IGF CultureWatch

Commentators on the post regarding the death of Seaman August Provost bring up what will probably be a red herring in the public debate: whether this was a hate crime. The death is being investigated as one, but I think this will distract from the real problem with DADT.

I am assuming that, in the military, there is a fairly high standard for what counts as harassment, since the daily environment must balance the need for brutal discipline against the necessity for young men and women to blow off a little steam. Facts may prove otherwise, but if reports are true that Provost told his family about being harassed, it was probably not just insults and nude pictures posted in his locker. We'll see.

Reporting that, or anything like it would subject Provost to being thrown out of the Navy for telling them he was gay -- unless he was willing to lie about that, which doesn't seem to be the case. And his harasser would obviously know that fact. In that sense, DADT is a bully's best friend.

The Navy doesn't have a report here -- it has a death. The first question on any investigator's list will be "Why?" Again, facts may show otherwise, but Provost's partner certainly seems convinced it was because Provost was gay. If reports are correct that he was both shot and burned, this would seem to be something more than just a minor incident gone bad.

For purposes of whether it was a hate crime, that motive is quite important. But even if there were no hate crime statute, this appears to be a murder. If it is because Provost was gay, it doesn't matter whether extra time is added to the punishment for that motivation. The problem is that DADT short-circuited any reasonable method for Provost to seek help from his superiors if he was concerned about a particular colleague's actions. DADT gives aid and comfort to those who want to intimidate homosexuals. That fact should not be lost in a search for the killer's motive.

I recently stumbled across an interesting essay discussing the connection between free markets and gay marriage, written in 2006 by the prominent legal theorist Ronald Dworkin in the New York Review of Books.

Dworkin argues that culture is shaped, among other things, both organically and by law. Organically, it is shaped "by the discrete decisions of individual people about what to produce and what to buy and at what price, about what to read and say, about what to wear, what music to listen to, and what god if any to pray to." But our culture "is also shaped by law, that is, by collective decisions taken by elected legislators about how we must all behave." Which of these processes - organic or legal - should predominate in the case of same-sex marriage?

What's most interesting about the essay is Dworkin's critique of conservatives who oppose state regulation of markets forbidding evolution in economic practices and arrangements but who invite state regulation of marriage forbidding evolution in familial practices and arrangements.

Socialist societies do give people in power the authority to shape the economic environment for everyone by stipulating prices and the allocation of resources and production. But we insist on a free market in goods and services: we insist, that is, that the economic culture be shaped by a composite of individual decisions reflecting individual values and wishes.

The socialism of a centrally controlled economy is an insult to liberty as well as to efficiency-a view most enthusiastically held by the conservatives who favor a religious model for non-economic culture. They do not realize that liberty is even more perilously at stake in the religious than the economic case. . . .

Everything I said about the cultural heritage and value of marriage is equally true of the general institution of religion: religion is an irreplaceable cultural resource in which billions of people find immense and incomparable value. Its meaning, like that of marriage, has evolved over a great many centuries. But its meaning, again like that of marriage, is subject to quite dramatic change through organic processes . . . . American religious conservatives, even those who regard themselves as evangelical, do not imagine that the cultural meaning of religion should be frozen by laws prohibiting people with new visions from access to the title, legal status, or tax and economic benefits of religious organization.

Within broad boundaries, conservatives believe, markets should be shaped by individual decisions. The presumption in markets should be against central regulation. A similar principle would apply to religious beliefs and practices - they should be allowed to develop organically.

Same-sex marriage is the product of an ongoing, organic process that reflects the values of millions of our fellow citizens living in actual families. The opposition to same-sex marriage, at least in so far as it is grounded in dogma, amounts to this: We know the truth, we have the power to write that truth into law, and we will use our power to stop any further development contradicting it. Applied to markets, conservatives would call it socialism.

You don't need to go much further than the death of Seaman August Provost to show how contemptible Don't Ask, Don't Tell is. He was not killed in Afghanistan, or Pakistan, or off the coast of North Korea; he was killed in San Diego.

At Camp Pendelton.

And it is very likely he was killed because he was gay - a fact his non-military partner said was known among Provost's trusted friends at Pendelton.

Provost told family members he was being harassed, and their common-sense advice to him goes to the heart of DADT's incoherence: he should tell his supervisor.

