IGF CultureWatch

updated May 9, 2012

Did Vice President Joe Biden endorse marriage equality on “Meet the Press”? He said, “I am absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women and heterosexual men and women marrying one another are entitled to the same exact rights, all the civil rights, all the civil liberties.”

Progressive activists immediately hailed this breakthrough, but presidential campaign advisor David Axlerod was soon walking Biden’s comments back, saying the veep did not endorse full equality, or didn’t mean to. Axlerod tweeted that Biden’s statement “that all married couples should have exactly the same legal rights” is “precisely” the position taken by President Obama all along.

So Obama and Biden are for equal rights for all. But not for marriage equality. Depending on whose votes they’re seeking, and what time of day it is. (Caveat: I’ll beat my Democrat commenters to the punch: “Yea, but Republicans are worse.”)

More. To those party loyalists who replied that the campaign isn’t walking anything back (hey, even NPR acknowledged as much in its report), commenter “another steve” points out:

Axlerod said Biden and Obama are on the same page; Obama supports rights but not giving gays the institution of marriage. Biden seemed to say he supports marriage in full, but if he and Obama are in synch, as Axlerod claims, then he doesn’t. Or does Obama now support marriage equality – but Axlerod said Obama’s position remains what it has been. So just who is sending a confused message here?

More still. James Kirchick writes in the New York Daily News on Joe Biden, Barack Obama and the value of strategic ambiguity in the gay marriage debate:

Ultimately, it doesn’t really matter where the President or the Vice President stand on marriage equality. Marriage is a state issue, or, at least, should be, were it not for the fact that the Defense of Marriage Act remains law — and were it not for the fact that some Republicans want to write discrimination into the Constitution via a Federal Marriage Amendment.

But Libertarian Party presidential nominee Gary Johnson explains why “Gay marriage is not a trick question, and we shouldn’t be getting trick answers from the President of the United States.”

The Wall Street Journal reports:

Rep. Nan Hayworth has spent much of her first term in Congress alongside her boisterous, tea-party-backed fellow Republican freshmen, fighting earmarks and trying to slash government spending. But the 52-year-old ophthalmologist from Mount Kisco, N.Y., is tip-toeing down a lonely road largely untrodden by other Republicans on a sensitive social issue: gay rights. Ms. Hayworth, who has a 21-year-old gay son, joined the congressional LGBT Equality Caucus in November, making her one of three Republicans in the largely Democratic group. She’s one of six Republicans backing a bill to give the health benefits that same-sex partners receive the same tax treatment as those that straight couples receive.

And this:

Democrats are trying to tie her to Mr. Romney, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee. “Congresswoman Hayworth has chosen a presidential candidate who would reinstate ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,'” said Josh Schwerin, a spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Which, despite Romney’s other, real flaws on gay equality issues, is a big cheap partisan lie that some Democrats keep repeating.

From a Charlotte News & Observer op-ed: “Perhaps the most surprising development in the fight over Amendment One is that so many leading North Carolina conservatives oppose it. … Should the measure be defeated by the voters on May 8, conservatives will have played a major role in its demise.” And this:

Then there’s the outright restriction of individual rights. Only a month after the U.S. Supreme Court heard powerful arguments against the health insurance mandate as unconstitutional, it rings hollow to many conservatives to insist that the heavy hand of the state come down against people who want to commit themselves to sharing a life. Put simply, if there is a liberty interest in choosing to buy health insurance, isn’t there a liberty interest in choosing to marry?

updated May 5, 2012

Social conservatives and left-wing “progressives” can unite and cheer that together they have derailed Romney’s appointment of Richard Grenell as his foreign policy adviser/spokesman. Grenell is openly gay and an advocate of marriage equality, as previously noted. They’re celebrating at ThinkProgress and at the American Family Association. Shame on both, but especially on the partisan leftists who posture as our allies but prefer their Republicans anti-gay (hey, it serves the interests of the Democratic party, and that’s what matters above all, right).

More. Yes, Grenell’s resignation was mainly due to attacks by social conservatives, triggered by his support for marriage equality. But the fact that the left-liberal ThinkProgress and Huffington Post, among others (i.e., our progressive “allies”) were also gunning for him makes their attacks all the more despicable.

And no, I’m not impressed that ThinkProgress, having viciously skewered Grenell as sexist and a misogynist over tweets showing insufficient political correctness, has the gall to castigate the religious right for scuttling his appointment.

