‘Tear Down This Closet!’

Over at Newsweek.com, IGF contributor Jamie Kirchick points out that the appointment, in Germany, of the world's first openly gay foreign minister presents a historic opportunity to embarrass the world's leading homophobes.

After he takes the helm of the Foreign Ministry, [Guido] Westerwelle ought to kick off his tenure with a tour of the world's most homophobic nations, speaking about the horrific ways in which these regimes treat their gay citizens.

Or, failing that, just raising the issue would make a difference. "Hillary Clinton and her predecessors Madeleine Albright and Condoleezza Rice have given great rhetorical and symbolic force to the cause of female equality during their tenures." Let's hope for the same symbolic advocacy from Westerwelle.

Three-fifths of an Argument about DADT

It's hard to know what to say about James Bowman's essay defending the ban on gays in the military. Andrew Sullivan and Isaac Chotiner take the first shots; I'm still speechless.

Here is the heart of Bowman's argument:

Yet if reason were to be readmitted to the debate, we might find something in the history of military honor to justify the principle now enshrined in the law decreeing that "homosexuality is incompatible with military service." We know that soldiering--I mean not training or support or peacekeeping or any of the myriad other things soldiers do, but facing enemy bullets--is inextricably bound up with ideas of masculinity.

Unpacking the centuries of stereotypes, affronts, provocation and plain old cheap shots jammed into these 70 words will take a week or so at least (and there are plenty more insults where these came from), but here's one that should be at the head of the pack, that I hope will be expanded on by the man who first made it, 18 years ago: Kenneth L. Karst.

In his prescient 1991 law review article, "The Pursuit of Manhood and the Desegregation of the Armed Forces" (38 UCLA L.Rev. 499, Feb. 1991), Professor Karst showed how attempts to keep African-Americans out of the military were of a piece with exclusion of both women and gays from the military. Here is his thesis:

Masculinity is traditionally defined around the idea of power; the armed forces are the nation's preeminent symbol of power . . . The symbolism is not a side effect; it is the main point. From the colonial era to the middle of this century, our armed forces have alternately excluded and segregated blacks in the pursuit of manhood, and today's forms of exclusion and segregation are similarly grounded in the symbolism of masculine power.

In a little over 80 pages, Karst demolished the narrow self-interest of those like Bowman who - whether intentionally or not - try to use the military as a means of affirming their own masculinity at the expense of others. The icing on the cake, of course, is that they then can use the lack of such "masculinity" against those they exclude.

It took generations for African-Americans to fully work their way into America's image of power and authority. Women are still trying. Lesbians and gay men have long been there, but only by agreeing to the extortion of lying - implicitly accepting that gay people should not participate in the very thing they are participating in.

I'd like to see Bowman respond to Karst, if he can. But frankly, I don't know if he's man enough.

Liberty for Some!

I just want to add a quick note on Stephen Miller's post. His proposed Liberty Agenda would not only be a proper focus for the Democrats, it would be the more seemly -- and natural -- course for Republicans.

There' s not much that needs saying about The High Price of Being a Gay Couple. It is a flawless diagnosis of a longstanding problem glaringly obvious to anyone who is subject to its unfairness, or is willing to think about it for a minute and a half. Anyone who professes to care about protecting taxpayers - particularly against Democratic excesses - should be able to look at that article and know exactly what needs to be done.

Anyone who was not blinded by hypocrisy.

California's Dan Lungren, for example. He has boldly chosen, not only to support this higher tax burden for homosexuals, but to enshrine it in the U.S. Constitution.

As decent Republicans like David Frum, Steve Schmidt, and even (slowly) John McCain try to figure out a strategy to rescue their party from its absolutists, Lungren is merrily leading the fringe headlong into the 19th Century.

That almost perfect inconsistency between sane fiscal policy and Neanderthal homophobia has now become the hallmark of the Republican party. No wonder the number of people who are willing to take pride in being Republican shrinks by the day.

On the March

There's a big (or maybe not so much) National Equality March on Washington coming up on Oct. 10-11, organized by "grassroots" left-liberal and pro-union LGBT activists. But its main characteristic might be the lack of a clear, focused and achievable demand - I'd nominate pressing the Democratic Congress and president to repeal the provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that prohibit the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages that are legal and valid under state laws. Along those lines, two stories this week caught my eye.

The New York Times looks at The High Price of Being a Gay Couple:

In our worst case, the couple's lifetime cost of being gay was $467,562. But the number fell to $41,196 in the best case for a couple with significantly better health insurance, plus lower taxes and other costs.