Except, of course, that would be "telling."

DADT not only prevented the Navy from being able to investigate this harassment (though they can investigate it now that he's dead), it is exactly the kind of policy that sends a message to any potential harasser that our government views homosexuality as something wrong.

We can finesse this policy till the cows come home, and maybe mitigate a bit of the surface problems of DADT. But the deeper problem, the problem of what it says about homosexuals to heterosexuals in the military is the iniquitous heart of the policy, and that message will keep being sent as long as it exists.

Dale Carpenter's tart question about the President's options on DADT suggested to me that we may be invoking the wrong political analogy. While the discussion has tended to focus on whether we are or aren't similar to African-Americans in their struggle for equality, the more apt comparison might be whether we are to the Obama administration what the religious right was to George W. Bush.

For eight years, Bush got away with condescension and empty gestures: faith-based this and that, a limp, piety-draped announcement of the Federal Marriage Amendment, and all the cooing and coddling and coded insider messaging any insulated special interest could ask for. It's clear that his administration seldom viewed the right as a group needing anything more than stroking - and that's when they weren't expressing outright contempt for the religious leaders to one another. For their part, the religious zealots knew they had no reasonable political alternative, and hoped (and prayed) for the best. At least they were inside the White House.

I am hopeful the Obama administration doesn't view us, in private, with the derision and cynicism that was so characteristic of the Bush advisors. But we know Rahm Emanuel, in particular, is haunted by what he calls "the consequences of '94." I don't think it's unreasonable to believe he views lesbians and gay men as a kind of political irritation, an itch that must be scratched, as his Republican predecessors in the White House viewed the far right.

I'm not alone in that fear, as gay criticism of Monday night's cocktail party demonstrates. It was an event designed for our insiders, by insiders to cater to insiders. The President said many very good things, up to and including, "I expect and hope to be judged not by words, not by promises I've made, but by the promises that my administration keeps."

That expression of accountability is fine as far as it goes. But kept promises don't include cocktail parties or gestures. The administration certainly needs some time to address the overt discrimination against homosexuals that federal law demands to this very day. But it is up to us to determine how long the President (or Emanuel) can exploit our hopes and string us along.

To me, that means, not cuddling up to us in private, but using this President's phenomenal resources of good will and articulation to nudge the public discussion forward. And he can't do that by just talking to us.

It is that, above all, that makes him so radically different from Bush. His speech to us on Monday suggests that he understands our issues well enough to take on that task. Not today, and maybe not even this summer. But at some point he needs to say something publicly.

As a whole, Americans are past ready for repeal of DADT. If the problem is truly the military, then Obama needs to speak publicly to the military. If Stephen Colbert can rib the troops about DADT, I think they're probably willing to listen to their Commander-in-Chief.

And while the public is still not entirely ready for nationwide recognition of same-sex marriage, Obama cannot continue to allow federal law to recognize only the lowest common denominator of state discrimination against same-sex couples. DOMA is, and will continue to be, the wall that politics bangs its - and our - head against time after time until it is changed. He cannot assure success by addressing the American public. But he can continue to indulge prejudice by commiserating only with us.

Rahm Emanuel has reason to fear public reaction to gay equality. But that's because he lacks the rhetorical skills his boss possesses. He has to follow, and cater to public opinion because his strength is not in changing it.

The President, though, does have that talent - in abundance. He has addressed the Muslim world directly, and showed himself fearless during the campaign in defending himself against the most demeaning political charges, absurd claims that would have reduced a lesser candidate to fits of frustration.

It is that promise, explicitly, that I want him to keep for us: the promise of representing us to those portions of the public who still harbor fear and misunderstanding. He can't do that by holding cocktail parties for us, or weakly asking Congress to act. Congress is not famous for leading - that is the President's job. We will continue to do our part, but now we need his eloquence. The rest will follow.

I'm usually skeptical of initial reports about incidents that have political consequences, since there is so much room for misunderstanding, misinterpretation and other mischief. I approached the first stories about Saturday night's police raid of a gay bar in Fort Worth, Texas with that wariness. Seriously? A raid on a gay bar on the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall riots?

