IGF CultureWatch

From the Wall Street Journal, Hope Dims for an Evangelical Pick. Good. The odds are about even that the Republican nominee will be able to unseat Obama. Romney is flawed, but if we’re rolling the dice, better that Romney should land in the Oval Office than an anti-gay equality, anti-personal liberty (anti-free-trade, anti-right to work) zealot like Santorum, or an anti-gay equality, anti-free market, deranged egomaniac like Gingrich.

Political analysts also indicate that the odds of the GOP taking control of the Senate are high as well. So, given that there is at least a strong possibility that the Republicans will control the presidency, House and Senate next year, I wonder if our leading gay lobbies are engaging in contingency planning the way that successful business do, mapping out strategies for various likely (or at least possible) developments over the near term.

The largest and richest LGBT national lobby, the Human Rights Campaign, is in the midst of selecting a new executive director to replace the departing Joe Solmonese. It would be nice to think that, maybe this time, they won’t reflexively go with another leftwing Democratic operative who is uninterested in reaching out to libertarian Republicans (and couldn’t speak their language of personal liberty if he was), and who showed himself to be unwilling to pressure Democrats to spend political capital on our behalf even when they controlled both houses with a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. And that goes as well for the future HRC leader’s willingness to hire lobbyists who aren’t died in the wool Democratic partisans.

If HRC sticks to its old game plan and the Republicans take congress and the White House, that won’t necessarily be bad for HRC (think of the fearsome fundraising pitches they’ll send out); it will, however, prove terrible for those interested in advancing gay liberty and legal equality, or playing defense against rollbacks where equality has hitherto advanced.

More. Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer writes:

after a quarter-century in the wilderness, [Ron Paul is] within reach of putting his cherished cause on the map. Libertarianism will have gone from the fringes — those hopeless, pathetic third-party runs — to a position of prominence in a major party. … Paul is nurturing his movement toward visibility and legitimacy.

The movement for gay equality should be able to make common cause with the movement for greater individual liberty. If it can’t because fealty to big-government leftism is seen as a higher goal, that would be an immense lost opportunity.

More (added Tue. night). Whatever you might think of Mitt Romney and Ron Paul, they’re not the blathering anti-gay bigots that Santorum is, and almost as bad, Gingrich and Perry. So the fact that Santorum, Gingrich, and Perry brought up the rear in New Hampshire is welcome news.

And I’d be very happy if the prime challenger to Romney turned out to be a libertarian-minded opponent of the anti-gay federal marriage amendment who refused to sign Maggie Gallagher’s odious anti-gay marriage pledge, and who defends letting openly gay servicemembers serve their country (yes, Ron Paul). He also understands, unlike Gingrich et al, that businesses in a competitive economy must sometimes be restructured (and yes, downsized) to remain profitable and avoid bankruptcy.

Regardless of Paul’s particular strengths and flaws, the best thing that could happen to the GOP (and the nation) would be the emergence of a strong and permanent libertarian wing to counter the pernicioius dominance of intrusive-government social conservatives.

(Original post)

The view from the Log Cabin Republicans:

“Final pre-primary polls out of New Hampshire show strong support for Jon Huntsman, Ron Paul and Mitt Romney. It is not a coincidence that these are also the candidates who demonstrated respect as elected officials for LGBT Americans and focused on economic rather than social issues,” said R. Clarke Cooper, Log Cabin Republicans Executive Director. “Governor Romney, despite his opposition to marriage, continues to stand by his support for nondiscrimination and said in Sunday’s debate that he would stand for ‘increasing gay rights.’ Congressman Paul has a long libertarian record that includes voting for the end of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ and consistently opposing the Federal Marriage Amendment. Governor Jon Huntsman is rising quickly in the polls as voters respond to his pragmatic, commonsense conservative message, including his unapologetic support of civil unions.

Even candidates like Senator Rick Santorum are learning that his past antigay language is not going to keep him in the top-tier, while Gingrich and Perry, who have doubled-down on divisive rhetoric, are floundering. In the state which proudly proclaims, ‘live free or die,’ the path to victory is support for freedom for all.”

