IGF CultureWatch

Jon Rauch provides a typically excellent summary of the year in gay marriage, which I highly recommend. For my own part, I find I am focusing more and more, not on our own arguments in favor of marriage equality, but on the slow collapse of coherence among our opponents.

I am particularly fascinated by how much effort those who oppose marriage equality are putting into hiding themselves and their arguments from public scrutiny. The people in Washington state who signed petitions to get their initiative to ban even domestic partnerships on the ballot are demanding no one know their identities, and the National Organization for Marriage continues its crusade to keep the sources of its funding to itself. These do not look, to me, like people who are taking much pride in their cause.

Now the defenders of Prop. 8 in California are trying to prevent the court from televising the trial over whether Prop. 8 violates the U.S. Constitution. Like so many on the anti-gay right these days, they claim that they fear for their lives and livelihoods if they and their arguments are exposed to public scrutiny. Some witnesses say they won't even testify if the trial is televised.

I think it's time for some perspective here. Their melodramatic claims have nothing on the very real history of what lesbians and gay men have faced in order to fight for their rights. When their very existence is made criminal (as ours was), they may deserve a bit more sympathy. When police start harassing them in their daily lives (as they did for decades with gay men in particular), they'll be on to something worth complaining about. And when they can credibly claim they are beaten, maimed and even murdered for their positions (as we are, even today, for simply being homosexual), they might have a respectable position. Until then, there is simply no comparison between the imprisonment, indignity and deaths suffered in the fight for gay equality throughout generations and the few, exaggerated claims made by NOM and their fellow travelers.

People who believe they are right should be willing to own the morality of their cause, even when that means taking very real, sometimes severe risks such as going to jail, or even being killed -- neither of which anyone opposed to gay equality can truthfully claim. That's what lesbians and gay men have had to do to get where we are. Perhaps that's harsh, but I'm having a very hard time seeing how name-calling really counts as a similar sort of abuse, or how risking some loss of government funds equates with actual peril in a way that would justify refusing to air arguments in a public forum like a court of law.

As if our history weren't enough to shame the whining out of our opponents today, try this: The simple act of getting married has resulted in two men facing imprisonment for 14 years, if not more. Their marriage is criminal for violating the laws against "public indecency."

That's in Malawi, of course, but it illustrates an important point. This is how upside-down the debate is. For heterosexuals, marriage provides a level of social and constitutional privacy for their sexual activities. Once married, they are free to conduct their sexual lives as they wish, and it is rude if not illegal to intrude into those actions against their wishes. For same-sex couples, though, the simple act of getting married somehow exposes their sexual conduct in such a way that the ceremony amounts to public indecency -- without any need even to claim there was a sexual act. In Malawi, it seems, we don't even need to have sex to be indecent.

That is the set of mind we are trying to expose, and we need to do that publicly. But our opponents don't want to have a public debate. That leaves me with the distinct impression our opponents are afraid of nothing more than their own illogic. They want and need to hide because their arguments don't hold up. Of course they lack the pride and the drive of our supporters -- they don't have anything to be proud of. The discriminatory laws they are trying to maintain have no real justification; they are supported by nothing more than fear of homosexual couples.

That's a ludicrous thing to be afraid of, so they have to concoct what they think is a more respectable veneer. But, as with other forms of prejudice, in the end they are victims only of their own fevered imaginations.

That doesn't require a court's protective order; it requires some soul searching.

It's easy to focus on the homophobia of Andy Martin's pathetic campaign for the Illinois Senate seat. He claims to have a "solid rumor" that the front-runner, Mark Kirk, is a homosexual, and is demanding that Kirk "tell Republican voters the truth."

But I see something else at work. Martin clearly has both feet planted firmly in a time when a candidate's homosexuality, real or imagined, was a problem among almost all voters. That's not entirely unrealistic. There are still areas of the country with a large majority of voters who cling to outdated notions about homosexuality. More important for Martin's strategy, there are a lot of GOP primary voters who believe such things.

The first problem for Martin is his apparent inability to see that the ground is shifting underneath him. Homosexuality, which used to be a problem is now overshadowed by the problem of open homophobia. The problem he thinks he's responding to is, itself, now seen by a lot of voters as a problem.

