Fear Itself

by on

Plenty of people have weighed in on former President Bill Clinton's newfound support for same-sex marriage, but little can be added to Jamie Kirchick's piece in the Advocate, ripping Clinton a new one -- not that Clinton needs a new one.

In response to Clinton's stirring reply to the question of whether he personally believed in equal marriage rights for same-sex couples: ""Yeah. I personally support people doing what they want to do. I think it's wrong for someone to stop someone else from doing that," Jamie is in fine form:

What eloquence! What moral conviction! Remember that these stirring words come from a man who, prior to the emergence of Barack Obama, was widely considered to be the greatest political communicator alive.

What is it about our equality that reduces the likes of Clinton, and even Obama, to Bush-like grunts and circumlocutions? Even in retirement, is Clinton still so shell-shocked from the nation's last hurricane of homophobia? That was 15 years ago, which is about 45 in gay rights years. Does Obama really believe that any reaction today to his leadership on repeal of Clinton's signature achievements on gay equality, DADT and DOMA, would be worse than what he faced during the campaign over Rev. Jeremiah Wright, palling around with terrorists, or people clinging to guns and religion?

The rhetorical scraps we get from these mighty orators should be compared to the simple eloquence of Meghan McCain, who has no trouble saying, "No matter how politically charged the discussions about marriage equality may get, the question is really a simple one: Do the rights and privileges we offer citizens include everyone in our country, or only some of us?"

McCain isn't a politician, and can articulate her true feelings with more liberty than an elected official. But Rep. Patrick Murphy is sure in politics, and he, too, leaves both Clinton and Obama in the dust when it comes to us. Watch how easily and authoritatively he responds to the charge that open gays in the military would destroy unit cohesion by saying the very notion is an insult to him and to the military.

The lesson here was stated best by a president who didn't have to deal with gay equality. President Clinton, President Obama, when it comes to gay rights, the only thing you have to fear is fear itself.

4 Comments

Gay Marriage in Ten Years?

by on

The epoch of the cultural wedge issue is ending, says Democratic political analyst Ruy Teixeira, in his new report, "The Coming End of the Culture Wars" (PDF). And gay marriage will soon lose its political potency. It's baked in the demographic cake.

That's because of generational change, as culturally progressive Millennial voters surge into the electorate. It's also, more immediately, because of the decline in the number of white working-class voters. And the fastest growing religious group is not evangelicals but seculars, who tend to be very culturally progressive.

Of course, this does not mean that conflicts over gay marriage will die out overnight. There will continue to be attempts on the state level to keep gay marriage illegal through the initiative process. Such initiatives have met with considerable success, including the recent passage of Proposition 8 in the progressive state of California. Yet a simple regression model developed by Nate Silver suggests that such initiatives have been losing support at the rate of roughly 2 percentage points a year. This time trend, combined with a couple of other variables on state religiosity, indicates that California would fail to support such an initiative by next year and only a handful of Deep South states should be expected to support gay marriage bans by 2016.

Fights will continue on the gay marriage issue, but the outcome of these struggles is not really in doubt looking 10 years or so down the road. And neither is the decreasing usefulness of this issue to the conservative culture warriors.

1 Comment

Public Relations

by on

I guess I am just a sex-negative prude, but I really do not think that soliciting more porn industry support for marriage equality efforts is a great idea. I guess it is nice that NickYoungXXX-dot-com supports the cause and all, but the Maggie Gallagher press release kind of writes itself. And I really don't think we are going to win over any moms in Sherman Oaks with a porn-funded campaign of artsy NO H8 photos.

This whole thing is kind of silly, but it does illustrate a real problem in California. It seems like just about everybody out here has his or her own "grass roots" organization dedicated to overturning Prop 8. There is a real incentive for those groups to do outrageous stuff, because the ones who do the most outrageous stuff will stand out in a crowded field. That means attention that should be focused on nice boring gay couples will be diverted to Mormon-bashing or porn-industry fundraising or Perez Hilton.

