IGF CultureWatch

I've been thinking about Adam Lambert from a different direction, which I hope provides context that has been missing from this discussion. In a nutshell, we need to consider that Lambert grew up in a generation that wasn't sufficiently schooled in the double standard he is now struggling with.

He was born in 1982. When he was 11, the nation was having its tortured conversation about gay equality with Don't Ask, Don't Tell, followed by the even worse spectacle of the Defense of Marriage Act. While each was a slap in the face to equal rights, the simple fact that kids - that everyone - could hear this very public political discussion reveals how little was left of the closet during Lambert's youth.

Those of us who came of age in the 1960s and 70s (and, it goes without saying, earlier) took the closet for granted - which is why so many of us fought so hard to dismantle it. As a boy growing up in California - and in the theater - Lambert may have simply accepted his sexual orientation, irrespective of public misunderstandings of homosexuality. I certainly don't know this, but Lambert's interview on the CBS Early Show gave me the impression that he truly doesn't see what the fuss is about.

That seems to be characteristic of younger people, and it's an important point of reference. They take it for granted that kissing is an acceptable (and sometimes thrilling) behavior, and don't have a different rule for gays. Those who are agitated by a same-sex kiss, from the Mormon authorities in Salt Lake City to the ABC censors, look as puritan and quaint to them as the folks who put Lucy and Ricky in two different beds.

Grabbing a dancer and shoving him into your crotch is a different matter. Lambert made a game attempt to argue it was spontaneous, and that might be true. Or it might not. But whether that instantaneous move was more like Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" during the Super Bowl or her crotch-grabbing move on the same show Lambert was on, the bottom line is that this kind of thing is a given in popular music and dancing today, across the board. Whether it's local officials trying to prevent kids at school dances from pretty explicit and unambiguous sexual gyrations, or graphic lyrics, or choreography that may be inspired by the Kama Sutra, we live in a world, and at a time, when popular music is a sexual playpen.

Whether that's good or bad, ABC censors and CBS interviewers and all the other fretters and worrywarts who are aflutter (if not a-Twitter) over Lambert give the appearance of inhabiting a nearly vanished world where gay people could be chastised for things straight people do all the time.

Lambert and his generation are reacting rationally to the hallucinations about homosexuality that older generations grew up with and still cling to. Their view is naturally egalitarian; gay people are part of the world. The closet is another risible relic to them, like commercials for cigarettes. They see the double standard for what it is: unnecessary.

Requiring Catholic social service programs to extend benefits to same-sex spouses has become the key rallying point against a same-sex marriage bill being debated by the Washington, D.C., city council. Some jurisdictions that have passed marriage-equality legislation, such as the state of New Hampshire, broadly exempt programs affiliated with religious organizations from recognizing same-sex spouses; the D.C. proposal would not.

The council also rejected an amendment that would have allowed individuals, based on their religious beliefs, to decline to provide services for same-sex weddings.

Much discussion takes the form of denouncing the Neanderthal right for its hidebound bigotry standing in the way of true progress and all things good. That may or may not be accurate, but it's certainly not good politics. Forcing religious affiliates to violate their dogmatic principles gives social conservatives a huge rallying cry, and to many independent non-bigots it appears to be using the state to force behavior that violates personal conscience, and a step too far.

A broad religious exemption might be an affront to "equality" (and there are counter-arguments of a libertarian nature that could be made here), but at the very least it would allow us to advance without courting such intense reaction. Take note that New Hampshire, with its broad religious exemption, is one of the very few jurisdictions in which marriage equality looks like it may have some staying power.

More. The efforts of gay marriage supporters in D.C. are directed at having the council pass the measure and then fighting attempts by opponents to hold a referendum. Right now, should marriage equality come before the voters, it would be expected to lose, as it has lost in every jurisdiction where voters have had their say. Time to re-evaluate the strategy, one might think.

Note: Due to a server issue over Thanksgiving weekend, some posted comments were inadvertently lost. Sorry about that.

I've had music on my mind the last few days, so it makes sense that's what jumped out at me when I heard this radio ad trying to stir up New Jersey voters about same-sex marriage. The agitated, worrisome musical theme kicks in about 20 seconds in, and its tone has pretty clear, recent echoes. It's the same kind of troubling, urgent and grim theme used in the Yes on 1 ads in Maine and the Reject Referendum 71 ads in Washington.

There's nothing new in this. Music is one of the key elements in any kind of advertising or propaganda. But it's still telling. The emotions our religious opponents have to appeal to - the emotions that help them win - are not the fair-minded and positive ones which are the only feelings we have available to work with. We have no agitation or worry or fear to exploit among heterosexuals. They only reasons they would have to vote for our equality involve justice and fairness and an honest understanding of the fact that we aren't so different from them. We can only appeal to what is best in heterosexuals.

The anxiety in the right's music is the anxiety of their movement, and, I am afraid, of their souls.

After a very lively discussion among the IGF commenters about Adam Lambert and politics vs. art, it struck me that we have forgotten about the reason we are having the discussion in the first place: political artists. They're the ones who run the two categories together, and have given some people the impression that art and politics are necessarily interrelated.

