IGF CultureWatch

Richmond Times-Dispatch columnist A. Barton Hinkle opines:

Although the positions look hypocritical, they have a certain convenient logic: Gay-rights groups will support whatever they deem good for the cause of gay rights, and religious conservatives will oppose the same, and each will take whatever position on any other issue best serves that end at any given moment. There’s a lot of that going around.

Not sure his analogy quite works in this instance, but it’s true that double standards are frequently evident among many activists groups, on both sides of the spectrum. Just one example: feminist groups that sue all-male associations but have no problem with women-only entities (including health clubs, for instance).

Just because it’s June, a classic from the Onion: Gay-Pride Parade Sets Mainstream Acceptance of Gays Back 50 Years.

Yes, much gay activism has advanced our right to equality—and much activism has been corrupted by mindless leftwing dogmatism, ‘diversity’ authoritarianism, antinomian sexual exhibitionism, or hijacked by partisan subservience. I’m just saying…

Maybe the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation needs to focus more. From recent press releases:

On the AT&T/T-Mobile Merger:

This morning reports ran regarding GLAAD’s position on a merger between AT&T and T-Mobile and put forth false accusations that GLAAD is unable to effectively work with media entities that we also receive corporate sponsorships from. It was also wrongly reported that GLAAD endorses AT&T’s position on net neutrality. GLAAD does not endorse AT&T’s position. GLAAD believes that equal, fair and universal access to the internet is vital to our community and to our national dialogue. . . .Groups as diverse as the AFL-CIO, the American Federation of Teachers, LULAC, the National Council for Negro Women and the National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce have spoken out in support of the AT&T/T-Mobile merger. . .

AT&T, Time Warner cable Pull Advertising from
‘José Luis Sin Censura’

GLAAD and NHMC first filed an FCC complaint against “José Luis Sin Censura,” distributed by Liberman Broadcasting, earlier this year. … The program frequently feature blatant nudity and female guests have been shown in violent fights.

Ok, this particular show also, per GLAAD, features anti-gay language and incitements. But an FCC complaint seeking government action rather than public pressure?

More. GLAAD writes to the FCC: “We salute President Obama’s vision of an America in which everyone has high-speed access capable of meeting the demands of distance learning and telehealth programs.”

GLAAD’s current president, Jarrett Tomás Barrios, is a former Democratic state senator from Massachusetts. Maybe he should have stayed in politics. … Oh, he has.

Furthermore. Criticism is coming from the left as well. Activist/blogger Michael Petrelis questions whether Joe Jervis should return his GLAAD award and writes: “My understanding of this latest GLAAD controversy is that the Astroturf, slaves to its corporate sponsors and Democratic Party friendly organization is again using its resources for highly questionable advocacy.”

More still. From The Stranger, “What the Hell Is Going on at GLAAD?“

Update. Jarrett Barrios has resigned as President of GLAAD.

Updated several times since original post; keep scrolling down.

It’s no surprise that the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest LGBT fundraising pac, would endorse Barack Obama’s re-election. There’s no doubt that he’ll be far better on LGBT issues than anyone whom the GOP eventually nominates. But what would an LGBT pac that didn’t function solely as a fundraising arm of the Democratic party (or any party) look like? That is, a pac that sought to move both parties in a vigorously gay-supportive direction, even by setting them against each other where possible (and in some jurisdictions, it is)?

Well, such a pac might still endorse Obama in May for the Democratic nomination, but it might also endorse, say, former two-term New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson for the GOP nomination. And it might take note that Johnson supports recognition of gay civil unions and repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” — in marked distinction to, say, Tim Pawlenty and Mitt Romney.

Will Johnson be the GOP nominee? He’s clearly a very long shot. But a popular former two-term governor isn’t exactly beyond the realm of possibility, either. And at least a GOP primary endorsement would have made a statement that recognizes the achievement of gay equality needs both parties to come onboard, so it becomes the American (and not just the liberal) consensus.

Related. Gay Patriot points out that the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) has awarded its best blog distinction to Joe Jervis, a blogger who likes to compare gay conservatives to Nazi collaborators (e.g., calling GOProud, which broke the barrier against openly gay groups at the Conservative Political Action Conference, “kapo bootlickers”). Nice, eh.

More. Jon Huntsman, former governor of Utah and former U.S. ambassador to China, is weighing a run for the GOP nomination. He also is on record favoring recognition of gay civil unions. The GOP is not all of apiece, and support for those who support us would yield a more gay-friendly party. But that’s not in the interest of Democratic party power-bearers, is it.

Furthermore. Lots of heavy partisanship in the comments, as usual. I think commenter “Another Steve” has an interesting perspective:

what if HRC had remained the nonpartisan organization it was founded to be? In the 80s, it often endorsed GOP congressional candidates and stayed out of the presidential race entirely in order not to be seen as partisan. But after the liberal firestorm following the reelection endorsement for GOP Sen. Al D’Amato (who supported ENDA and letting gays serve in the military) against a liberal Democrat, the funders laid down the law — HRC was to be an adjunct of the DNC, period.

