IGF CultureWatch

Seven years ago today, on May 17, 2004, same-sex couples began marrying in Massachusetts. The onslaught of happy homosexuals has not harmed marriage in that state, which still has the lowest divorce rate in the nation. It has simply made marriage available to more families, a benefit to them and their communities.

Yet the campaign to protect some abstract, fall-from-the-sky, untouched-by-human-hands, changeless thing called “the institution of marriage” grinds on—now in the form of a proposed amendment to the Minnesota constitution that would define it as the union of one man and one woman. The debate in the state senate last week avoided hysterical rhetoric about dirty, subhuman homosexuals poisoning the minds of our children with their evil ways. Absent were the usual arguments about the One Great Purpose of Marriage: responsible procreation. Gone was the familiar but baseless charge that married gay couples would force themselves on helpless God-fearing people and churches. Silent were the protestations that Heather would be taught she could have two mommies. In fact, all of the substantive arguments against same-sex marriage were slighted in favor of process-based concerns that robed tyrants will decide the issue and that the people should get to vote on it.

When a state senator proposed to restrict court power over the issue, amendment supporters said that wasn’t good enough because it wouldn’t let people vote on the definition itself. When the amendment’s sponsor was asked what, precisely, the people would accomplish by voting on the definition, he could not think of anything substantive. In other words, the amendment would protect marriage but not marriages.  It was a rare moment of clarity and honesty in the gay-marriage debate.  Watch for yourself:

“It’ll do nothing to help you with your marriage.”

The state senate paid no heed, passing the proposed amendment, 38-27. It now goes to the state house of representatives. If it wins there, it will go to the voters in the November 2012 election where they will be implored, apparently, to achieve nothing.

I think Stephen Miller might be letting partisanship eclipse his more characteristic common sense, similar to the way the partisanship of Nicholas Confessore and Michael Barbaro short circuits their ability to put together a reasonable thought for their article in the NYTimes.  (And I apologize to Stephen for the unkind comparison, but friends don’t let friends rely too uncritically on the NYT).  Any focus on liberals or Democrats misses the most important point of this story.

The heart of the problem for both Stephen and the NYT is the glaring use of the word “unexpected” in the article’s lede:

As gay rights advocates intensify their campaign to legalize same-sex marriage in New York, the bulk of their money is coming from an unexpected source: a group of conservative financiers and wealthy donors to the Republican Party, most of whom are known for bankrolling right-leaning candidates and causes.

In New York’s incestuous thinking, it probably is unexpected that conservative financiers would want to spend money supporting same-sex marriage.  That, after all, comes right out of the dominant theology of the left – that donors to the Republican party actually want what the religious right says they ought to want.

But while the religious right and those wealthy donors share a party, they do not share an ideology, or much of anything else.  Responsible, thoughtful and strategic members of the national GOP have a long-term interest in ridding the party of the toxic influence that Ronald Reagan first brought in, the first George Bush tolerated, and the second Bush encouraged in the most cynical and malignant way.  John McCain was the most recent, high profile victim of this political perversion, but he will not be the last.  And there are a lot of people who want out of this dead-end.

It will be no easy task to deliver the GOP from this brand of political illiterates.  They cannot be expelled from the party just as cancer can’t be expelled from the body.  The treatment will be long and painful.  Fortunately, there is no shortage of political donors who have no interest in killing their party, but want to be rid of these troublesome priests.

Same-sex marriage in a state like New York is one of the openings they have to help break the ice.  They need to enable moderate members of their party to dislodge themselves from the stigma of religious fundamentalism, so they can focus on the economic issues that are paramount for their party and for the nation.  More important, they need to send that message to voters.  After a decade and a half of ODing on the crack of homophobia, the GOP has found itself with the reputation for treating fiscal issues with the same casual political cynicism that they have had to feign on marriage and other culture war skirmishes.

No one who takes real politics seriously – the kind that actual, savvy, politicians of good will practice every day out of the tawdry spotlights of the political press – would or should be surprised by this move.  It shows no more than that “conservative financiers and wealthy donors to the Republican Party” (as the NYT would have it) possess the normal level of self-interest that can be expected from any political faction, and that sometimes that self-interest has beneficial effects on the body politic.