From another angle, CNNMoney.com looked at health care costs and included a profile of a gay man married to his partner:

"I've started my own business, so for the time being, we've added me to my spouse's insurance plan.... The good news is that he's got an excellent benefits package, so that doesn't cost us anything extra out-of-pocket.... The bad news is that the Federal government doesn't acknowledge our relationship, so the employer contribution is reported as taxable income....

"I don't believe in socialized health care. I am a very big believer in the free market. I want universal health care through the private sector, through the free market."

Spot on. Marriage equality and the free market - a liberty agenda for real change we could believe in!

The Maine Event

In his initial look at the numbers for Maine's Question 1, Nate Silver raises a fascinating issue. The People's Veto will be ". . . a standalone initiative in an off-year election in which voters will have few other things to consider. What sort of electorate will turn out?"

What a test case for the paradox of the minority in a democracy. The issue of same-sex marriage means a lot to those of us who are homosexual - to some of us, it means the world - but what does it mean to the majority of heterosexuals? What reason, if any, will they have to vote in this election?

Frank Schubert, the go-to guy to run anti-gay marriage campaigns, has pointed out that he faces a challenge from the fact that most heterosexuals haven't had much opportunity to think about same-sex marriage very much. . . and when they do, they don't see much to worry about. That's why Schubert needs to (in his words) "develop" things for heterosexuals to worry about - what he calls "impacts." Or, in the words of his partner, Jeff Flint, their job is to create a doubt and "project the doubt forward" into an imagined -- and very scary -- future.

Schubert and Flint came up with some very effective zombie tales in California and startled enough people to pass Prop. 8. But that was in an election where same-sex marriage was hardly the main subject in most voters' minds. In contrast, Maine's election will focus voters on that one issue.

What, for heterosexuals who support us, will match the passion to vote that we have, with our minuscule numbers? This election, more than any I can think of, will test the potency of sheer justice as a motivator for voters. Our supporters really have nothing else at stake except the naked idea of fairness. They neither win nor lose anything else with their vote. But fairness is a notion that does not even register in the minds of our opponents, aroused into hallucinations of religious persecution and childhood indoctrination. That will be Schubert's get-out-the-vote strategy.

Who will vote in Maine, and why? That will give us an x-ray of American democracy circa 2009.

Yes, Hospitals Really Can Be This Inhumane

Hospital visitation rights for same-sex partners seems an absurdly low bar when it comes to our equality - the very least we could possibly ask -- and it's hard to imagine such small comfort being denied any more.

Which is one reason the court decision in Janice Langbehn's case is so startling. She and her partner, Lisa Pond, took their three children to Miami for a family cruise in February 2007. Pond suffered an aneurism, and was hospitalized in Miami. The hospital did everything it could to prevent Langbehn from having any contact with Pond, and succeeded in keeping them apart until Pond died. Langbehn and Pond had done everything a couple unable to get lawfully married could do to prepare for such an event, including health care proxies. But in a state like Florida where anti-gay prejudice continues to prevail, all the legal preparations in the world don't mean a thing.

According to a press release, the court ruled that "the hospital has neither an obligation to allow their patients' visitors nor any obligation whatsoever to provide their patients' families, healthcare surrogates, or visitors with access to patients in their trauma unit."

As a strictly legal matter, that may be true (the decision can still be appealed). But as a moral matter, it is appalling. Hospitals came into being because of human compassion for illness and suffering. Whatever their legal obligations, preventing a woman from seeing her dying partner until the priest arrives to deliver Last Rites is a level of cruelty that should go down in the annals of depravity. For the record, the hospital is Jackson Memorial ("One of America's finest medical facilities"), a name that should also be recorded for posterity.

Their depravity, though, is reserved only for those of us who are homosexual. That may provide comfort to a subset of heterosexuals. But for the rest of us, this story is beyond horror only because it is true.

Pink, Maybe. But Still Red.

Over the past few years, the government of Cuba has earned praise for an unlikely development: a campaign to improve the status of the island's gays. Standing at the forefront of this effort has been an even unlikelier figure: Mariela Castro Espín, the daughter of Raul Castro, who officially assumed the Cuban presidency last year after his brother Fidel fell ill. The latest entry in this narrative was a largely laudatory profile of Espín in The Advocate, which described her as a "champion" of the island's "gay and transgender community." Espín is director of the Cuban National Center for Sex Education, an organization which, according to its website, promotes "the development of a culture of sexuality that is full, pleasurable, and responsible, as well as to promote the full exercise of sexual rights."