2 Comments

American Consecretions … Global Implications

by on

It doesn't matter if you attend religious services weekly or if you have fallen away, if you're atheist or agnostic, if you think religion is the opiate of the people or the road to peace - established religion in America is an important force.

So when the bishops of the Episcopal Church voted this week to affirm gay clergy, it was an important move.

Ever since 2003, when the openly gay Gene Robinson was consecrated as a bishop, the 77-million member Anglican communion - the worldwide body of which the Episcopal Church is a part - has been threatened with schism.

Three years ago, there was a moratorium on future elevation of gay bishops until the issue could be more carefully considered. The gay Episcopal group Integrity says that this week's vote effectively ends the ban, though others say that it just affirmed what was already the case, that gays and lesbians are a full part of the Episcopal Church.

Last month, conservative breakaway churches in the U.S. formed their own Anglican group aligned with more conservative South American and African diocese. Called the Anglican Church in North America, they have a paltry 100,000 members compared with 2 million Episcopalians - yet if the international Anglican groups choose to align with them instead, that could change.

For now, however, their absence has led to a more liberal Episcopal Church. A committee this week voted that the Episcopal Church should also permit the blessing of same-sex couples, though the full body won't vote on it until later this week. When it came to testifying in favor of the measure, 50 people did so - only six testified against it.

All of this might seem like inside baseball to you if you're not Episcopalian, even more so if you're not Christian or not religious at all.

But it IS important to all of us who are gay and lesbian, for a couple reasons.

First, the Episcopal Church is seen as the canary in the coal mine by other mainline Protestant Churches. They are waiting to see if accepting gays and lesbians as full members of the church will lead to a breaking away from the international church, or whether different views will be able to co-exist happily.

If the Anglican fellowship survives with an inclusive Episcopal Church, it might lead other denominations - Lutherans, Presbyterians - to follow the example of the United Church of Christ and become fully inclusive of gays and lesbians as well.

And once all Mainline Protestant churches start approving of gay marriage, it will be very difficult for politicians and anti-marriage advocates to make a religious argument against gay marriage, since it will be even more clear that not all denominations agree on this issues.

Secondly, however, the entire issue points out something that is easy for us American gays and lesbians to ignore: the rights (or lack thereof) of gays and lesbians internationally has an effect on us here at home.

There is the threat of a schism because gays and lesbians in many parts of South America and Africa (South Africa being the notable, progressive exception) lag behind their American counterparts when it comes to how they are viewed by their societies. If gays and lesbians were seen as nearly equal in those parts of the world, we would have more rights in the U.S. now.

That is, mainline churches would have accepted us already - which would lead to more pressure on politicians - which would lead to a quicker change in our laws.

Our rights at home are affected by gay and lesbian rights abroad.

A gay rights battle in one place - whether that place is within the Episcopal Church or in a city in Africa - affects gay rights in every other place.

We will not have full equality here until gays and lesbians have equality everywhere.

5 Comments

Kissing Is In

by on

This seems to be the year of the Gay Kiss. Kiss-ins are taking place from Salt Lake City to El Paso to Paris (and not the one in Texas -- the one in France).

Talk about the personal being political. This is the most delightful possible response to the sourpusses who are trying -- today -- to deny us a peck on the cheek (the horror that set the LDS church's hair on fire) or a smooch to smooth out the spice from good Mexican food. The El Paso police were apparently ready to arrest people, and the Police Chief had to issue a public statement letting everyone in on the news that gay kissing isn't against any known law, even in Texas.

We may or may not have Katy Perry to thank for this, but I can't think of anything that more wonderfully illustrates how far we've come, and how far other people haven't since the 1950s.

6 Comments

GLAAD: The Cross I’d Bear

by on

Is the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation past its prime? GLAAD's reaction to the movie Bruno makes them sound like a bunch of crotchety old fussbudgets who could use a toke of medical marijuana.

