IGF CultureWatch

The Washington Blade's annual look at compensation paid to, as they term it, "leaders of the LGBT rights movement," is always an interesting read. But the real issue isn't just the level of pay; I agree that, in general, CEOs of nonprofits should earn what the competitive market deems is fair. The broader, and far more important question, is the same one that's being asked of private-sector CEOs these days - does the level of their individual performance this past year still entitle them to receive what would otherwise by deemed fair compensation for their positions? Or should there by some "clawback" (i.e., recouping promised compensation in light of poor performance) for these executives as well?

Given the devastatingly bad leadership shown on the part of some, particularly as regards the debacle of California's Proposition 8, a campaign mismanaged to an extraordinary degree, should Lorri Jean of the LA Center still be getting $327,000? (The Advocate, in its "Anatomy of a Failed Campaign," called her one of "the small clique of California LGBT leaders" who were in charge of directing, or misdirecting, opposition to the initative.) Should Joe Solmonese, under whose management the bulk of HRC's efforts went to getting out the vote for Obama instead of fighting the three statewide anti-gay marriage initiatives that were passed, be receiving $338,400? Or would it be more just to direct their way some of the same outrage over the bonuses being paid to executives who ran their companies into the ground?

An excellent and enlightening discussion has broken out over gay marriage between Rod Dreher at Beliefnet and Damon Linker at TNR. (In order, the posts are here, here, here, here, and here) Andrew Sullivan weighs in at length, and does a lot of the heavy lifting to add a gay perspective to the discussion. There are only three additional points I want to add.

First, and most obviously (and therefore most in need of being pointed out) this is a debate between two heterosexual men about gay equality. That, by itself, is important. Women have historically been more comfortable discussing homosexuality than straight men, but that seems to be changing for the better. Some of the debate focuses on Linker's characterization of Dreher as having a "fixation" on homosexuality. This is unfortunate because it is a distraction about a personal and subjective matter. I am happy to set aside that issue and accept that Dreher simply wants to engage the debate, and good for him. However, it is certainly worth noting, as Dreher does on his two primary posts, that (whatever his own feelings) his comments section heats up whenever he mentions "anything related to homosexuality." Why does Dreher need to warn his commenters (in bold): "Please watch how you discuss and debate this topic in the comboxes." That's not Dreher's "fixation,' but it's certainly not unusual, and if it doesn't make Linker's point, it makes some point worth thinking about.

Second, Dreher makes a not uncommon argument that gay supporters are being unfair to opponents:

"By casting the ordinary defense of normative Christian doctrine about homosexual relations as though it were a sort of mental illness, the pro-SSM side engages the issue not in a fair-minded discussion and debate about legitimate issues related to gay marriage and the normalization of homosexuality in our society, but as an ideological war to be won by any means necessary. Any critique of the pro-SSM side is to be treated as a sign of pathology."

This language should ring a bell for those of us who are gay, something heterosexuals might miss. In fact, for many decades, homosexuality was not just a rhetorical "sort of mental illness" or a mere "sign of pathology," it was mental illness and pathology itself. Lesbians and gay men were put in actual mental institutions, were subjected to forced "cures" for their disease. When those who argue against gay equality are subject to that kind of action, Dreher's complaint will ring a little less ironically - and a little less hollow.

Finally, Dreher makes the point that:

"This stuff matters. It matters a lot. If you are a gay person, you know how much it matters to you. Why should anybody be surprised that it matters to traditional Christians, and for reasons that go far beyond any supposed anti-gay animus?"

There is, of course, a difference between how this matters to gay people and how it matters to traditional Christians. It matters to gay people because the secular law treats us differently - provides us both fewer rights and in many cases, none at all for our relationships - than heterosexuals take for granted. It matters to traditional Christians, not because they are denied anything, but because civil equality is a different rule than their sacred texts seem to support. There is, of course, dispute even among Christians about that, which is why Dreher has to qualify "Christian." But even if this view of scripture were universal, or (as in the Catholic hierarchy), authoritatively defined by a single leader, Americans live in a pluralistic nation of motley religious and irreligious views. Traditional Christians have every right to make whatever case they believe, but have to know that arguments from religious authority will only go so far in a debate about the civil law.

It is the collapse of the secular arguments against gay equality, one by one, that has left religious arguments standing alone. The fact that "traditional" Christians have to identify themselves now reveals they are appealing, not to "religion," but to a particular approach to religion that is, itself, part of America's religious pluralism. After all, Dreher first weighed in on this issue in response to a post at Andrew Sullivan's site about how a gay man's reference to his husband at their Catholic parish was accepted as unremarkable.

The U.S. Census is gearing up a monumental effort to make sure minorities are counted in 2010.

But that effort will not apply to homosexuals. As I argued in The Pretenders, the Census folks, far from seeking us out, are doing all they can to make sure we are not counted -- at least not our married couples.