Like most Latin American countries, Cuba has long been marked by regressive policies concerning homosexuality, due largely to a machismo culture that promotes a heroic masculinity portraying gays as weak and ill-suited to positions of leadership, whether in home or government. As Espín herself says, "Homophobia in Cuba is part of what makes you a 'man.'" But while Espín should be praised for her attempt to change Cuban attitudes about homosexuality, her advocacy in this realm ought not disabuse anyone of the fact that she is part and parcel of the architecture of repression that has governed the island for five painful decades.

Whatever pleasant sounding pieties she mouths about the dignity of gay people, Espín is a communist, an appellation that ought carry no less opprobrium today than it did before the fall of the Berlin Wall. In Castro's Cuba it's still 1956, the year Soviet tanks crushed a peaceful democratic uprising in Hungary, one of the Cold War's darkest moments. Cuba remains the most repressive country in the Western hemisphere; Freedom House, the international human rights monitoring organization, lists it as the only "unfree" nation in the region (on a scale of one to seven - seven being the worst - Cuba earns a seven for political rights and six for civil liberties). The time warp is evident in a more literal sense: the few cars you'll see on the streets are decades old, except, of course, the late-model Mercedes that chauffeur around the island's elite.

It may seem strange that, in this day and age, one still has to mount a case against communism, but as long as a prominent member of the family that has ruled Cuba without interruption for 50 years is the subject of a flattering profile in a major publication, the work remains sadly necessary.

As a political system, communism has killed some 100 million people, according to The Black Book of Communism, a number that increases each day the North Korean slave state continues unabated. Castro's Cuba is responsible for a relatively minor portion of those victims, but that's only because "el jefe" has had just a small island's worth of people to oppress, imprison, and murder. And Castro's treatment of gays is particularly notorious: Not long after taking power, his regime herded thousands of gay men into concentration camps for "reeducation," where they were subjected to sexual humiliation and forced labor and were murdered en masse. In 1980, gay Cubans were among the 125,000 people - "scum," in the words of the Cuban government - whom Castro allowed to leave for U.S. shores in the famous Mariel Boatlift. To underscore what he thought of gay people, Castro made sure that an ample number of violent convicts and patients from mental asylums joined the departing masses.

As she related to The Advocate and elsewhere, Espín remains a fervent proponent of the "revolution" which has wreaked so much misery and poverty on Cuba, and she thus carries all of the malicious baggage that such an avowal entails. She says that her uncle is a "brilliant man." Considered the "first lady" of Cuba, she recently told a Russian government-controlled television station that "Cuba will stay socialist after Castro's death." She told The Advocate that, despite her "faith and hopes" in President Barack Obama, "he has shown no real democratic outreach to Cuba." On top of this, she patronized the American people by saying how "proud" she was of the "miracle brought about by" their electing "a young, intelligent black man." If only she cared for democracy and racial tolerance in her own nation, where there has never been an election, and where people of African descent face systematic and rampant discrimination by the government.

Moreover, Espín's activism is largely hype, and mostly the product of people who have a vested interested in putting a pleasant face on a despicable regime. For true believers, Cuba is the last bastion of an utterly discredited political and economic system. But with gay equality now a component of the "progressive" agenda, it has become painfully necessary to portray the Cuban regime as gay-friendly.

Yet it's difficult to point to any tangible benefits that Espín's activism has accrued, other than a decision last year by the Cuban government to dispense free sex-reassignment surgeries. This is a policy of dubious merit that affects an infinitesimally small number of people, and is better understood as a propaganda tool rather than a genuine sign of concern for the plight of gays. This is the sort of thing that's fodder for those who think that our health care system should emulate that of an island prison.

But no matter how genuine or fervent her promotion of gay rights may be, Espín's activism will ultimately go nowhere as long as Cuba remains communist. And that's because homophobia has been intrinsic to communism, which, like all totalitarian ideologies, seeks to perfect mankind, often through violent means. Doctrinaire communists view homosexuality as a bourgeois affliction standing in the way of our "progress" towards a utopian society in which there is no private property, war, or discord and all responsibilities are equally shared. Same-sex attraction is held as an expression of the "false consciousness" that distracts us from the class struggle.