During Sunday’s debate in New Hampshire, Romney, who opposes marriage equality, tried to soften his image a bit (as Amanda Terkel relates at the Huffington Post), saying: “I oppose same-sex marriage and that has been my view,” but adding, “If people are looking for someone who will discriminate against gays or will in any way try and suggest that people — that have different sexual orientation don’t have full rights in this country, they won’t find that in me.”

He’s both for and against discriminating against gays.

Santorum, who uses much strongly language in opposing marriage equality (he says the “country will fall” as a result of same-sex marriage and that gays adopting children with cause societal “dysfunction”) nevertheless said, “I would be a voice in speaking out for making sure that every person in America, gay or straight, is treated with respect and dignity and has the equality of opportunity.”

Glad he cleared that up.

[Note: For current IGF Cutlture Watch postings, please use the url https://igfculturewatch.com.]

————————————

Former senator Rick Santorum, reportedly surging in Iowa polls, is not only a virulent homophobe, he also is, according to the Cato Institute’s David Boaz, a long-time opponent of limited government and, in his own dismissive words, “this whole idea of personal autonomy, . . . this idea that people should be left alone.”

More. Romney’s move to the right on social issues, designed to attracted Midwestern and Southern evangelicals, bombed big time in Iowa. Religious conservatives, who dominate the Iowa GOP, went overwhelmingly for Santorum. But if Romney is the eventual Republican nominee, his anti-gay rights and anti-immigrant positions won’t play well with independents. When will they ever learn?

Furthermore. Santorum’s fixation on gay marriage as intolerable perversity gets booed by (some) New Hampshire college Republicans and would be a likely negative among the general electorate.

On the other hand, some are arguing that Santorum would be more likely than Romney, or Obama, to appeal to the white working class. Kimberley Strassel writes in the Wall Street Journal: “He’s the frugal guy, the man of faith, the person who understands the financial worries of average Americans. He’s directly contrasting his own blue-collar bona fides with those of the more privileged Mr. Romney. Identity politics is often a winner, and Mr. Santorum does it well.”

Let’s hope the popular response to Obama’s disastrous leftwing “leadership” to nowhere doesn’t turn out to be American fascism.

And finally… Viva Paul for his bare-knuckled attack exposing Santorum’s hypocrisy.

The anti-gay National Organization for Marriage is running an attack ad against Ron Paul, accusing him of supporting same-sex marriage. And they’ve created an entire Wrong on Marriage website to attack him.

Actually, while Paul opposes the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment, he supports the Defense of Marriage Act. Somewhat muddying his support for the act (which bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages), he also says the issue should be left to the states to decide.

But in the GOP field, Paul is viewed as a pro-gay marriage candidate—earning him the ire of the religious right.

Also of interest, Slate’s David Weigel looks at Ron Paul newsletters from 20 years ago that had some disparaging comments about gays. Gay sex columnist and activist Dan Savage tells Weigel, astutely:

“Ron is older than my father, far less toxic than Santorum, and, as he isn’t beloved of religious conservatives, he isn’t out there stoking the hatreds of our social and political enemies … 1990 was 21 years ago—an eternity in the evolution of attitudes toward gays and lesbians. What has he said about us lately?”

More. From Why Ron Paul Matters, a Wall Street Journal op-ed from the Cato Institute:

Support for dynamic market capitalism (as opposed to crony capitalism), social tolerance, and a healthy skepticism of foreign military adventurism is a combination of views held by a plurality of Americans. It is why the 21st century is likely to be a libertarian century.

Wouldn’t that be nice.

The Catholic Church is complaining again about how unfairly government treats them when all they want to do is discriminate against homosexuals, like their Lord Jesus Christ orders them to.  The fight comes up in Illinois, where Catholic Charities, which has a government contract to provide adoption services wants free rein to deny same-sex couples the ability to adopt.

Frankly, I don’t mind that much if the church openly discriminates.  I left them long ago, over issues just like this, and I can see an upside to the church continuing to drive decent people from its ranks.  And from the purely legal perspective, it’s true that while no one has a constitutional right to obtain government contracts, religions do have a constitutional right not to be disadvantaged when they exercise their religion.

It’s a harder question than the bishops claim whether providing adoption services under a government contract is “the exercise of religion” as envisioned in the first amendment; but the law is fairly clear that government should make reasonable accommodations to religions if at all possible.  And I think it’s possible here to accommodate a religion that is so firmly staking out discrimination against homosexuals as a core tenet of its belief system.