Furthermore. Log Cabin Executive Director R. Clarke Cooper writes:

The gay community, despite the hatred it greeted Ric with when his appointment was announced, has lost as well. … Liberal commentator Jonathan Capehart went so far as to say “Richard Grenell chose power over principle” and to accuse him of being a hypocrite for being a gay conservative working within the party.

And yet, now that his detractors have gotten what they wished for, some LGBT Americans are realizing the danger of the message that has been sent. Half of this country routinely votes Republican, and every recent advance for our liberty, from marriage in New York to the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” has required significant Republican support.

The left, after beating the right to the punch with the initial attacks on Grenell, pulled back when it became clear that the right was going to finish him off. But I have no doubt that if Grenell had survived the right’s onslaught, the left would have been back on the attack.

More still. Richmond Times-Dispatch columnist A. Barton Hinkle writes of a gay Republican friend:

In the wake of the Grenell affair, the friend writes, “I’m starting to wonder if—despite that fact that I agree with the [Republican] party on most issues, including being strongly pro-life—the GOP just doesn’t want people like me.” He will not vote for Romney now. But “I won’t vote for Obama, so for the first time in my life I won’t vote for president. There is no one for me to support.”

The rightwing blogosphere has discovered sex columnist/anti-bullying activist Dan Savage’s rant again the Bible while addressing an audience of high school journalists. And they’re making hay with it:

In the video, Savage is clearly heard saying, “We can learn to ignore the bullshit in the Bible about gay people — the same way we have learned to ignore the bullshit in the Bible about shellfish, about slavery, about dinner, about farming, about menstration about virginity about masturbation…We ignore bullshit in the Bible about all sorts of things.” …

[An offended Christian student] said the speech was laced with vulgarities and “sexual innuendo not appropriate for this age group.” At one point, he said Savage told the teenagers about how good his partner looked in a speedo. … As the [offended] teenagers were walking out, [the student] said that Savage heckled them and called them pansy-assed.

Savage’s substance, about the misuses of Biblical literalism, may be sound. But his hurling of obscenities, particularly given the audience, is the kind of stupid, counter-productive action that elicits cheers from the secular leftwing faithful and appalls those on the other side who we ought to be striving to win over by understanding their worldview and speaking in language that is persuasive to them. Savage, however, certainly is not unique in falling into the trap of insular, echo-chamber activism, alas.

More. Comments reader “jpr”:

Christian abolitionists motivated by their faith were a driving forcing in abolishing slavery in the U.S./U.K., despite some biblical passages condoning slavery. If back then, secular anti-slavery activists had told them the Bible was bs, how would that have helped? [We should] speak to these people in a way that respects their faith and respects the Bible, and make the argument that the spirit of the Bible — and many passages, particularly in the New Testament, condemning bigotry and judgmentalism — can continue to bring more people of faith onboard.

Either we keep speaking to ourselves, or we reach out to people of faith, Republicans, and others that are not now with us. Too many LGBT activists just don’t get this — or don’t care.

Furthermore. Savage issues an apology for his poor choice of words. That’s good, but like Hillary Rosen, would it have dawned on him that his comments were offensive and inappropriate (not to mention counter-productive) if not confronted by an uproar from outside the insular world of the left-liberal echo chamber?

More still. Now he’s standing by his “bs” charge.

From The American Conservative: Why the Right Can’t Win the Gay Marriage Fight, by Daniel McCarthy. He isn’t happy about it, but his essay pretty much conveys a recognition that the traditionalist right has lost the game.

McCarthy is wrong about many things. In particular, he thinks freewheeling promiscuity is the norm among gay male couples because only women can rein men in. He writes, “In practical terms, so far as checking promiscuity is concerned, marriage is superfluous for lesbians and not very effective for homosexual men. To the extent that marriage serves as a brake on promiscuity at all, this is owing to the sex differences of the spouses.” Which is a common trope on the right with a small measure of truth (men are more driven toward promiscuity than women) but doesn’t grasp that the dynamics of a stable male relationship require, in most cases, the acceptance of an ideal of fidelity if the relationship is going to last.

McCarthy does have an interesting observation:

But in the latter half of the 20th century two things steadily eroded the cultural and legal taboos against homosexuality. The first was that it had come to be seen as an innate desire about which individuals have little choice. The second was that as these strange new beings emerged from their hiding places they didn’t look so frightening—indeed, they looked a lot like everybody else. The great public-relations victory won by the gay-rights movement that hastened the advent of gay marriage was the shift in the 1990s away from a radical, anti-bourgeois image toward one more in keeping with societal norms, from the militancy of ACT-UP to the banality of “Will and Grace.”