I was reminded of that when watching the American Music Awards last night. While Lambert's flamboyant and aggressive performance really did bring "Sexy Back" (with no apologies to Justin Timberlake or anyone else), it was just a performance -- one that involved Lambert kissing one of his male dancers, and making the censors scurry to avoid showing the nation another male dancer simulating oral sex on Lambert. This is the guy Aaron Hicklin thinks is worried about being perceived as too gay.

Lady Gaga gave one hell of a performance as well. But in contrast to Lambert, she is more than happy to take up the flag of gay rights as part of her persona. Most recently, she openly criticized prominent music industry figures whose homophobia and misogyny continue to be a point of pride, and she does it with style and sense.

There's a long line of artists who have been gratifyingly or gratingly political. But there is an equally long line of artists who had no taste for politics. In our highly politicized age, particularly for homosexuals who have to be political in order to obtain our fundamental rights, it may seem to a lot of people that gay artists have the onus of using their talent and fame for the greater purpose of equality.

But art is its own justification. Ironically, Lada Gaga's performance was the less political one. Playing a piano on fire is as pure and striking an image as Magritte's flaming horns - with the added attraction of breaking glass. Lambert's performance was more political, but only because being gay is political; nothing lesbians and gay men do in America can be simply personal, from getting married to joining the military to paying their taxes to burying their partner.

But that doesn't have anything to do with us; it is purely a function of the fact that those who refuse to see us as ordinary citizens insist on having us fight against the status quo in the political process. We engage that battle simply by refusing to deny who we are.

That is a battle Lambert has engaged. But beyond that, it's his call, as it is Lady Gaga's or Kanye West's or that of any other artist. Politics is one available tool to create art. Beauty is another, and the list is unlimited. Only an individual artist can determine which tools work best for him or her.

I confess I am not going to be reading the Manhattan Declaration. I was a Catholic for too many years, and from Timothy Kincaid's description, it looks like there's nothing new in the rhetoric or the justifications. Been there, had my intelligence insulted by that.

But you don't have to read it to see the point. This is the formalization of a new Axis of Homophobia, which begins in the Vatican, runs through Nigeria to pick up the homophobic wing of the Anglican church, and then crosses the Atlantic to plant its flag in the American South.

The only usual suspect missing from the Axis is the Taliban, but they're involved in an actual war, and don't have time for manifestos. The document might seem to exclude them, since it is "A Call of Christian Conscience," but the Taliban do seem to be a good fit. Their conscience is as homophobic as any of these Christians. Maybe next year.

The anti-gay forces are now circling the wagons. As the rest of the civilized world moves past its fevered imaginings about homosexuals, the most intense religious objectors are huddling together for heat. The Catholics, in particular, are feeling particularly vulnerable as the Vatican watches half of its Americans (and God knows how many Europeans and Latin Americans) supporting civil equality for same-sex couples. What's a celibate bunch of fey men to do?

All I can say is I hope they enjoy one another's company. They're certainly not doing much to win over anyone else's.

The House-passed health care bill included one decent provision that would have extended the payroll tax exclusion on employer-provided health benefits that spouses receive to domestic partners. The New York Times described it here. But despite the Senate bill running to an amazing 2,074 pages in which all sorts of social engineering are hidden, with a less-strict abortion-funding ban than in the House bill, there is apparently no provision for remedying the tax inequality faced by gay spouses and partners.

So despite raising taxpayer costs by at least $1 trillion and imposing costs on businesses and individuals of another $1.5 trillion, in its 400,000 words Harry Reid couldn't find a sentence or two for equality under the law.

Yet another fawning Washington Post puff piece on an Obama staffer looks at White House deputy chief of staff Jim Messina, who was formerly chief of staff to Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.).The post relates this bit of history. In Baucus's 2002 senate race:

Messina masterminded a bruising attack ad against Republican state Sen. Mike Taylor, a former hairdresser. The ad featured video footage of Taylor, then decades younger and bearded, setting the hair and massaging the temples of a mustachioed man in a beauty salon chair-with a funky bomp-chic-a-bomp-bomp '70s beat in the background. The spot ends with a frozen frame of Taylor reaching down and out of sight toward the other man's lap. Disapprovingly, a voice-over declares, "Mike Taylor: Not the way we do business here in Montana." ...

Stephanie Schriock [Montana's junior senator Jon Tester's chief of staff] cited the ad as one example of how Baucus has long appreciated and been served by Messina's killer instinct. "Jim was willing to make the hard call to put an ad out there," she said.

Nowhere does reporter Jason Horowitz question the use of overt homophobic stereotypes (regardless of the fact that Taylor wasn't, in fact, gay) to aid the Democrat's cause. But then, neither the politically supplicant media nor LGBT Democratic activists seem to mind pandering and promoting the denigration of gay people when it serves the interests of their party. (Which is to say, if it were a Republican administration, the appointment of a White House deputy chief of staff with this history would have triggered loud protests; under Obama, it's just an amusing anecdote.)