I’m generally no fan of the way too smug Jon Stewart and his Daily Show, but this segment about gay life in San Francisco vs. Minneapolis actually hits on a real truth about how most of us live vs. what some still like to promote as gay identity.

The New York Times reports:

As gay rights advocates intensify their campaign to legalize same-sex marriage in New York, the bulk of their money is coming from an unexpected source: a group of conservative financiers and wealthy donors to the Republican Party, most of whom are known for bankrolling right-leaning candidates and causes. . . .

The donations are financing an intensive campaign of television advertisements and grass-roots activism coordinated by New Yorkers United for Marriage, a group of same-sex marriage advocates. . . . The newly recruited donors argue that permitting same-sex marriage is consistent with conservative principles of personal liberty and small government.

More. Apparently, some are too young to get the allusion.

I hope people aren’t missing the point of Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill, which is back before that country’s Parliament.  The debate in America has focused on the bill’s death penalty provision, which is, by any measure, a horrifying use of naked governmental power in the 21st Century.

But does that  imply that replacing death with some lesser punishment would make the bill better?  I’m afraid this report from the indispensable Jim Burroway, leaves that impression.

It is not the death penalty that makes this bill intolerable.  It is the bill’s entire premise.  Its title is “The Anti-Homosexuality Bill.”  Its purpose is to use the force of government to prohibit “. . . any form of sexual relations between persons of the same sex; and [ ] the promotion or recognition of such sexual relations in public institutions and other places.”

Whatever your thoughts about the proper role of government, this aggressive, punitive and ignorant bill is a corruption and an abuse.  Even with no death penalty, the bill sends the same message: lesbians and gay men are not only anathema, they must be removed from the body politic.  They are not to be tolerated.

We shouldn’t let the presence of the death penalty in the bill blind us to that far more important fact.  Otherwise, our arguments against the bill could turn against us, and we could wind up with an amended version intended to satisfy our expressed concern.  There is no version of this bill that is acceptable.

To the casual observer, the American Values Network (AVN) seems like a conservative Christian (some like to say “Christianists”) group. It’s currently involved in a campaign to attack the late novelist Ayn Rand as an “anti-Christian” atheist. That’s notable because, in addition to being an atheist, Rand was a leading proponent of free-market capitalism and limited government, and many of today’s leading conservatives, such as Rep. Paul Ryan, have cited her influence on their thought.

According to a press release from AVN:

Rand not only rejected Christ, but she condemned all those who believed in him and said his teachings were evil,” said Eric Sapp, Executive Director, American Values Network. “People of faith need to know what Ayn Rand believed and who her acolytes are in Washington so they can see how her teachings are being applied in government. Ayn Rand’s America is not one that good and decent people would want for their children.”

It notes that a memo from AVN provides:

a collection of Ayn Rand’s own teaching and statements about what the goals and purpose of her morality and thinking were—goals that stand in absolute contrast to Judeo-Christian morality and explicitly condemn the teachings of Christ. It also includes numerous quotes by Republican leaders and conservative pundits praising her, as well as Scripture references for the Bible’s teaching on the various subjects she addresses.

So, an internecine battle on the right? Not exactly. It turns out that the American Values Network is a Democratic front group. The head of AVN is a former Hillary/Pelosi staffer. Its National Advisory Committee includes Kathleen Kennedy Townsend and other Democrats. It’s their attempt to sow dissension “on the right” by setting the GOP’s socially conservative base against the limited government libertarians. And in doing so, they’re taking the side of “Judeo-Christian morality.” Nice work, eh.

Ron Paul, the Republican House member and presidential candidate, seems as clear as mud on the Defense of Marriage Act. Here’s what he had to say about it in last week’s Republican debate:

PAUL: I think the government should just be out of [marriage]…. But if we want to have something to say about marriage, it should be at the state level and not at the federal government.