Like Sean Penn, who has also emerged of late as a self-styled advocate for gay rights, Mariela Castro Espín has a serious blind spot. It is the failure, so pervasive and persistent throughout human history, to understand that no political system - regardless of how wonderful in theory or the marvelous claims it makes for itself - can be considered humane as long as it inherently denies fundamental rights like freedom of conscience and speech, the ability to practice religion, vote for one's leaders, and earn a living commensurate with one's talents and abilities.

"Being considered a lesbian would not be an insult to me," Espín told The Advocate. "Being considered corrupt would be." Her first concern is of but prurient interest. As for her second, by proudly embracing a moral stain as a badge of honor, it's far too late. Gay rights are human rights, and if one is not an advocate for human rights, as Mariela Castro is most certainly not, one cannot be an advocate for gay rights, no matter how well disposed toward gay and lesbian people one may be.

Let's posit, for the sake of argument, that Cuban gays truly earned equal rights. No doubt the Cuban regime's apologists would point to its supposedly "progressive" attitude, contrasting it favorably to the Christian yahoos who run the United States. But even if Cuba legalized gay marriage tomorrow - a highly dubious prospect - it would still be a dictatorship. No matter the degree to which the status of homosexuals in Cuba improves under the communist regime, Cuban gays - like Cuban straights - would still be thrown into prison for daring to tell an anti-Castro joke. They still would not be able to organize peaceful demonstrations against government policies, never mind vote in a free election. More fundamentally, they still would not be able to leave the island of their own volition.

What sort of freedom is this?

Disappearing Act

There was an elephant missing from the room during the congressional hearing on ENDA - the opposition.

I don't mean witnesses testifying against the bill; Craig Parshall of the National Religious Broadcasters Association was quite clearly in opposition. Camille Olson, while not so clearly opposed to the bill, made some cogent points about how current language might be too broad.

The absence was most obvious among legislators who oppose ENDA. Of the 19 GOP members on the committee, only three I could count -- John Kline, the ranking member, Todd Russell Platts, and Judy Biggert -- spoke, or even showed up, and the last two are cosponsors of the bill. Kline's opposition was vague and he never said it would be a bad thing to prohibit discrimination against lesbians and gay men; rather, he was concerned about "philosophical and logistical" considerations. Religious groups are now clearly exempted from the bill, and Kline was worried only about "how that exemption will be applied." He never even tried to make a respectable libertarian argument against the bill.

There's no doubt that the GOP will vote en masse against ENDA, so why weren't they at the hearing to articulate their case, or challenge the pro-ENDA witnesses? This is becoming characteristic of the anti-gay movement. They're no less opposed to gay equality in employment, housing, marriage and the military, but they've stopped trying to make arguments publicly.

That's a fairly recent development. Maggie Gallagher, for example, used to be a leading voice willing to debate the anti gay marriage case, but nowadays, it's rare to see her outside of Fox-friendly forums and religious or NOM-sponsored gatherings (these categories may have little distinction).

And it's not just that the right is not talking to the public - they now actively want to keep anyone else from hearing what they say to one another. In early September, Stand For Marriage Maine had a "pro-marriage" rally, and Jeremy at GoodAsYou asked for tickets. SFMM is the group that got Question 1 on the ballot, and you'd think their events would and should be public. But when Bob Emrich discovered Jeremy might not be sufficiently supportive of Emrich's cause, he said no, but offered to send Jeremy a DVD of the proceedings. Needless to say, that promise is still unfulfilled.

In place of arguments and persuasion, the right now hides behind commercials that deploy either fear or deception. To be fair, this tactic can certainly be effective, as we Californians can attest. But when a movement gives up on persuasion and relies only on surrogate strategems like this, perhaps it's safe to assume even they see they're coming to the end of the line. At the very least, it's hard to believe they have any confidence in their own logic.

UPDATE: The original post misidentified one of the Republican members at the hearing.

Self-Help Helps Most

Q. Should I go to this upcoming gay March on Washington?

A. It depends. It seems to me that if you think it will help the cause of gay marriage, or whatever else it is to be about, you might want to go. But if not, why bother. These gay marches on Washington have been steadily losing significance; the last one was a financial fiasco. If you know of any other way to promote marriage equality, it might be better to do that instead of taking the time and money to go to Washington. Of course, it is always fun to see many thousands of gays and lesbians gathered in one place. So if you lived in Baltimore or, say, Philadelphia, go ahead and go. But if you live in Chicago or St. Louis....

