IGF CultureWatch

A lot has already been written about Joseph Bottum’s essay, “The Things We Share,” and it’s worth the attention it’s received from all sides.  I won’t try to intuit Bottum’s intent, or explicate his reasoning.  The piece speaks for itself, and has a lot to say.

One thread of his thought in particular sticks with me.  He takes time that many people do not to consider the “perceived offense” lesbians and gay men take to the arguments in favor of heterosexual-only marriage, and mentions Bruce Bawer and David Boaz among many who have taken umbrage at things he has written.  The essay was prompted by the deteriorated relationship he had with a gay friend.

Bottum is troubled by this unintended response.  He does not mean to give offense, and I see little reason to doubt that.  He will never be a champion of same-sex marriage, but he doesn’t seem to have a homophobic bone in his body.

So is the offense strictly on us?  Are we being overly sensitive?

I think this question marks the primary disconnect between those who genuinely dislike or fear homosexuality and those who are struggling in good faith with a hard social and moral issue.

And I’d pose the answer as a further question: When it comes to marriage, how could we not take our exclusion personally?  What kind of human beings would we have to be to not experience some level of offense?

You don’t have to have read Jonathan Rauch’s “Denial: My 25 Years Without a Soul” (though you should) to understand how important this is.  Lesbians and gay men are, first of all, human, with all that entails.  Our sexual orientation is fully bound up in our humanity.  When we are treated – or treat ourselves – as if we are heterosexual, one of the most fundamental parts of our entire humanity is distorted, and the corrosive effects compound from that.

If you reduce sex to a biological minimum, then gender is all, and an orientation toward one gender or another is surplussage.  That is the premise upon which our notions of sexual morality have proceeded.  From that foundation, philosophers and theologians have built a structure that assumes a rationale for sex – reproduction – and works backward.  Marriage is not, itself, biological, something we know from observing animals who generally lack our sophisticated rituals and relationships, but have been able to reproduce successfully for all of recorded time.

Animals are not moral creatures, though.  The beneficial effects of biological parents raising their own children are undeniable.  But even the most charitable view of parent-child relationships through history shows that this biological-marital ideal has been erratic and unconstant.  At the very least it has always admitted exceptions.

A morality that does not allow for human inconsistency is no morality at all, it is a command.  The debate over same-sex marriage has often tortured morality into the worst kind of science, where exceptions cannot be tolerated.

This is the moral universe lesbians and gay men find ourselves inhabiting.  Opponents who are the least thoughtful assume that we are heterosexuals gone wrong, are violating a dictate of nature either to be attracted only to members of the opposite sex, or at least to act that way.

Bottum seems to accept that some people truly are homosexual in orientation, a profoundly important position the Catholic Church acknowledges.  And the dilemma he faces is that the only choices offered to us in the current moral map that the church navigates from are ones no heterosexual would find tolerable: a lifetime of chastity, or marriage to someone who holds no sexual attraction.

So what kind of humans would we be if we did not, at a minimum, say that this view of morality is incomplete?  It is a moral vision designed for only one group, assigning homosexuals to a lifetime of immorality by definition, or without any possibility of intimacy, connection, love.  Is this the way morality, or any kind of god, should work?

If we are human at all, of course we would object, even take offense when these are the only options we are offered.  But more to the point, as Americans, our moral universe is also shaped by our nation’s ideals.  The promise of equality is no small part of the things we take for granted – a fact borne out by the strong support of American Catholics who, at a healthy 54%, are among the most accepting of all religious groups of same-sex marriage.

Bottum ultimately accepts that same-sex marriage is succeeding in the public mind (and not just in the U.S.), and worries about the damage the church’s increasingly hostile arguments about civil marriage are doing to its reputation.  That is certainly a matter between him and his church’s leaders.  All I can add, as one of the many who left the church of my birth over exactly this issue, is that I would be less human, and less Catholic if I did not object – sometimes strenuously – to their moral vision of a world that has no place in it for both me and my soul.

On a positive note, libertarian-minded Republican Joe Lhota sounds like he would make an excellent mayor of New York. Via the New York Post:

Joe Lhota calls himself a “new brand of Republican” — in favor of “fiscal discipline” but progressive on social issues: He’s pro-choice on abortion, is fine with same-sex marriage, and is in favor of legalizing marijuana.

Asked when he last smoked pot, he said, “It’s been 40 years. It’s so long ago I can’t remember. I probably had a full head of hair.” But Lhota does recall holding libertarian views when he was just 10 years old. “In 1964, I tried to convince my grandfather, who was active in the New York City firefighters union, to vote for Barry Goldwater over Lyndon Johnson because at the time I thought his approach to limited government was right on,” he recalled.

Lhota is not anti-government—after all, he served as a deputy mayor and also ran the MTA. But, he says, “it’s not the role of government to tell us what to do and what not to do. There’s nothing more offensive to Americans—or New Yorkers in particular.”

He’s the kind of Republican many of us hoped Chris Christie would be, but isn’t.