Their press release on July 7 grudgingly noted the movie is "apparently intended to skewer" homophobia, but GLAAD couldn't get past the fact that gay teenagers are still "bullied, beat up and ridiculed." GLAAD's Rashad Robinson cranks that up to 11 in an op-ed for the LA Times. Straight people can laugh at the movie, then go back to their normal lives; but not gay people, who must suffer interminably:

It could come up in the form of jokes about gay parents at the office. Or gay teens taunted with the name "Bruno" in school hallways. Or in fanning the flames of anti-gay campaigns and laws, like California's Proposition 8, pushed by those who exploit discomfort, and the "ewwww" factor, for political ends. . . . For a major studio film with a massive cultural footprint to pile even more stereotypes and discomfort onto an already hostile climate -- despite what are inarguably the best of intentions -- doesn't make the work of changing and overcoming it any easier.

I think GLAAD turns Bruno on its head. They're confusing the way people might misperceive the movie with the message the movie is sending. Bruno wants to make fun of homophobic cluelessness, and GLAAD doesn't seem to want to let it. Unlike the sexless pansies in movies past, which GLAAD helped the general public contextualize, Bruno goes Full Dildo on the puritans.

Ironically, Bruno is the kind of movie GLAAD paved the way for - gleefully anti-homophobic. But now it's GLAAD who's become orthodox. If GLAAD doesn't get itself a sense of humor, they may wind up being the subject of Baron Cohen's next movie.

13 Comments

Larger Issues Prevail

by on

I've never shied from criticizing the gay left for preaching that "LGBT rights" are just one part of a broad "progressive" agenda leading to the golden age of redistributive socialism under the direction of a liberal elite that's better than the rest of us. And I stand by that, especially to the extent that the leading LGBT rights organizations are now little more than Democratic party fundraising fronts run by Democratic party operatives.

But I have to say, as of late, I'm more sympathetic to focusing on a broader agenda, but from the opposite direction. One reason my heart hasn't been in blogging here at IGF is that, as important as gay legal equality remains in the face of government-mandated discrimination (primarily marriage and the military), I'm totally bummed out by the greater issue of the harm to American long-term prosperity and individual liberty under the current administration in Washington, all to the sycophantic cheerleading of the big-government-loving propagandists who dominate the media.

As I doubt that there will be anything other than feigned moves toward repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act or Don't Ask, Don't Tell before the 2010 elections (at which point Republicans who've been opposed by the gay lobbies will, I believe, pick up several or more seats in both congressional chambers), all we're likely to reap from the chosen one is a yet bigger orgy of spending to grow government at the expense of the private sector, sowing the seeds of even more confiscatory taxation and/or hyperinflation, along with still more ill-conceived and anti-growth regulation (much of the worst justified by the hysteria of global warming alarmism, the left's religious apocalypticalism).

So my attention has not been on gay rights; it's not where the action is. And to that degree, as I said, I can sympathize with the left that's always been more interested in "larger issues" at hand.

Still, from time to time I'd like to draw attention to some truly independent thought on gay issues, such as Camille Paglia's recent explanation of why she's against hate crime/thought crime laws (it's here, but you have to scroll down to the last answer on the page). Excerpt:

"Government functionaries should not be ceded the dangerous authority to make decisions about motivation. ... The barbaric acts that led to the death of Matthew Shepard in 1998 deserved a very severe penalty, which has been applied."

As reader "avee" wrote in the comments, responding to some muddled assertions:

Motive is only important in terms of its relation to pre-meditation. If motive reveals a crime was pre-meditated, then it's a more serious crime.

Increasing the penalties for assault or murder because of the bias in a person's head is a very different matter. It is, in effect, punishing thought. You may like punishing those with thoughts you don't think they should have, but it's a very bad road to go down. Beware, social engineers, of the consequences of your actions.

