IGF CultureWatch

If the Democrat-controlled Senate follows the lead of its Judiciary Committee with a party line vote to repeal the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), then the GOP-controlled House will certainly not do likewise. Quite the opposite. Too bad Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid didn’t work to move DOMA repeal out of committee when the Democrats controlled both chambers, including the Senate with a filibuster-proof supermajority.

Yes, there’s politics afoot. DOMA repeal has no chance, but a Senate vote would galvanize gay voters—and precisely because it has no chance of being enacted, it won’t unleash a broad reaction against the Democrats in socially conservative swing states, the fear of which kept Reid from moving on DOMA repeal when it actually might have made its way to Obama’s desk. Pretty neat, eh.

The wild card is a potential U.S. Supreme Court ruling, which might at least repeal the DOMA clause prohibiting the federal government from recognizing state-sanctioned same-sex marriages. Such a move would infuriate social conservatives, but it also wouldn’t please a lot of Democratic strategists hoping the issue stays below the radar of swing state voters.

More. Yes, I realize the GOP now could and probably will filibuster repeal in the Senate, but the point still holds. The Democrats only bring it up when it has no chance of actually passing.

From National Journal, Same-Sex Marriage Supporters Looking for Conservative Support:

The Respect for Marriage Act, the bill that would repeal 1996’s DOMA, has little if any chance of passing this Congress, but advocates are hoping to form a wave of support that will eventually lead to the end of DOMA and return the decision on marriage to states. …
The salons are also meant to show conservatives that support gay marriage they are not alone. Getting them to support the issue publicly, though, is another story. “Reaching out to the right, it’s a different animal,” said Nicole Neily, the executive director of the fiscally conservative Independent Women’s Forum and one of the leaders of the third-party salon.

This will be a protracted cultural and political struggle, but it’s good to see that efforts are being made by supporters of marriage equality within the conservative movement. As I’ve often stated, the argument to the right has to be made in the language of the right (individual liberty vs. over-reaching government), and it’s a language that the big-government left just doesn’t speak.

More. Agreeing to talk: A look at an ongoing dialogue between gay marriage advocate Jonathan Rauch and opponent David Blakenhorn.

In a fallen world, even the best ideas are susceptible to corruption. One example is how the “It Gets Better” campaign has degenerated into political posturing. As Sean Cutter writes in the Washington Blade, the series of YouTube videos originally conveyed stories of inspiration to bullied gay kids. But like most everything else, it has become politicized and now we have a endless stream of politicians who know nothing about the experience of distraught gay youth trotted out to score political points. As Cutter writes:

Congressman Jim Moran’s video is uncomfortable to watch because, having no experience to relate to troubled gay teens with, he resorts to talking about how he was a “shy kid” growing up. He looks like he doesn’t know what else to say, and how could he? He never grew up with the broad, institutional persecution that LGBT youth face. But with so many other politicians making similar videos, his office must have felt that it needed to make its own.

Even worse,

Rep. Leonard Lance, who appears in the video, voted against repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Rep. Frank LoBiondo, who says in the video, “There are actions we can take to make things better now,” voted against repeal of DADT and for the Marriage Protection Act, which would prohibit federal courts from hearing cases that involve challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act.

Which may put into perspective the decision by Sen. Scott Brown (who voted for “Don’t Ask” repeal) to forgo making a video despite howls of protest from certain partisan corners.

Kudos to the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund, which is working on behalf of a gay GOP candidate. In Virginia, gay Republican Patrick Forrest, an attorney and former senior official with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, is running for state senate (with Victory Fund and Log Cabin support) against a Democratic opponent whose campaign engaged in homophobic tactics. Of course, that hasn’t stopped LGBT Democratic partisans from protesting the Victory Funds’ apostasy against partisan purity.

Update. Alas, Forrest did not prevail against the incumbent.

Columnist George Will scores some points in his column “Conformity for diversity’s sake,” but his argument gets marred by conservative tics such as conflating sexual orientation with “sexual practices,” as when he writes:

Last year, after a Christian fraternity allegedly expelled a gay undergraduate because of his sexual practices, Vanderbilt redoubled its efforts to make the more than 300 student organizations comply with its “long-standing nondiscrimination policy.” That policy, says a university official, does not allow the Christian Legal Society “to preclude someone from a leadership position based on religious belief.” So an organization formed to express religious beliefs, including the belief that homosexual activity is biblically forbidden, is itself effectively forbidden.

Still, liberals (in the classical sense, at least) should be wary of efforts to limit freedom of association, as Will points out when he quotes former U.S. Supreme Court Justice William Brennan, “the court’s leading liberal of the last half-century,” who said:

“There can be no clearer example of an intrusion into the internal structure or affairs of an association than a regulation that forces the group to accept members it does not desire. Such a regulation may impair the ability of the original members to express only those views that brought them together. Freedom of association therefore plainly presupposes a freedom not to associate.”

Put another way, if gay groups, say, on university campuses, don’t want to have to allow religious conservatives to attend their meetings and selectively quote Scripture at them, they shouldn’t insist that religious conservatives be forced to allow openly gay students to join their clubs. Of course, on today’s campuses, the former would never be tolerated, but demanding the latter reveals the ideological conformism that, as Will points out, underlies much of “diversity” orthodoxy.

Here’s an interesting look at Race, Religion and Same-Sex Marriage, via the New York Times. Writes openly gay columnist Frank Bruni, “the quest to legalize same-sex marriage — now permitted in six states and Washington, D.C. — has met particular resistance from African-Americans.” He notes that black oppositon played a major role in passing the anti-gay-marriage Prop. 8 in California and defeating an attempt to pass marriage equality legislatively in Maryland.