The gay-marriage effort has been a cause as well as an effect in this change: while same-sex marriage is disturbing to many Americans, it is reassuring to others, suggesting as it does loyalty to a middle-class ideal. Those homosexuals who remember more radical days are often dismissive of bourgeois aspirations of the younger set. …

Religious right literalists can’t see what gay radicals do: that gay marriage really is a conservative idea.

More. Log Cabin Republicans Executive Director R. Clarke Cooper writes in a New York Times op-ed:

In an ironic twist, gay and lesbian Americans are among the strongest promoters of conservative family values today. … The legislative reforms sought by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans are not intended to secure special rights or tear down social institutions. We seek only the ability to build lives together for richer or poorer (without unjust taxation tilting the scale toward poverty), to care for our loved ones in sickness and in health (through equal access to health care and without suffering from a “domestic partner penalty”), and to be by our partner’s side until death (without the fear that the absence of a marriage license would add complications and heartache).

updated April 25, 2012

Mitt Romney’s campaign said last week that Richard Grenell, the former Bush administration spokesman at the United Nations, was joining his team as a spokesman on foreign policy issues. Although the Washington Post story doesn’t mention it, the Advocate and others have previously reported that Grenell is openly gay and, according to reports, lives in California with his long-time partner, Matthew Lashey, a media and entertainment company executive. The Advocate also noted that Grenell fought, unsuccessfully, to have his partner listed alongside the spouses of other U.N. diplomats.

Romney has distanced himself from his one-time strong support for gay legal equality and reiterated his opposition to gay marriage, the banning of which he would add to the U.S. Constitution. But Romeny has said he hasn’t, and won’t, discriminate in
hiring. Whether Grenell’s appointment, given his advocacy, becomes an issue will be interesting to watch.

More. I assumed Grenell’s appointment would be attacked by the social right (and it was), but it’s the left-liberal blogosphere (for instance here, and here) and [added: some] LGBT “progressives” who have declared war on Grenell. Whether this is character assassination for insufficient political correctness (tweets mocking Hillary! And Newt’s wives!) or not, carried out by the audience that delights in Bill Maher’s rabid attacks on GOP women, it’s further evidence that the one thing the left and Democratic Party loyalists hate most are gay Republicans, even those with a history of fighting for gay equality within the GOP.

Furthermore. Via the Washington Post: The campaign and Grenell are dealing with a backlash from left and right. You’d expect it from the right, but the behavior of “progressives” in trying to block the appointment of an openly gay, pro-gay-equality voice reveals the shamelessness of the partisan left. I’ve said it before but it remains sadly true: their worst nightmare is that the GOP should become less anti-gay and challenge the one true party for gay dollars and votes.

Why this matters: The Washington Post also reports: “Two weeks from now, North Carolina will hold a public referendum on what could become one of the toughest anti-gay measures in the country.… But President Obama did not touch the subject when he appeared in Chapel Hill on Tuesday—even though it is roiling the electorate there.” Why should he, as long as the GOP remains anti-gay, no need to spend political capital on a slavishly loyal LGBT bloc.

Long-time religious right activist Ralph Reed, who used to represent Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority and now heads the Faith and Freedom Coalition, is urging Mitt Romney to adopt Rick Santorum’s scathing brand of social conservatism in order to win the White House. It’s not enough, apparently, that Romney is pro-life and supports the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment. Writes Reed in a Washington Post op-ed titled “To Beat Obama, Mitt Romney Must Channel Rick Santorum“:

[Romney’s] immediate task is to consolidate conservative support and unify the party. The best way to do that is to appropriate the best parts of Santorum’s message. Santorum follows the trailblazing evangelical candidates Pat Robertson and Mike Huckabee, who personified the rise and the maturation of social conservatives as a critical component of the Republican coalition. …

It’s a strategy that could only be cheered in the fever swamps of the religious right and among the Democratic left, who understand what a godsend it would be for Obama.

I’m reminded of Santorum’s remarks on losing a Midwestern primary to Romney that he (Santorum) still felt he was victorious because he had won the most conservative districts—as if failing to carry anything but the most conservative districts boded well as a strategy for winning a general election. But like the socialist left, the social conservative right lives in a fantasyland where the most ideologically pure are certain to be rewarded for their lack of messy ambiguity.

More. Romney’s promise to “champion a Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman” doesn’t sit well with some of his largest donors.