Even the Illinois GOP knows that unadorned public homophobia is now more of a problem than a candidate's homosexuality, which is why they had to distance themselves from him. And that is the second, and more important battle that Martin is having. The GOP is still stuck with its own position that homosexuals should be discriminated against in the law; that it is good for society to discriminate. But they have to downplay the natural effect of their policy choices, even as they continue those policies.

I can't say I have much sympathy for the GOP, whose public positions have created the Martins of the world. It's always difficult to watch people struggle with their conflicts, but the GOP can't credibly claim they aren't responsible for Martin's belief that a homophobic attack would get him somewhere in a GOP primary.

But from a broader perspective, it's a bit agonizing to observe the waste of time and effort. As more and more openly lesbian and gay candidates are elected, sometimes by broad majorities, the GOP is depleting its own credibility as its policies continue to raise hopes among people like Andy Martin. He had every right to expect his party would look favorably on his mean-spirited stunt. At least as important, the GOP is tacitly encouraging such attacks, whether or not a GOP candidate is actually homosexual. Whether or not Kirk is gay, the fact is that he is not alone in being subject to rumors like this. Rumors of homosexuality (or of many other things) are not required to be true to be accepted. As long as the GOP believes that homosexuality is, itself, wrong, its candidates will be paraticularly subject to this kind of smear.

This seems to me a good story to sum up the year: complicated emotions, needless harm, yet in the end hope for all concerned.

I don't know anything about rugby, or Gareth Thomas, but his soon-to-be ex-wife's understanding and uplifting statement about their relationship and its end because of his homosexuality distills my own feelings throughout 2009.

It all begins and ends with the closet. But for this anachronistic social convention that is as useful today as a hitching post, Thomas would not have needed to try and convince first himself, and then someone of the opposite sex that he was straight. It is not enough, in this scheme, that we deceive ourselves; heterosexuals, too, have to be equally and everlastingly drawn into the fraud, some of them at the most intimate level.

Lies so close to the core of our human nature cannot hold for long. In earlier times, spouses like Jemma Thomas also knew the truth. Perhaps they expected less of marriage, or were equally caught up in maintaining the charade. The lies we tell ourselves are the ones we have the greatest stake in.

But each of these experiences helps us better see marriage, and better value it. That is what I hope the movement for gay marriage is adding to society as a whole: a reaffirmation of marriage's worth, of love at its best and commitment at its most forthright.

Yes, this is about the law's failure to recognize our relationships, and we have a very direct interest in that. It certainly involves our self-interest.

But who can speak more authoritatively about the value of something than those who do not have it? Of course we want marital equality because the constitution promises us the equal protection of the laws. But marriage is unlike any other constitutional right, because it involves two people, and in the real world one of them is likely to be heterosexual. Whatever heterosexuals think they are encouraging by either denying homosexuality exists, or insisting that homosexuals hide that fact, they are, in fact, doing something they surely do not intend: assuring that some of their own will be deceived, not in some general sense, but every day of their lives, until the predictable revelation. They are, in fact, using the force of law to guarantee that fate for some of their children.

The whole enterprise of gay rights has been to deconstruct this fabric of insincerity. No one is well served, gay or straight, by making us bear false witness against ourselves. In coming out, Gareth Thomas was doing no more than admitting what could no longer be denied; his regret was not for personal wrongdoing, but for the wrongdoing he felt the world demanded of him.

Jemma has the grace and the pragmatism to recognize that while coming out is hard for both of them, it's better than the closet. Like many other prominent wives during the last decade, she has had to endure the same indignity lesbians and gay men do when the truth can no longer be denied. It is these spouses who are our natural allies; who sees more clearly that heterosexuals have a very direct interest in having us be honest with ourselves and with them, and to form relationships based on that honesty?

Despite her own ordeal, she is ready to continue her own needlessly interrupted life, and expresses her continuing love and good wishes to Gareth.

That is a fine note on which to end 2009. Love and good wishes to all of our readers here at IGF as well.

(H/T to Towleroad)

One of the most oppressive burdens gays have to carry in the fight for equality is the permission some heterosexuals give themselves to talk explicitly in public about specific sexual practices some homosexuals may prefer. Any particular sexual act, described in lurid enough detail to a nonparticipant, can be made to sound repellant, particularly to someone who does not share the participants' taste. The Marquis de Sade was not even trying to disgust people in describing his catholic sexual escapades - most all of them heterosexual -- yet remains to this day the brand name for sexual disgust.