The backlash to the D’Amato endorsement (over Chuck Schumer!) was a factor, but control over the LGBT movement by Democratic party operatives has been a long march.

Still more. From the Washington Blade, a comment from John Aravosis of AmericaBlog:

“While I’m sure HRC will claim they got lots of juicy promises in exchange for the endorsement, everyone else learned a long time ago that the president is unlikely to keep his promises unless you get in his face, and HRC will never get in his face,” Aravosis said. “So the promises are meaningless, and thus the president got HRC’s endorsement for nothing, and now won’t have to do anything for the next two years to truly earn that endorsement. I’m sure it nails down the president for the next HRC dinner, but that really shouldn’t be the goal here.”

Added Log Cabin Republican head R. Clarke Cooper:

By prostrating themselves before Barack Obama eighteen months before the 2012 election, the Human Rights Campaign has effectively told the president that he doesn’t have to do anything more to earn gay and lesbian votes,” Cooper said. “Given his lackluster record in the fight for ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repeal, LGBT Americans were counting on HRC to hold the president’s feet to the fire on his other campaign promises, not to become a branch of his re-election campaign.”

Cooper further criticized HRC by saying the endorsement sends “the wrong message” to potential Republican presidential nominees who may want to reach out to the LGBT community. “There are several possible candidates who deserve to be fairly judged on their own merits, and the dialogue on equality issues for the 2012 campaign has barely begun,” Cooper said. “This decision makes it clear that Joe Solmonese’s greatest priority is an invitation to drinks at a Democratic White House, not securing votes for ENDA, DOMA repeal or tax equity. Such a pre-emptive endorsement is a mistake and will undermine equality efforts.”

There’s a tsunami, and it isn’t in Japan.

I’ve been blogging for a few months on a series of polls showing increases in support for gay marriage and gay equality. (Here…and here…and here.) They all point in the same direction, and they show such rapid change that, especially at first, I was cautious about taking them at face value, especially when they found majorities for same-sex marriage.

Now comes yet another. And it is as stunning as the others. This is from Gallup, which has asked for years whether gay and lesbian relations are “morally acceptable” or “morally wrong.” In my opinion, this is the single most important polling question on gay rights, because moral disapproval lies at the heart of anti-gay discrimination and animus. As I argued here, when moral disapproval falls below a certain critical mass, the whole superstructure of discrimination will eventually topple with it.

So…in 2011, 56 percent say gay relations are morally acceptable, up four points since just a year ago, and up seven points from just a year before that. Disapproval is down to 39 percent, just over a third of the public. As Gallup’s chart shows, in the past ten years the approval/disapproval contingents have traded places. In other words, our side is where their side was just a decade ago!

And, no, it’s not a fluke. Pew has 58 percent saying that homosexuality should be accepted by society.

Gallup headlines another result (same survey), which strikes me as less important but still interesting: 64 percent say gay or lesbian relations between consenting adults should be legal, the highest in the 30 years since the question was first asked.

Political polls bob up and down, but never in my career of covering politics and society have I seen such rapid movement of public opinion on a core social values. But I think one must bow before the accumulating evidence and say this: we are at a Berlin Wall moment in gay-straight relations. Right now.

We’ve won. It’s all over but the shouting. Now, there will be a lot of shouting, and some of it will matter. But there will be no going back. History has happened.

More: But…an important cautionary note from Steve Chapman in the Chicago Tribune. Change in public opinion does not mean the Republicans change their steadfast opposition any time soon. Money quote:

In fact, there is every reason to think that for the foreseeable future, the GOP will continue to reject gay rights — and there are ample grounds, alas, to think it can do so without any real political penalty.

In light of Jon Rauch’s post on the Gallup Poll, I’d like to revisit something we’ve been debating.  I think the issue can fairly be described as the tone of the more unrestrained voices on our side.

Jon has been concerned that the rhetoric of hate “plays into the other side’s hands.”   Maggie Gallagher has been whipping this horse for all its worth, trying to paint herself as the victim of hateful gays.  With the able assistance of California’s Frank Schubert, she has pulled off a couple of miraculous electoral victories.  Jon doesn’t want us to provide any more fuel to that fire.

In light of that, we shouldn’t overread the Gallup results.  We know that in any particular state at any particular time there is a cushion of residual prejudice marriage opponents can take comfort in.  The older voters who grew up ignorant of homosexuality still vote in far greater numbers than the younger voters who are the staunchest supporters of equality.  There is still a gap between the polling numbers and the polling places.

But as Jon notes, support in the Gallup poll has increased at a stunning pace, and Gallup isn’t alone.

This has happened despite the right’s drumbeat cries of victimization.  Why?