SHANNON BREAM (Fox News): All right. Given that answer, I have to ask you about your defense of the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between one man and one woman. Even just weeks ago, you criticized this administration for its decision to no longer defend it against legal challenges.

PAUL: And — and the main reason there is, the Defense of Marriage Act — and I’ve been quoted as I voted for it. Of course, I supported it, but I wasn’t there. But because that bill actually protects the states — see, I do recognize that the federal government shouldn’t tell the states what to do. And the Defense of Marriage Act was really designed to make sure that the — that the states have the privilege of dealing with it and the federal government can’t impose their standards on them.

As Jim Cook, among others, points out, DOMA has two parts. One lets the states go their separate ways on marriage. That’s consistent with federalism and with Paul’s stated position — and it’s the part of DOMA that is not under legal challenge.

The second part of DOMA establishes a separate federal definition of marriage as between a man and a woman, regardless of what states may say: a frontal assault on Paul’s stated federalism. This is the portion of DOMA which is under court challenge, and it’s the part President Obama says he can’t, in good conscience, defend.

I guess we can’t expect a Republican presidential candidate to come out and say he agrees with President Obama and Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders about DOMA (or anything else). But the implication of Paul’s position is that he does agree with them—but he’s going to try not to admit it.

If the GOP strategy in 2004 was to impale Democrats on gay marriage, in 2012 the Republicans’ priority is to avoid being pinned down on it themselves. Paul exemplifies the evasions they’ll try to use. How about we all ask him, and other Republican candidates, about DOMA at every opportunity. Smoke ’em out.

A very nice profile of Redondo Beach, Calif., mayor Mike Gin, who is running for Congress, via the Washington Blade. The openly gay Republican would be the first person in a same-sex marriage elected to Congress if he wins:

“Certainly, we all need role models, and being gay and being married is just a part of who I am,” Gin said. “If somehow my election would provide some inspiration or maybe help a young person that’s very conflicted about being gay, then I think that’s a wonderful thing.”

An all-party primary is set for May 17.

Among the bills that Gin said he’ll support: the Uniting American Families Act, which would allow gay Americans to sponsor their foreign partners for residency in the United States, and repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage.

Gin has been endorsed by 10 current or former mayors in the South Bay of California and the Redondo Beach Chamber of Commerce. He is running with the vigorous support of Log Cabin Republicans, but (as I posted earlier), Equality California is trumpeting its support for Gin’s very left-liberal, straight Democratic opponent, naturally. Gin also is seeking support from the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund, which to date (and to its continuing discredit) has failed to endorse him.

Replying to my recent post criticizing the (counterproductive, imho) attack on King & Spalding (“A Victory We Could Do Without”), my friend and fellow IGF blogger David Link says, “I’m just not buying it.” His thinking is exemplary—but exemplary, unfortunately, of the kind of thinking that plays into the other side’s hands.

David’s suggestion that I’m saying anything like “Never play hardball” is a straw man. What I did say is that, when we do play hardball, “we had better be accomplishing something worth the PR cost” of bolstering the other side’s “gay bullies” narrative. If David can tell me what the K&S stunt accomplished, other than moving Paul Clement to a smaller law firm and drawing a condemnation of our side’s “bullying tactics” from the pro-gay Washington Post (this is not helpful!), I’ll reconsider my position.

Of course the other side plays hardball whether we do or not. Of course the other side will call us bullies no matter what we do. That’s the point: they are baiting us.  I’ve said it once, twice, a thousand times, and it’s still true: the point isn’t to win over Maggie G. or to expect reciprocity from the Family Research Council, it’s to retain our superior moral credibility—which is our most precious strategic asset—with moderates, who will decide the outcome.

David is right about one thing: there’s no military command structure in the gay-rights movement. We can’t count on everybody, or anybody, to show restraint. But we can hope for subtle, supple leadership, which HRC and others certainly didn’t show in this case. I fear, though, that if I can’t talk even someone of David’s sensitivity out of a damn-the-torpedoes, tit-for-tat approach, we don’t have much chance of evading the trap Maggie et al. are setting for us.