly confident ordinary Russians will have the same response to these Church Ladies that Americans tend to have.

And it’s nice to know that it’s not just American religious extremists who hate the private sector.

From my viewpoint, Obamacare’s requirements that employers with 50 or more workers must provide high-level health benefits (which many employers can’t afford) or pay a penalty/tax of $2,000 or more per worker (which many employers can’t afford) will drive many relatively small or marginally profitable business out of business, or to reduce their hiring. Others may disagree. But according to the Washington Blade‘s coverage, the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force believes Obamacare, and in particular its Medicaid expansion, “is particularly important for LGBT people because they disproportionately live below the poverty level.” Moreover, according to a Task Force spokesperson:

“The Medicaid expansions are going to end up being hugely important for LGBT people because it expands coverage to low-income people, and LGBT people are disproportionately low-income … We know this because of rampant employment discrimination and housing discrimination.”

I suppose there is some poll that the Task Force could cite to support this (the article refers to the group’s own report, for what that’s worth), but much independent research indicates that gay people are not suffering from severe economic disadvantages, and advocates have been hard press to provide real evidence of “rampant employment discrimination and housing discrimination.” Isolated incidents, yes. More than that, no. (As the article goes on to note, the economic status of transgendered people is more likely to be marginal.)

And even if this all were true, further burdening the Medicaid system that’s already overextended and heading toward bankruptcy with a requirement to cover those who earn 133% above the federal poverty level, to be funded by still-more federal and state deficit spending (and, in part, with higher taxes on “the wealthy,” which also depresses economic growth and investment), isn’t likely to improve things in the long run—quite the opposite. But if you’re an LGBT progressive activist organization, you’re going to back big government spending solutions on the grounds that they’re good for gays (er, LGBTs), I suppose.