The first stories I read described some pretty drunk patrons, and I assumed some partying had gotten out of hand. But that sort of thing is hardly uncommon in bars, and it's not often the police show up. Box Turtle Bulletin is covering this story extremely well, and the only statement I could see about why the police came to the Rainbow Lounge is that the police said they had "anonymous tips" possibly from "disgruntled ex-bartenders." The first excuse is pretty thin, but might be true -- however implausible, or indefensible if such anonymous tips are not also relied on to conduct similar raids on heterosexual bars. The second, though, borders on lying malpractice. The bar had only been open for a week. Is that really the best they could come up with? I'm not that familiar with the ways of Texas, but can they really get fired and disgruntled that fast there?

But the big news here, judging from the statement by Joel Burns, a Forth Worth city councilman, is that there may even be some political accountability for any officials who got out of line:

I want all citizens of Texas and Fort Worth to know and be assured that the laws and ordinances of our great State and City will be applied fairly, equally and without malice or selective enforcement. I consider this to be part of "The Fort Worth Way" here. As an elected representative of the city of Fort Worth, I am calling for an immediate and thorough investigation of the actions of the City of Fort Worth Police and Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission in relation to the incident at the Rainbow Lounge earlier this morning, June 28, 2009.

It is unfortunate that this incident occurred in Fort Worth and even more so to have occurred on the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall protests. Unlike 40 years ago, though, the people of this community have elective representation that will make sure our government is accountable and that the rights of all of its citizens are protected. I are working together with our Mayor, Police Chief, the City of Fort Worth Human Relations Commission, and our State Legislative colleagues to get a complete and accurate accounting of what occurred.

Rest assured that neither the people of Fort Worth, nor the city government of Fort Worth, will tolerate discrimination against any of its citizens. And know that the GLBT Community is an integral part of the economic and cultural life of Fort Worth.

Every Fort Worth citizen deserves to have questions around this incident answered and I am working aggressively toward that end.

This is something -- a politician making a statement recognizing the role of lesbians and gay men in the community -- that could not have happened t in 1969, even in New York. And its simple fairness (even if Mr. Burns is in the minority in his sentiments) cannot be impugned. It is entirely fair and proper to have the police explain, in public, their side of the story. And I can't wait to hear what they have to say.

Frank Rich's Sunday essay in the NY Times is about gay rights and Stonewall, and it goes without saying it's worth reading.

A couple of sentences struck me:

After the gay liberation movement was born at Stonewall, this strand of history advanced haltingly until the 1980s. It took AIDS and the new wave of gay activism it engendered to fully awaken many, including me, to the gay people all around them.

This is true, but goes deeper than I think Rich realizes. He was, after all, a theater critic for Time magazine during the 70s, after which he took up the same role for the New York Times.

It's worth thinking about that for a bit. A man writing about the theater in America in the 1970s and 80s could not possibly have been a stranger to gay people. So what, exactly, did the new wave of gay activism enlighten him to?

Simply asking that question implicates the unique role - or non-role - that lesbians and gay men played in the minds of Americans prior to Stonewall. And it shows why Stonewall - and the earlier Black Cat riots in L.A., and other uprisings of the time - were not only necessary but inevitable. We were, in fact, there, all along, but existed in a parallel universe of indeterminacy; somehow not quite real -- or, at least, not the same sort of beings as everyone else.

The events at Stonewall and the Black Cat bar occurred roughly simultaneously on opposite ends of the country, and apparently had no direct connection to one another. Each was a reaction to its own form of local police harassment, the kind of thing we'd gotten used to over the years. But their similarities can't be ignored. Without anyone making any conscious decision, the injustice and the isolation -- the lack of any formal role in the society -- boiled over. Stonewall and Black Cat were fundamental assertions of our existence. It would take another quarter of a century for us to find the articulation those protesters could have used: We're here, we're queer, get used to it.

But they didn't need slogans to make their point. They showed up, and in those days that was plenty. Some of their stories are now available at a place few of them could ever have imagined: AARP has a section devoted to Stonewall.

Tomorrow will be an important anniversary, both to look back and to look forward. But Frank Rich inadvertently reminds us that we should think a bit about the trip from there to here - the journey from citizenship without rights to, well, whatever we can obtain through the grace of the political branches.

Some lawyer who humbly describes himself as "one of the most feared and revered attorneys in San Francisco" has filed a lawsuit in California state court trying to overturn Prop 8. Didn't we just lose that case? Does he think that he's going to scare the California Supreme Court into changing its mind?