And that is a very clear public policy choice. The government wants, very much, to know how many racial and ethnic minority members we have, so it can make sure their concerns are being addressed. But the government does not want to know how many same-sex couples there are, which frustrates the ability to have our concerns addressed.

The Census is a very good way of discerning what the government wants to know, and what the government wants to keep hidden. And it is up to us to keep asking why they have an interest in keeping the number of our publicly acknowledged relationships invisible.

When Jonathan says the Brookings Institution panel was A Great Debate, he isn't kidding. Jon and David Blankenhorn articulated the philosophical change in style they are aiming for: a discussion that pits two good things against one another (in Blankenhorn's words) rather than one about bigots against perverts (Jon).

If that were all that was said, the debate would have been worth everyone's time.

But another theme emerged, and it will be the crux of the political problem if the compromise gets any takers -- as I hope it will. In order to get the federal government to accept state laws recognizing same-sex couples, states would have to enact robust religious conscience laws making clear that religious organizations would be protected against lawsuits forcing them to recognize same-sex relationships.

But "conscience" is not an organizational attribute, it is a personal one, and the compromise would apparently have to stretch far enough to reach individuals. Everyone agrees the government may not intrude in the sacramental role of religious organizations, but what about religious individuals who function in the civil realm? They claim that their religious beliefs against same-sex marriage would prohibit them from performing their non-religious duties, and want protection for that as well - and the way I read the compromise, it would also include protection for these individuals.

This is where the compromise becomes most pointed. Justices of the Peace work for the state, not the church, yet some have refused to issue licenses to same-sex couples because they have religious objections. In the debate, Professor Robin Wilson discussed the dilemma when a same-sex couple faces a civil servant who refuses to perform the civil ceremony prescribed by the state. There are normally other JPs available, and as with some pharmacists who refuse to perform their job of dispensing contraceptives for religious reasons, as long as the customers are served by someone, all needs can be met - though participants on both sides will have been forced to face, for a bit, the other side's arguments and sensitivities.

But it's important to remember that this accommodation is not a constitutional matter. The constitution does not require states to go this far in accommodating individual religious beliefs. That was established in a 1990 Supreme Court decision, Employment Division v. Smith, which upheld a state law that criminalized drug use, and a prosecution of Native Americans who ingested peyote in a religious practice. If the constitution required a general religious exemption from laws that are generally applicable to everyone, the court reasoned, then each religious believer could become a law unto himself, with a personal veto over any legal obligations he determined were offensive.

The opinion was written by Justice Antonin Scalia, an energetic proponent of religious freedom as a constitutional right, but also a man who's savvy to how people can abuse the courts.

If states have to accommodate even individual religious beliefs against gay marriage, we will need to be wary of the same sort of abuse Scalia was concerned with in Smith. But that is no reason not to try.

There are signs that, as is usual in non-presidential year congressional elections, the party in power (the Democrats) are headed toward losing a substantial number of seats in 2010. Respected pollster Charles Cook provides this analysis.

Given the Democrats' misdirected spending binge, yielding trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see, and their bumbling efforts to fix the nation's banking crisis, it's likely the GOP could retake the House and pick up several seats in the Senate, robbing the Democrats of their near filibuster-proof super-majority.

Which is just to say, this may be a quickly passing moment when the Democrats have near-supreme power with the White House and Congress. If we are ever going to get the party that gay people have chosen to fund and support to do anything substantial on our behalf - with repealing don't ask, don't tell and the Defense of Marriage Act at the top of the legal-equality agenda - now is the time.

As we get closer to 2010, the Democrats are going to get increasingly hesitant to raise our issues. This is it; and if "it" doesn't happen, that means the Democrats get to fundraise on our issues for years to come, while we get to write them checks while listening to campaign rhetoric about how inclusive they are.

More. In the comments, "avee" responds to "BoBN" thusly:

BobN: For folks who constantly complain about the "trough" of Democrat-led government, you sure complain loudly when the slop isn't doled out pronto!

Avee: No, Bob, I'm not asking for billions, er, trillions in taxpayers' money; just equal rights under the law. See, I'm not a Democrat. Just asking for equal legal rights.

Can gay-marriage proponents and religious conservatives strike a bargain? David Blankenhorn and I proposed federal civil unions with a religious opt-out last month in a New York Times article, and recently we got a chance to try it out at a Brookings Institution panel.

Representatives of the Human Rights Campaign and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations didn't sign on the dotted line (not that they were expected to). But neither did they slam the door. And the give-and-take over the meaning of civil rights and the limits of compromise was fascinating. Listen to an audio podcast or read a transcript here.

This just in* from Pew: 56 percent of mainline Protestants think homosexuality should be accepted. That's Episcopalians/Anglicans, Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians. And here's a pleasant surprise: 40 percent of Baptists.

To be sure, evangelical acceptance remains low, at 26 percent. But the days of the cobra-mongoose relationship between Christianity and homosexuality are ending faster than even many of us appreciate.

* Actually, it's 2007 data. What would the numbers look like today?