Lhota is now the GOP frontrunner in the upcoming primaries. It increasingly looks like the Democrats will nominated the most left-leaning candidate in their “colorful” field, Public Advocate Bill de Blasio. The candidacy of openly lesbian City Council Speaker Christine Quinn seems to be fading.

More. Speaking of New Jersey and bad Republicans, GOP Senate candidate Steve Lonegan hits a new low.

Conservative Christians have constitutional rights, too. But not in New Mexico.

A truly appalling, if unanimous, decision by the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled it is illegal for a Taos event photographer to refuse on religious grounds to shoot the commitment ceremony of a same-sex couple.

Elaine Huguenin and her husband, Jonathan, argued they had a free speech and religious right not to shoot the ceremony, which conflicted with their fundamental religious tenets. As the Wall Street Journal‘s Law Blog notes,

The case dates back to 2006 when Vanessa Willock asked the Huguenins to photograph a commitment ceremony that she and her partner were planning to hold in the town of Taos. After getting turned down, the couple accused the company of discrimination in a complaint to the New Mexico Human Rights Commission.

An amicus brief filed on behalf of the Huguenins by the Cato Institute, Prof. Dale Carpenter and Prof. Eugene Volokh had argued that constitutional protections for free speech apply to creative endeavors such as photography, and that:

the taking of wedding photographs, like the writing of a press release or the creation of a dramatic or musical performance, involves many hours of effort and a large range of expressive decisions.

Therefore, requiring a commercial photographer to provide services is different from requiring other services be provided on a nondiscriminatory basis. But to no avail. In New Mexico and increasingly elsewhere, once progressives are empowered, anyone can and will be ordered to dance to their tune.

Back in 2008, I noted of this case:

Aside from the legal merits of violating [Elaine] Huguenin’s liberty, just what do the offended lesbians who brought this action hope to accomplish by forcing Huguenin to work for them? It’s the kind of totalitarian-leaning nastiness in the name of the self-righteous promotion of “equality” that would make Robespierre proud.

I again discussed this case last September, noting George Will’s observation that Vanessa Willock, the lesbian bringing the suit,

could then have said regarding Elane Photography what many same-sex couples have long hoped a tolerant society would say regarding them—“live and let live.” Willock could have hired a photographer with no objections to such events. Instead, Willock and her partner set out to break the Huguenins to the state’s saddle.

I’d now put it this way: Why a gay couple would want to force a photographer to cover their ceremony against his or her will can be explained in one word: animus. Now the bigots will pay!

And thus does a just cause for expanding liberty fall prey to the nasty zealots of forced coercion, smugly congratulating themselves on their triumph.

More. The AP (via NPR’s website) on the “Divide Over Religious Exemptions on Gay Marriage.” Jonathan Rauch is quoted on why moderation should prevail.

Furthermore. I think this comment gets it right. For all those declaring the supremacy of the state over an individual’s religious convictions, and its authority to force behavior that violates religious convictions, shame on you.

And worth repeating. From The Communist Roots of Russian Homophobia:

While it is among the most evil manifestations, Russia’s homophobia is just one symptom of its collectivist and tyrannous history. It acts as a reminder that tolerance does not require secularity so much as a free society where all individuals, regardless of their religion, political beliefs, gender identity or sexual orientation, are allowed to live their lives in peace without state interference.

How many of the LGBT progressives who are (rightly) condemning Putin’s tactics in Russia support, here at home, using the iron fist of the state to force Americans to engage in conduct that violates their religious beliefs?

People who know the workings of conservative intellectual Catholicism tell me it is incredibly significant that Joseph Bottum now supports same-sex marriage. Here’s Bottum’s essay, published online in Commonweal. And here’s the New York Times story.

….By Speaking Truth. Journalist James Kirchick, a friend of this forum, appeared on Russia’s international English-language propaganda channel “RT” and expressed himself about Russia’s anti-gay laws and the Putin government’s violence-promoting crackdown against gay Russians.

And via the Wall Street Journal:

With more and more people speaking out, one wonders what to expect at Sochi. Given the high profile and success of gay activism in the last few years, it’s doubtful the Russians will be able to stage the kind of uplifting spectacle most of us have come to expect from the Olympic games. We may be in for an altogether different kind of fireworks.

More. The Communist Roots of Russian Homophobia:

While it is among the most evil manifestations, Russia’s homophobia is just one symptom of its collectivist and tyrannous history. It acts as a reminder that tolerance does not require secularity so much as a free society where all individuals, regardless of their religion, political beliefs, gender identity or sexual orientation, are allowed to live their lives in peace without state interference.

Furthermore. Sadly, according to many accounts, Putin’s anti-gay campaign has increased his popularity within Russia. Via Hot Air:

[Putin] needed an enemy on which to focus the public’s attention and so he chose gays, partly because he could portray them popularly as a threat to the Russian Orthodox Church and partly because it would allow him to draw a contrast with how gays are treated in the feared and loathed west. Why he didn’t choose Jews as the designated scapegoat instead, as many Russian leaders before him have, I don’t know. Could be that global awareness of anti-semitism as a tool of oppression is now such that no “respectable” fascist outside the Middle East will practice it too overtly. Better to beat on the gays instead, he probably figures, since he can still get international backing from some world leaders on that in public.