Bruni points out that the Human Rights Campaign has launched a media campaign using video testimonials by black celebrities and civil rights leaders to speak up for marriage equality. That’s certainly fine. Since HRC can’t/won’t work to make inroads among non-Democrats, at least focusing on winning over a large but recalcitrant part of the Democratic coalition makes sense.

Gay troops and veterans are challenging the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in a federal lawsuit. The federal law prohibits the U.S. government from providing numerous benefits to the spouses of gay troops, including health insurance coverage, surviving spouse benefits and the financial stipend for off-base housing. Pentagon policy also prevents gay couples from being allowed to live in on-base military family housing, which gay couples can do in Great Britain and Australia.

This seems like a savvy suit that hits the right cultural buttons, so I hope it goes somewhere.

Marriage equity, of course, remains a political fault line in America, with religious conservatives placing a stranglehold on GOP candidates who know (or should know) that support for a constitutional amendment to outlaw same-sex marriage throughout the U.S. hurts them with independents and socially moderate Republicans. But for the religious right, it’s a litmus test.

Witness the ordeal of Herman Cain. Last week the Washington Blade reported that Cain remarked on “Meet the Press” that “I wouldn’t seek a constitutional ban for same sex marriage, but I am pro-traditional marriage,” and that “Pressed by host David Gregory on whether states should decide the issue for themselves, Cain replied, ‘They would make up their own minds, yes.’”

The Blade also noted that “Earlier this month, Cain told the Huffington Post’s Sam Stein he has no problems with openly gay people serving in the military and wouldn’t seek to reinstate ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ if elected president.”

But just one week after the Blade ran that story, it reported that, after sharp criticism from the right, Cain indicated to the conservative Christian Broadcasting Network that he’d support the amendment because of efforts to undo the Defense of Marriage Act. “I think marriage should be protected at the federal level also,” Cain now said. “I used to believe that it could be just handled by the states…”—apparently just a week earlier.

Via the Los Angeles Times, a column about two lesbian moms pondering whether to allow their 4-year-old son to go “treat or treating” dressed as a princess. The moms seemingly are concerened about imposing gender stereotypes on their son by telling him girls become princesses and boys become princes (or wizards)—and they’ve “posted pictures on Facebook of Luc in a princess dress with a tiara.” But they’re fearful that unenlightened neighbors may say something hurtful:

after all the soul-searching is the very simple message [one of the moms] wants me to share: Remember the tenderness of children’s feelings if you open that door on Halloween and find a boy in a princess dress among the innocent trick-or-treaters.

Sexual orientation and gender identity may be hard wired, but this story raises all sorts of issues (including unanswered questions about whether the boy has any male role-modeling, and whether this is a 4-year-old transgendered person—or a case of gender-studies ideology run amok).

Alas, I tend to agree with the Times commenters who felt airing this “dilemma” in the paper, to be archived (and searchable under the kid’s name) forever, doesn’t seem like responsible parenting, aside from the expected responses charging that this is evidence of what happens without a mom and a dad.

Is it wrong for Democratic volunteers in a local Virginia legislative race to point out to Republican voters that the GOP candidate is openly gay (when his orientation isn’t stated in his campaign bio)? Patrick Forrest is running for the Virginia senate and (as reported in the Washington Blade) is “accusing his Democratic incumbent opponent of engaging in gay-baiting tactics, an assertion supported by an audio recording obtained by the Washington Blade of inflammatory remarks made by a Democratic volunteer.”

The Democrats argue that if Republicans were not homophobic bigots (and racist, and sexist, and all things morally inferior), it wouldn’t matter. But I tend to agree with A. Barton Hinkle of the Richmond Times-Dispatch that what these Democrats are doing is more like reinforcing the hidebound attitudes of certain Republican voters for partisan advantage, and being disingenuous about it to boot.

Strategically, it’s good to have gay Republicans elected to office, where their presence serves to counter their party’s anti-gay sentiments. Democrats, of course, put the interest of their party first. But that doesn’t mean antics like this should get a free ride.

More. The president of the DC chapter of the Log Cabin Republicans weighs in.

IGF CultureWatch contributor Dale Carpenter, blogging over at The Volokh Conspiracy site, takes note of a federal district court ruling that rejected a bid by supporters of an anti-gay marriage ballot initiative in Washington state to keep secret the names of those who signed the petition to get the anti-gay initiative on the ballot. As Dale recounts, the evidence in Washington state was comprised of allegations by initiative supporters that

involved “bothersome” phone calls, and name-calling using words like “homophobe” and “fascist.” A couple of claims involved alleged physical threats, which were reported to police. There were, however, apparently no prosecutions, much less convictions, for actual threats.

As Dales surmises:

The law protects us from violence and threats of violence. But it does not protect us from criticism, even harsh criticism, when we take public positions on public matters. It does not protect us from having our feelings hurt or from having others think poorly of us.

That’s a point that gay-baiting GOP presidential contender Rick Santorum should bear in mind. As The Hill reports:

Rick Santorum criticized a Saturday Night Live skit that poked fun at his anti-gay marriage views and trailing poll numbers as “bullying” in an interview this weekend.

Santorum also said that the gay community had “gone out on a jihad” against him. His comments are not only insulting to those who have actually suffered physical threats and bullying (e.g., gay students), but to victims of actual murderous jihad. What a loser. (And it’s our right to call him one, and his right to take offense—as lame as his offense-taking is.)