But I think it’s also fair to point out that maybe there’s a little the church could give on, too.  The law in Illinois that is the thorn in the bishops’ side does not legalize same-sex marriage.  It provides for a lesser, but equal-ish civil union for same-sex couples.

I don’t believe I’ve seen the bishops, or the Vatican, take the firm position that in order to “protect” heterosexual marriage, government cannot tolerate any formal recognition of same-sex couples, and that any law providing that recognition is the same as legalizing marriage.  The church’s position in Illinois, though, requires something very close to that — a firm theological belief that all same-sex couples should be disabled from adopting children because they cannot possibly provide children an acceptable family structure.   The issue is not marriage, it is same-sex couples adopting, specifically, but being acknowledge by the government in general.

From what I’ve seen of the current Catholic church, I think this is pretty much what they do want to say, but until they are courageous enough to admit it, I think they’re being a little disingenuous in treating a law that is distinctly not a same-sex marriage law as if it is identical for God’s purposes.

Even the most adamant Catholics I know don’t think it’s a big deal to accept same-sex couples under some rubric or other, even if they’re not yet ready to accept full marriage equality.  They are willing to give a little bit.  In this, they differ from their leaders quite dramatically

The church always demands that government make accommodations to its beliefs, but is there nothing here the church can give on as well?  Is the church’s notion of fairness only a one-way street?

Former two-term governor of New Mexico Gary Johnson is reported to be ready to bolt the GOP and seek the Libertarian Party nomination for president, which would put him on the ballot in all 50 states. Johnson recently declared his support for marriage equality.

Political consultant Roger Stone believes that Johnson could have a bigger impact than many expect, writing that “Americans are about to discover Governor Gary Johnson and his Freedom Agenda. They are going to like what they find.”

If, say, Romney were to lose to Obama by a smaller percentage than Johnson’s vote, might that be a wake-up call to the Republicans?

In response to a gay Iowan. If only Obama’s administration wasn’t a rolling disaster I would.

But I’m hoping Ron Paul knocks Gingrich for a loop in the state—and it could happen. Not that Paul would ever get his party’s nomination, but to see an opponent of the anti-gay federal marriage amendment (he called it “a very bad idea”) and a supporter of gays serving in the military win the GOP caucuses in heavily evangelical Iowa would be a good sign.

Added. The Washington Blade reminds us that:

[Paul] voted on two separate occasions in 2004 and 2006 against a Federal Marriage Amendment that would have banned same-sex marriage throughout the country. Paul was among the five Republicans who voted for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal on the House floor in May even before the Pentagon released its report in November 2010.

Paul certainly takes positions I don’t agree with; my point is that his record on gay issues is (by GOP standards) well above average, and it would be good, in that regard, if he bested Gingrich and the rest who would pervert government to deny us equality under the law.

More. Some Republican blogs and GOProud (and even Log Cabin) are defending Gingrich and noting that he was responding specifically about gay marriage (and why supporters of gay marriage should or shouldn’t vote for him), and that he was not telling gays in general to vote for Obama. There is some truth that this is a somewhat different context, but his defenders are themselves wide of the mark as well.

It’s a bit as if during the 1964 presidential campaign Gingrich had told a black civil rights advocate that if ending segregation and Jim Crow laws were the advocate’s predominant issue, then he should vote for Lyndon Johnson, and the media reported “Gingrich tells blacks to vote for Johnson.” The headline would overreach a bit, but the sentiment that if you think receiving equal treatment under the law is important, don’t vote for me, remains accurate.

At this stage, gay Rebublicans and independents should be supporting GOP candidates who most support our legal equality. Leavings aside (with the rest of the media) former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, of the major candidates Jon Huntsman is the best—a strong fiscal conservative with solid foreign policy experience who supports recognition of civil unions and, if he does better than predicted in New Hampshire, still might emerge as a contender. As noted above, Ron Paul also opposes the federal marriage amendment, unlike Gingrich and Romney.

On “don’t ask,” Gingrich has gone further than Romney (who opposed repeal of “don’t ask” during a war but indicated he’d leave repeal in place), whereas Gingrich said he would reinstate the ban.