Which is why heterosexuals nearly always leave one another's sexual proclivities at the bedroom door. With the exception of frat-boy braggadocio (usually among single men, and usually in private) it is rare to hear public discussion of specific heterosexual acts, from the mundane to the exotic.

But anti-gay heterosexuals (and even some who are neutral) exercise something close to voyeuristic exuberance in peppering discussion of gay civil rights with vulgar and extreme descriptions of sexual acts. In 1991, California's state senator David Knowles set the standard, in an obscene tirade on the Senate floor during debate on a bill that would have done no more than prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. Knowles insisted on describing "the specifics of the lifestyle" in shocking terms that left members speechless, and fearful about whether the publicly broadcast debate would violate obscenity laws. After an uproar in the chamber, Knowles's fellow conservative Republicans had to shout him down.

This is still a preferred tactic in opposing gay equality, both at home and abroad. In our own country, Liberty Counsel's Matt Barber has been quoted (by his anti-gay supporters) reducing homosexual sexual orientation to "one man violently cramming his penis into another man's lower intestine and calling it 'love' " In Uganda, a full-page newspaper ad, headlined "Top Homos In Uganda Named" provides a Sadistic catalogue of the sexual preferences of various homosexuals there.

Of all the inequalities lesbians and gay men have to endure, this one is among the most degrading. No heterosexual would stand for being diminished to the sum of his or her sexual activities, and homosexuals should not be held to a different standard. Without sex, we would all be less than human, but not even a beast is composed only of its carnality.

This obsession among some heterosexuals is more than disrespectful; it is really the only distraction they can come up with to keep us off the subject, which is equal rights under the law. We are having a civil discussion, here, and I don't think it's out of line for us to expect heterosexuals to show us the same courtesy about private matters they enforce and expect among themselves.

The debate over whether AOUSC or OPM should adminster the FEHBP for judicial employees is actually a deep and important one, whether or not we have a DPBOA.

And did I mention this is related to DOMA?

It should be obvious from the profusion of acronyms that I'm talking about federal law. Last January, Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski ruled, in his capacity as an administrator of the federal courts, that the Administrative Office of the United States Courts would violate its own equal employment rules if it denied Karen Golinski, a court employee, health benefits for her lawful same-sex spouse, and directed the AO to provide the benefits. That decision was never appealed to any court or other reviewing body. After the AO processed Golinksi's paperwork under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, the Obama administration's Office of Personnel Management stepped in to put a stop to this blatant disregard of DOMA's unambiguous demand that the federal government must discriminate against same-sex couples.

The statement from Elaine Kaplan, OPM's General Counsel is reasoned and explicitly recognizes that DOMA is both unfair in general, and is even "painful" to court employees like Golinski. That is why (the statement notes) the President supports DOMA's legislative repeal, and in the interim, the Domestic Partner Benefits and Obligations Act. Nevertheless, DOMA is the law.

The administration's stated reluctance to enforce a law it opposes makes it a little harder to view this as a political fight over gay rights; this is a battle over whether the courts are truly independent of the administration when it comes to their own employees, or whether the employees of our constitutionally separate court system are subject to the employment rules applicable to the Executive branch. That is actually a profound argument about the structure of our government, and one whose outcome isn't entirely clear.

But what is clear is that the administration did not need to pick this fight. An uncountable number of administrative issues like this are ignored or neglected or simply never noticed every day. Given government's enormous size and scope in the modern world, administrators have to prioritize their time and efforts.

Consequently, it is no compliment to this administration (and I would single out the Department of Justice, whose judgment the administration is following) that this is the ground they chose to fight on. No one views this as a battle over executive power, and after the Bush administration, it's pretty pathetic that this is the best characterization the administration could hope for. Obama's folks are politically conflicted over how to handle DOMA and gay rights in general, and that weakness is highlighted by the fact that the head of OPM, John Berry, is the highest-ranking openly gay official in the administration.

He is now being held in an undisclosed closet.

UPDATE: It's worse than I'd thought. I assumed Berry was hiding behind the skirts of a heterosexual Elaine Kaplan, but it seems she's openly gay as well. I suppose it's progress that we're in the position where the governmental insults and slights come from our own people, but, as Seth Meyers says so eloquently, "Really?"