A majority of Americans believe taxes and government spending are too high, and a majority now supports marriage equality. Unfortunately, one party tends to favors greater economic but not personal freedom (with exceptions, such as gun-ownership rights), and the other tends to favor greater personal freedom (with exceptions, such as speech deemed to be offensive) but not economic freedom. Is there an opening for libertarianism?

In an answer to this question, David Boaz, the Cato Institute’s executive vice president, engages in a discussion with The Atlantic on “America’s Libertarian Moment.” Among his observations of particular interest to this forum:

I think you’re seeing a growth of self-conscious libertarianism…. [A] majority of Americans think our taxes are too high, a majority of Americans think the federal government spends too much, a majority of Americans think it was a mistake to get into Iraq. A bare majority of Americans now favor gay marriage, a bare majority favor marijuana legalization, a huge majority think there should be a requirement to balance the federal budget….

We would say that the issue of race in college admissions and the issue of equal marriage rights in the DOMA case are both applications of equal protection of the law. We actually had a similar experience 10 years ago, in 2003, when we were the only organization to have filed amicus briefs in support of Lawrence in Lawrence v. Texas [the case that struck down sodomy laws] and Jennifer Gratz in her lawsuit against the University of Michigan [for its affirmative-action policy]. There were a lot of gay-rights and liberal groups on our side in the Lawrence case, and a lot of conservatives on our side with Jennifer Gratz. We felt that we were asking for equal freedom under law for both Gratz and Lawrence….

What should a libertarian candidate be running on? I would say fiscal conservatism and social tolerance. Get the government out of people’s lives. Why do you care who marries someone else? But that’s one thing that Rand Paul can’t run on in a Republican primary. He’s not in favor of marriage equality….

If somebody’s Catholic values inform what they believe, on welfare or marriage or whatever, that’s their business…. And if your best arguments for banning gay marriage are, in fact, religious, then I think you can expect a limited reception in the courts, because the courts want to know what does the Constitution say. They’re not going to care what your religion says….

There will be more libertarian-leaning politicians in Congress, but we’re a long way from being a caucus at this point. What’s more important is what do the Republicans and Democrats who actually get elected want to do. I hope they will recognize that the country wants to move in a more tolerant direction on marriage and marijuana, and that we are overextended financially and need to restrain spending and the entitlement state.

It’s worth reading the whole thing.

More. This benighted Washington Post piece on “libertarian Democrats” reduces libertarianism to opposition toward NSA spying on Americans. No mention of supporting smaller government and lower taxes, or even issues such as school choice. The Post, of course, is the house organ of the Washington establishment, so no wonder our political elite is clueless.

A rightwing group called America’s Survival is deeply worried about Fox News’ new “pro-gay agenda,” says MEDIAite, reporting:

The [group’s] report includes a lengthy section titled “Fox News Joins the Pro-Homosexual Media Bandwagon,” in which the group wrings its hands over how Fox has “increasingly adopted a libertarian brand of ‘conservatism’ that eschews or downplays social issues, especially homosexuality, as too ‘divisive.’” The emergence of this “neutral (or shallow)” coverage of homosexuality has been exacerbated by the “pro-LGBT” advocacy of hosts like [Megyn] Kelly, Bill O’Reilly, and Shepard Smith.

The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation will not be pleased…with Fox News, that is. The last thing GLAAD wants is a conservative-leaning network to come onboard. Last March, you may recall we noted, GLAAD issued a stinging denunciation of Fox News and its anchors for, among other things, paying to attend GLAAD’s annual media awards fundraiser—the nerve!

In a saner, less rabidly partisan LGBT movement, GLAAD would have courted Fox and then taken credit for its turnaround (while noting there is more work to be done). But how would that serve the party?

According to this posting on The Volokh Conspiracy site referencing this article on BuzzFeed regarding how the Social Security Administration (SSA) plans to handle spousal benefits in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Defense of Marriage Act ruling:

the SSA has bucked the trend in other executive agencies of paying benefits to all couples whose marriage was validly celebrated. Instead, the SSA will pay benefits only to a couple whose home state (“domicile”) recognizes their marriage. …

SSA’s decision may well be required by 416(h)(1)(A)(i), and if so it is hard to criticize the administration. But the decision has the unfortunate effect of ensuring that same-sex couples will be married for some federal purposes and not for others.

Left uncertain, according to Volokh’s Will Baude, is whether same-sex couples in domestic partnership states such as New Jersey will be entitled to SSA spousal benefits.

Nevertheless, it’s pretty clear that in a post-DOMA world the federal benefits disparity between states that recognize same-sex marriage and those that don’t is going to make living in a marriage equality state, when practical, much more appealing to gay couples. And those who must remain in non-equal states due to career requirements or the need to care for elderly parents, for instance, will suffer the financial impact—unless and until state laws are changed or the courts rule otherwise.