So why the support for Newt, who would enshrine second-class status toward gays in the Constitution and federal policy?

Gay men who live in states where same-sex marriage is legal are healthier, have less stress, make fewer doctor visits and have lower healthcare costs, reports USA Today, citing a study published in the American Journal of Public Health, for which the abstract is available online here.

This sort of data is going to be increasingly available and will help show that denying marriage equality has seriously negative repercussions not just for gay people, but in terms of broader social costs as well.

This clip from the last Iowa debate is a good landmark to locate where gay rights are today and where the GOP is in that cell of the country’s public policy matrix.

Mitt Romney is struggling to be a moderate in his party that finds moderation abhorrent. Rick Santorum is proud of his immoderation in general, and his intemperance on gay marriage in particular. He finds Romney squishy, and Chris Wallace uses his privilege as debate questioner to make Romney squirm on Santorum’s behalf.

Squirm he does. Romney says he is “firmly in support of people not being discriminated against based upon their sexual orientation.” But without pause or turn signal, he continues: “At the same time, I oppose same-sex marriage. That has been my position from the beginning.”

Romney’s dilemma is that he really has supported gay equality, and may still. He invokes a member of his Massachusetts administration’s cabinet who was gay, to buttress his fair mindedness. But he distinguishes gay equality from same-sex marriage. That’s not a matter of equality, it’s . . . well, something else.

Santorum doesn’t have that nuance to worry about. While he, too claims not to discriminate based on sexual orientation, he isn’t weighed down in the debates by a need to appeal to voters who worry much about the gays.

Clearly, there was a time – and to many Americans we’re still in it – when to say you were both for gay equality and against same-sex marriage were consistent, or at least could coexist without much cognitive dissonance. Lesbians and gay men deserve to be treated the same as everyone else, they just can’t get married to one another. However, they can marry someone who’s of the opposite sex.

The inherent contradiction in those thoughts is now apparent to a large and growing number of Americans. How on earth is it equal that homosexuals should have all the rights of heterosexuals except the one that goes to the core of actually being homosexual – the right to marry someone you love who, because you are homosexual, will be the same sex as you?

Romney is caught in that contradiction, and that is his tragedy this year. Equality under the law is not divisible in this way, and the dwindling number of people who insist on the rhetoric of equality without the substance look more and more preposterous with each passing year.  As a party, the Democrats have finally accepted this cultural change, and few of their candidates will be dogged by it.

Santorum’s tragedy is longer-term and more lasting. He has thrown himself in with the crowd that doesn’t mind contradicting itself openly and proudly – so much so that they have worked hard and frozen into place, in state constitutions, second-class status for same-sex couples, a status they refuse to view as unequal. They got in right under the wire on that, but no one can freeze politics in place. The GOP will continue to have Santorums, but it shouldn’t be surprising, by the time 2016 rolls around, to see them doing the squirming over what it means to have equal rights.

With the Labor Prime Minister staunchly opposing marriage equality, it’s a bit topsy-turvey down under. James Peron writes at the Huffington Post:

Recently, Australia’s ruling Labor Party has been fighting off an attempt to legalize same-sex marriage. The problem was that rank-and-file members, and most voters, support marriage equality, while left-wing Prime Minister Julia Gillard does not. She is quite adamant in her opposition. …

While the opposition coalition in parliament—an alliance of the Liberal Party and the National Party—is supposed to vote against the measure, there is hope. Canadian Melody Ayres-Griffiths, who married her Australian wife in Canada but now lives in Australia, has written that opposition Liberal MPs may still come to the rescue.

She observes that many of the people within the opposition coalition are fiscally conservative, socially liberal libertarians. “These libertarians — some of whom are very powerful inside the Liberal party — may force Tony Abbott [Leader of the Opposition] to allow his MPs to hold a conscience vote of their own,” she writes. This would mean that opposition MPs could support marriage equality, making up for lost votes from Labor’s conscience vote — a repeat of what happened in New York.

New York’s gay marriage legislation faced some staunch Democratic opponents who are fundamentalist Christians. However, some wealthy Republicans, who were more libertarian than conservative, came to the rescue and ponied up big bucks to push for equality.

The lesson is that relying solely on the party of the left, there and here, is not a particularly good strategy.