Q. Do you support this idea of a gay school being proposed in Chicago?

A. First of all, it isn't to be an all gay or even primarily gay school. Fewer than half of the students are projected to be gay. But the point is that it is an explicitly gay-friendly and supportive environment for gay students, many of whom have been harassed or bullied at their own local school. I cannot see any advantage in keeping them in those schools. Let them go to a place where they can do what students are supposed to do in school-learn. The argument that students should learn to cope with harassment and bullying is a nonstarter. Most of the "real world" of adults is not so hostile or threatening. And the argument that rejecting a gay school will somehow magically force schools to improve on their own is sheer fantasy. It will do nothing of the sort. The absence of a gay-supportive school has had no such effect up to now. What the gay-supportive school might do is be a role model for schools that want to do a little better. No gay school, no role models, no incentive to improve.

Q. You keep going on about how we should try to improve our community. OK, how?

A. Maybe I should do a whole column just on this. But here are a few ideas for a start. There are three aspects to this: self-improvement, public participation, and neighborhood/community improvement. In no particular order. Patronize a gay business. Thank them for being there. Remember the gay community center in your will. Plant flowers in your front yard or in a window box. If you are a male over 50, attend the Prime Timers' book discussion group.

Got the idea? Here's more. Join a sports team. Stop littering-and this includes cigarette butts. Attend the opening of an art show or a local theater performance. Limit the amount you drink at bars-no one likes a drunk-even at bars. Even if you are not religious, go to church. Churches are natural communities and a potential source of friends. Smile. Say "hello" or "morning" or even "How ya doin'" to your neighbors whether they respond or not. Get an HIV test. Floss. Prevent crimes: Stay alert when walking alone at night. Join a neighborhood group. No one is expected to do all of these, but everyone can do some of them.

Q. The recent death of "neo-conservative" Irving Kristol brings to mind the question of why so many conservatives and "neo-conservatives" are anti-gay. Got any thoughts?

A. As Samuel Johnson replied when a woman asked him why he incorrectly defined a word in his great "Dictionary," "Ignorance, Madame, sheer ignorance." I suspect that is the case here. Most conservatives, especially older ones, don't know many or any gay people, or don't know they are gay, and are wholly incurious about our lives and our struggles: They know nothing about us and want to know nothing. Perhaps they fear contamination. They may think it is an unaccountable choice, a fact they would unlearn if they asked just a few questions, of course. Some are following religious proscriptions of early biblical writers-who were just as ignorant about homosexuality as some are today. Yet others may see us as a threat to the family and society-as if more men would be gay if homosexuality wasn't suppressed. Maybe they think everyone is potentially homosexual! But mostly it is unreasoning, just an embedded cultural prejudice.

Rational Stasis

Here are some things we've learned in the last week:

(1) If you are a faithful Mormon, but also gay, one day you can ". . . rise with normal attractions for the opposite sex."

(2) "[A]ll pornography is homosexual pornography because all pornography turns your sexual drive inwards."

It isn't hard to show how irrational these statements are: Of course it's normal for heterosexuals to have attractions to the opposite sex; it's a truism. But it's completely abnormal for someone who is homosexual to have such attractions; it's an absurdity. Pornography may, indeed, turn your sexual drive inwards, but even if you believe that, it's heterosexual pornography that turns heterosexuals' drive inwards, and it's homosxual pornography that does this for homosexuals -- and never the twain shall meet.

What is striking about these remarks from fairly respectable people in the modern world is how thoroughly irrational they are. And, of course, the fact they were delivered in all seriousness.

In the constitutional debate over whether laws prohibiting same-sex marriage have a rational basis, it is deeply held beliefs like these that are rolled into the motives of some people who support marriage bans. These are only the most recent eruptions of some fundamental misunderstandings about what, exactly, homosexuality is. Amid this muck, it is no small task for a court to discover any genuine reasoning. And it's proving hard even for same-sex marriage opponents to deliver any arguments that are much more coherent.

Yet in Iowa, where 92% of those surveyed said nothing much had changed in their state after same-sex marriage was made legal, 41% still said they would vote for a marriage ban. Why? If nothing much has changed since gay marriage became legal, and if states like Massachusetts can show an actual decrease in divorce rates after five years of same-sex marriage, what is it that is wrong with same-sex couples marrying one another?

Voters don't have to struggle with these questions if they don't want to. But courts have to, and have to explain their reasoning. That is one reason, on this issue in particular, that same-sex marriage opponents so love the ballot; voters never have to explain themselves.