You don't have to go far to find examples of our opponents subtly (and sometimes not so subtly) invoking pedophilia and child molestation when they're asked about homosexuality. But you'd be hard pressed to find a more explicit, concise and complete conflation of the two distinct subjects than in this letter from Uganda's Martin Ssempa to Rick Warren about Uganda's Anti-Homosexuality Bill. There are precious few paragraphs that do not explicitly misdescribe the bill's goal in terms of protecting children from rape, and those few fill the gap by repeated use of the word "evil" to describe gays.

The bill's own title does not deter Ssempa from his belief that it is only about child molestation, so I won't bother to suggest that a bill drafted to solve that real problem in no uncertain terms would be unobjectionable, and would meet with almost universal support.

But amidst the comically gymnastic rhetoric, Ssempa stumbles upon something about Rick Warren's own position that is no less true for having been made by a fool. In 2008, Warren supported a Ugandan boycott of the Anglican Lambeth Conference because of the ordination of Gene Robinson as bishop. Warren says Ssempa misquotes him in saying at the time that homosexuality is not a human right; on this, all we know for sure is that both Ssempa and Warren can be disingenuous and/or flexible in stating their positions on homosexuality.

Still, the bigger point is this: Despite some current statements, Warren's personal struggle with the issue has found him saying things that give aid and comfort to the Ssempas of the world and their fellow-traveling bigots. (And yes, I am comfortable concluding that Martin Ssempa falls well within even my own narrow reading of the term "bigot"). Warren cannot be surprised that things he has said and done in the past, including his support for the Lambeth boycott and Proposition 8, could lead people to believe he has the same promiscuously anti-gay position that other prominent church leaders seem so proud to declare.

I am glad Warren has now taken a firm stand against the criminalization of adult, voluntary same-sex relations. He will find, if he takes the time to think about it, that it needs no great leap of logic to see that a love that should not be criminalized might also be worth recognizing - at least if you think committed love is a socially good thing.

But the bigger issue for Warren, I think, is to look hard at the tactics and intent of the people who cite him for his anti-gay support. Warren has distanced himself from Ssempa, but why does Ssempa believe Warren should be at his side? Can he see, in Martin Ssempa, a little bit of what it is we have to fight every day of our lives? I can only hope Warren will understand us a little better now that he, too, is the object of one of our ruthless, amoral enemies.

(H/T, as usual, to Box Turtle Bulletin)

It's not much more than a conversation in a car, but if you think about it, it says a whole lot.

Dennis Prager and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach are driving in Botswana over Thanksgiving, and while the video recorder is on, the subject of same-sex marriage comes up. They have a spirited discussion.

For those who are younger, some perspective: Fifty years ago, such a conversation would have been unthinkable. Not just hard to have, but inconceivable - and not only among heterosexual men, but even among most people who were homosexual themselves. The most visionary of our early supporters could see marriage as a possibility, but in a world where homosexuality was a crime, a sickness and a sin, there were far more important things that needed to be accomplished before marriage moved up the list.

It's hard to emphasize that enough. Fifty years ago, our sheer existence was not even acknowledgeable. Particularly because of the criminal laws, we ran enormous risks even discussing our lives with friendly heterosexuals, much less trying to change the laws that enforced our silence. And good luck, in those days, trying to find friendly heterosexuals.

Now listen to Rabbi Boteach. While we could all probably think of supplemental arguments to back him up (Prager, of course, is not supportive), he is an articulate and feisty advocate, within the strictures of his religious belief.

More important, there does not seem to be anyone in the car who is gay to bring the subject up. While it is our rights that are at stake, and while we are an infinitesimally small minority, our arguments are sound enough, and clear enough that they have penetrated into the nation's conscience. We are not the only ones who understand how fundamentally unfair current law is - or feel we have an interest in changing it.

It is conversations like this that take place out of the public eye, and out of our hearing that are the most important now. As I said earlier, we cannot ever comprise a majority; our equality entirely depends on heterosexuals now. It took us a half century to pave the way for them to have these conversations, but now they are happening everywhere. Not all of them will be well-articulated or even sympathetic. But in light of the silence of generations past, every one of them will be helpful.

(H/T to Good As You)