More. Reader "Sol" comments, responding an assertion that it's all Bush's fault:

"The Bush deficit was bad; the Obama deficit is catastrophic. There really is no way to convey the unprecedented size of the projected federal debt, but this chart gives some indication. ... At some point we will either have to inflate our way out of this hole, or raise taxes in a drastic way. The result will be a low-growth, heavily government dependent economy for years to come."

Ah, but at least we'll have higher criminal penalities (or, probably in fact not) if the state can ferret out bias!

20 Comments

Making Politics Work

by on

The authors of the Dallas Principles, a proposed set of core values for achieving LGBT equality, have been criticized for their invitation-only meeting at a Dallas airport hotel in May, but I am not terribly concerned about that. I have seen the endless wrangling that resulted from scrupulously all-inclusive processes to draft the lists of demands for past marches on Washington. They were little more than navel-gazing exercises. My own problem with the Dallas Principles is that they shortchange proven activist methods, substituting an ultimatum.

My colleague Bob Summersgill, architect of the incremental strategy that has brought Washington, D.C. to the brink of civil marriage equality, faults the Principles' "No Delays, No Excuses" message for disrespecting activists around the country who have made gains through persistent and informed engagement with lawmakers and government executives. He points out that the Dallas document's give-us-everything-right-now tone is at odds with the long, painstaking efforts that are needed to win support from many politicians. Winning equality takes a lot of work, and there are no shortcuts.

Summersgill also strongly criticizes the Fourth Principle, "Religious beliefs are not a basis upon which to affirm or deny civil rights." As he notes, rejecting faith as a basis for advocacy ignores the deep religious roots of the civil rights movement and gratuitously insults a significant portion of the population, gay believers included. It makes no political sense to concede the entire religious sphere to our adversaries. In D.C., the marriage-equality cause was recently aided by more than 100 gay-affirming ministers who issued a joint statement of support.

The one-size-fits-all approach suggested by the Dallas Principles is counterproductive. In many states, the groundwork for marriage equality is far from being sufficiently laid, yet there is much useful work to do there. LGBT voters and their allies would be shooting themselves in the foot if they denied support to a good-but-imperfect candidate when the alternative was worse.

As a member of a nonpartisan advocacy group, I agree with the Fifth Principle, "The establishment and guardianship of full civil rights is a non-partisan issue." The fact that Democrats have a much better record of support for our issues doesn't mean we should be satisfied, especially given that the party increased its majorities in Congress and statehouses by recruiting more conservative candidates. If we want better choices, we have to recruit better candidates from every party-including LGBT candidates. The Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund is one such effort.

The Dallas Principles reflect a wider impatience with politicians. Impatience is a strength if it propels productive action, but not if it leads to a flight from reality. If politicians are unresponsive, we need to redouble our search for ways to reach them-not denigrate activists who take a different approach, as when the epithet "careerist" was hurled at people who attended the June 29 White House reception marking the 40th anniversary of Stonewall. I can understand criticism of a particular organization or staffer, but not insults against professional activists generally. Our adversaries have well-funded, professional operations, and intramural sniping will not help us compete.

Many in Congress underestimate their constituents, who are ahead of them on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and other gay issues. Helping these politicians catch up requires more than threats and boycotts; it requires plenty of individualized attention. Think of it as a marriage that you want to succeed. If you are looking to be unimpressed, you're bound to succeed; but it would be better to focus on how to replicate our successes.

Frederick Douglass famously said, "Power concedes nothing without a demand." I would amend that to say we gain power by asserting it, by summoning it within ourselves rather than viewing it as an external commodity to be obtained from others. When patrons at a gay bar in 1969 decided to stand their ground in the face of yet another police raid, it was an expression of power.

We have come a long way since then. Now we must step up in every city and congressional district and press for policy after policy in the disciplined, concerted way that confident and influential groups do. Every forward step prepares the way for the next. We do not need a loyalty oath or ultimatum. We need more people in more places doing more of the things that got us this far.