I think it’s because the plea was always so implausible and rickety, and it isn’t getting any sturdier.  Within the ephemeral media, each true anecdote can breathe for a day or two, and then wisps away.  In the non-mediated world where real people live, the notion that it is our opponents who are suffering is losing what tenuous hold it ever had.  We’re gaining supporters because we are the ones who have something real to endure, and that is no longer escaping peoples’ notice.  More and more Americans see our frustration and anger as justified, and while that isn’t a reason to encourage hatefulness, it can make some level of outrage comprehensible.

That was highlighted yesterday in the Minnesota House, where homophobic preacher-manque Bradlee Dean was invited to offer the opening prayer at a session where the anti-gay constitutional amendment was expected to come up.  Dean took advantage of the opportunity to make a crass political speech that only tangentially invoked “Father God.”  The speech, itself, was not explicitly anti-gay (though Dean did find time to insult the President), but it was so wildly inappropriate that the Speaker was effectively forced to cancel the prayer and re-start the session with a whole new preacher.  I’ve seen a lot of things in legislatures in my time, but this is the first time I’ve seen the need to void the preceding prayer and start over.

There would be few reasons to invite Dean to the Legislature at this moment (he’d never been at that podium before) except for his anti-gay views — a Republican poke in the eye to the Democrats, who are trying to fend off an unnecessary anti-gay amendment to the state constitution.  Dean’s transgression of the normal etiquette was severe enough that the amendment might now be in some trouble.  Needless to say, no one in the Minnesota leadership will own up to having invited Dean.

That is where anti-gay prejudice is now – orphaned, but alive.  Anti-gay Republicans know what Maggie Gallagher knows: Americans are having a harder time with each passing year tolerating this particular brand of intolerance.  She has to struggle every day to make us out as the bad guys when, after all, we are the ones who can’t get married.  Bradlee Dean, Fred Phelps, Bryan Fischer, Bill Donohue – Americans will tolerate these firebrands, but take no pride in associating with them, or the snide insults they trade in.  These are the men who demonstrate that our anger is sometimes justified, and make our equality more legitimate.  I can’t answer for anyone else’s extreme language, but when these are the characters you have to respond to, it’s a little less shocking to people when you become a bit intemperate.

Even to someone fairly jaded about seemingly dramatic poll results, Gallup’s new finding that support for same-sex marriage is now the majority position is breathtaking. The poll finds a huge one-year jump in support, from 44 percent in 2010 to 53 percent this year. If the pollster weren’t Gallup (gold standard), and if The Washington Post/ABC News poll hadn’t come up recently with exactly the same result, I’d suspect this was a fluke. You just don’t normally see attitudes change that much in one year, absent a catalytic event.

Moreover, support for SSM is up among every group: men, women, old, young, etc. Well, every group but one. The only group among which support for SSM hasn’t grown: Republicans. They continue to oppose it by almost three to one.

Though I admire certain aspects of Republicans’ plan to abolish Medicare as we know it, while admiring nothing about Republicans’ posture on homosexuality, on both dimensions what you see is a party increasingly digging itself into isolation, convinced that if if only adheres to the true faith the public will eventually come around.

I’d rather the anti-SSM constitutional amendment didn’t pass in Minnesota; but, if it does, I’ll get some consolation from knowing that the GOP will have shot itself in the foot with a vote that will look very bad, very soon.

Jim Burroway makes a very good point at Box Turtle Bulletin, as “the race to water down Rhode Island’s civil union bill” begins.

Marriage is the only non-negotiable relationship the law recognizes.  Anything less leads to bargaining.

That’s one of the key ways you can tell the difference between a right and things like privileges, desires and the lesser forms of contract the law recognizes.

This seems to be a good point to make to heterosexuals.  They have the luxury of  not having to go to their elected officials (or fellow voters!) to wheel and deal over how the law will respect their marriage.  For lesbians and gay men, I suppose, it’s better to be in a position where we have something to bargain over, rather than having no recognition at all.  That’s progress, but it’s certainly not anything straight people should envy us for.

And, of course, I have to make the obvious point that Jim misses, about California.  We don’t have civil unions here, we have domestic partnerships.  Neither our marriages nor our DPs would get any recognition in Rhode Island at all.  Perhaps they could add in a provision about “domestic partnerships” as well as calling out civil unions.  But, of course, they’d then also have to put a provision on the list for any future state that chooses, in the legislative back-and-forth, to implement some other name.  Yet that’s what they tried to do with the phrase, “substantially similar legal relationship,” and they had to edit that out because marriage is substantially similar, and the whole point is to sidestep that little issue.

This is what it looks like to aspire to equality — vying in the bazaar of the legislative process for whatever you can get.  There are lots of things that are worth this tremendous, muddy, divisive fight.  But heterosexuals should pause, every now and then, to appreciate how nice it is not to have to engage in this battle.