The New York Times Magazine looks at the political prospects of the four Republican New York State senators who voted for marriage equality and provided the necessary margin for it to pass. “The four Republican apostates now had targets on their backs,” the Times reports. However:

…if you parse public opinion, you find the acceptance of gay marriage is not just growing; it is accelerating. This is driven, of course, by the overwhelming support of young voters, but also by white Catholics, who have grown more open-minded on gay rightss. …

Opponents of gay marriage used to hold their opinion more passionately than supporters. But as more Americans have openly gay children, siblings, friends and neighbors, the supporters feel just as strongly.

On the other hand:

African-American support for gay marriage has remained stubborn, hovering around 30 percent for years, for reasons of class and education and because of the centrality of church in their lives. According to internal memos of the National Organization for Marriage, the anti-gay-marriage lobby sees an opportunity to play on the fact that some blacks resent hearing gay marriage likened to their own civil rights struggle.

Interestingly, the article notes that the four senators:

are upstate guys, from struggling former mill towns and diminished Rust Belt cities. So while the senators’ political calculus differs from district to district, their experiences give us a glimpse into how this issue is likely to play out in “real America,” as conservatives are fond of calling it, and not just in the coastal metropolises. Which is why the fates of these four are being watched intently by national lobbies and wavering politicians across the country.

Their re-election would be a welcome sign of progress.

Bill Donohue’s Catholic League, long known for its hostility toward gays, on Wednesday found a new group to antagonize when it Tweeted the following:

Lesbian Dem Hilary Rosen tells Ann Romney she never worked a day in her life. Unlike Rosen, who had to adopt kids, Ann raised 5 of her own.

Outraged reactions from adoptive parents lit up the web. Writes blogger Eric Kirk, “I guess adoptive parenting isn’t real parenting and our kids aren’t ‘our own.'” Notes Malinda at China AdoptionTalk, “This tweet certainly shows that adoption stigma is alive and well.”

The League’s sentiments were also roundly and promptly condemned by a long list of conservative, Republican and traditionalist commentators, including RNC communications director Sean Spicer (“The @CatholicLeague should be encouraging adoption, not demeaning the parents who are blessed to raise these children”); blogger Elizabeth Scalia; The American Conservative contributing editor Michael Brendan Dougherty; and Michael Potemra at National Review (“thuggishness…hateful”).

Dougherty says of Donohue “I just wish people would stop funding him,” which is certainly an understandable sentiment. But if people do keep sending Donohue checks to keep enabling his garish and contentious presence in American public life, perhaps it’s because they’re reading the signals given by respectable figures in his Church. As Commonweal points out, “Cardinal Timothy Dolan, who surely ought to know better, gives Donohue friendly cover on a regular basis,” as do many other top churchmen. For confirmation, take a look at the League’s “About Us” page, which includes, along with a string of endorsements by leading archbishops, a “Board of Advisers” that lists pretty much every prominent traditionalist Catholic intellectual: Hadley Arkes, Gerard Bradley, Robert George, Michael Novak, George Weigel and so forth. The support of these big names is a crucial reason Donohue is taken seriously, and makes it idle to try to dismiss his League as some sort of fringe group with no real constituency. If his group indulges in schoolyard taunting, it is a schoolyard just one jump away from Notre Dame, Amherst, and Princeton.

There are lessons for gays, I think, in the long and heartening story of how adoption came to lose the social stigma once attached to it. Before “love makes a family” was ever a gay-rights slogan, it was a truth to which adoptive families had been given special access. Lurking behind both disapproval of adoptive families and disapproval of gays is the prejudice that in the final analysis only biological, “natural” ways of forging family connections really count. Only a generation or two ago, during the same general period that most gays were constrained to lead lives of deep concealment, it was common for adoptive parents to conceal the fact of adoption, not only from neighbors and teachers, but even from children themselves. We now realize that an obligation to keep big secrets, especially secrets about love and commitment and the supposed shame that should attach to family structure, is too great a burden to carry around without good reason.

We do not need the Catholic League’s offensive tweets to remind us that anti-adoption attitudes are still with us. In many parts of the world, especially those where a more tribal approach to family life has not yet yielded to modernity, adoption is culturally or even legally disapproved and raw biology does rule the day, to the great detriment of stray children who languish on the streets or in institutions. When modernist views of adoption advance, and likewise when same-sex marriage advances, more people find “forever families” to love and to commit to their care. That is why both march alongside in the genuine pro-family cause.