0 Comments

Him. . . Us. . . Them

by on

There is A Homosexual in America. And He's a problem:

Beset by inner conflicts, the homosexual is unsure of his position in society, ambivalent about his attitudes and identity-but he gains a certain amount of security through the fact that society is equally ambivalent about him. A vast majority of people retain a deep loathing toward him, but there is a growing mixture of tolerance, empathy or apathy. Society is torn between condemnation and compassion, fear and curiosity, between attempts to turn the problem into a joke and the knowledge that it is anything but funny, between the deviate's plea to be treated just like everybody else and the knowledge that he simply is not like everybody else.

This is from Time magazine's issue of January 21, 1966. I can't even begin to unpack how far we have all come from these pre-Stonewall days, but Hendrik Hertzberg does a fine job in the New Yorker.

The only thing I'd add is to ask you to think about that bizarre third person singular. "The homosexual is unsure of his position in society. . . " "Society is torn between condemnation and deep loathing toward him. . . " This lumps us all into some undifferentiated whole, then puts us behind a grammatical wall from the author and the society he takes for granted.

And before you offer up a prayer of thanks that those days are gone, check out Matthew Rettenmund's analysis of Admiral Mullen's view of DADT at Towleroad. The Admiral says he wants to "give the president my best advice, should this law change, on the impact on our people and their families at these very challenging times."

Matthew hits him with a sound blow that knocks the Admiral right back to 1966:

Pitting LGBT soliders against "our people and their families" begs the question: What about our people and their families, Admiral?

That is exactly the right question, and the Admiral ought to answer it -- even if only for himself. Why doesn't he view us as part of "his" people and "their" families?

While we're waiting, check out the Time article -- if for no other reason than to find out that we seem to have lost the "cuff-linky" bars our ancestors used to enjoy.

13 Comments

The View from Twentysomething

by on

A young gay man, fresh out of a Catholic law school, notices a generation gap at this year's Pride festivities in Minneapolis:

One observation I made was that the younger crowd (perhaps ages 18-30) were very tame this year. In past years, I feel like the younger crowd has donned the more traditional Pride garb of brightly colored short-shorts, flip-flops, and perhaps a pooka shell necklace. This year, I noticed the younger crowd was not nearly as sexually provocative in their dress. . . . Most of the younger crowd was dressed normally, dragging along their puppies and dogs.
The older crowd was drastically different. My friend and I were in the beer garden and she and I both commented on how so many "older" men were dressed provocatively and with the purpose of expressing sexuality . . . .
Why the difference? Our twentysomething correspondent theorizes that the prospect of marriage, absent from the lives of older gay men, is starting to have an effect on younger gay men:
As a member of what I consider to be the younger gay community, the past few years have changed my behavior. With gay marriage nascent in Minnesota's and other states' legislatures, and its arrival in many other states, I have tried to put forth my very best behavior. I have encouraged other homosexual people to do the same. . . . The gay community needs to show greater Minnesota that we, as a culture, are the type of men and women that can and should be married with children of our own and leading a publicly respectable life as such. . . .
I think much of the 60s, 70s and 80s were about getting the greater public to realize that gay men and women existed. The "We're here, we're queer, get used to it" mantra was more relevant then than it is now. In the recent 90s and now in the early millennium, the mantra seems to have shifted to "Now that you know we're here, what are you going to do about it?"

Assimilationist? That's one way to look at it. Performative rather than authentic? Perhaps, but radicalism in attire and manner is as much a performance as modesty can be. This writer sees better days ahead:

I think young gay men and women are beginning to see the possibilities for the general gay community and are starting to subdue and prepare themselves for leading a "normal" American life, something that a lot of gay men and women desperately need right now. I know I am and I am definitely looking to the future with high hopes.

9 Comments