IGF CultureWatch

The passage of California's anti-gay marriage Prop. 8 with the strong support of that state's African-American churches led to heated complaints by some supporters of marriage equality (including author/activist Robin Tyler, as we noted here), which were quickly met with cries of "racial scape-goating" from the politically correct crowd. The issue then died down - Mormons and white evangelicals being far easier to protest against. But the role of black churches has come to the fore again, this time in Washington, D.C., where the City Council just voted to recognize same-sex marriages from other states, and openly gay City Councilmember David Catania is preparing to introduce a bill to recognize same-sex marriages performed in the district.

Former D.C. mayor and current City Councilmember Marion Barry, an otherwise very left-liberal Democrat, is a vocal opponent of marriage equality and declared, "We may have a civil war. The black community is just adamant against this." (IGF contributing author David Boaz has more about Marion Barry, Defender of Marriage.)

According to the Washington Blade story "Barry warns of racial divide over marriage":

Barry's comments came after more than a dozen black ministers and members of their churches in D.C. and Maryland rushed out of the Council chamber following the vote [recognizing same-sex marriages performed elsewhere] and shouted their disapproval of the Council's action.

The paper goes on to note:

Statements by local ministers that they planned to work for the election defeat of Council members who supported the D.C. marriage bill prompted a church-state watchdog group to warn that it would monitor the ministers' actions. Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, said churches could lose their tax-exempt status under federal tax law if they become involved in partisan politics.

Given the long-standing role of black churches on behalf of liberal causes and candidates, it's good to see them getting some of the same scrutiny that's been, quite rightly, focused on conservative churches involved in political action. It may be that marriage-equality advocates are finally realizing what they should have learned in California - just because religious leaders are black and Democrats doesn't require us to give them a pass when they mobilize to fight against our rights.

More. From the Wasington Examiner, Battle over gay marriage in D.C. raises questions of racial divide, quoting Bishop Harry Jackson, the leader of a black mega-church who is emerging as a national leader in the fight against gay marriage:

Black people have been silent for too long on matters of "righteousness," Jackson said. Gay marriage offers the perfect opportunity to refocus their political power.

The debate over whether the President should appoint an open lesbian to the Supreme Court is delightfully incomprehensible. I hope it keeps up.

The Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund seems to have gotten the ball rolling when they noted that Kathleen Sullivan, former dean of Stanford Law School, was a serious contender, and happened to be lesbian. Politico followed up by noting that another among the Frequently Mentioned, Pam Karlan, was also lesbian.

Seeing the opportunity to start a fight, Mark Helperin baited Republican Senator Jeff Sessions, asking what he'd think about that. Sessions said that he would not necessarily be opposed to a nominee who had "gay tendencies." As someone with gay tendencies, myself - so many that I am actually gay -- I found this pretty hopeful, despite the 1950s tinge of the articulation.

Sessions' response was entertainingly deconstructed by Jonathan Chait at TNR, then contradicted by Senator Jon Thune, who said that an openly gay justice would be "a bridge too far." Sessions then had to hide behind his party's most prejudiced constituents, confusing them with "the American People," who he believes would be "uneasy" with a lesbian. Nevertheless, he said he wants the Senate to treat every nominee fairly, "regardless of what persuasion they may have."

Focus on the Family weighed in, saying that sexual activity "should never come up" for a judicial nominee. "It's not even pertinent." The Family Research Council then entered the fray, saying that while a nominee's "personal sex life" should be irrelevant, anyone who was publicly homosexual "could impose a pro-gay ideology on the court."

The good news in all this is how it shows that the closet is a thing of the past. Despite quaint references to tendencies and persuasions, the right can no longer credibly claim that gay people should just shut up. The only remaining ground is to try and muddle the debate with images of sexual activity, which, of course, heterosexuals also engage in - and have been known to talk about.

As Jamie Kirchick has argued, when we focus on getting one of our own nominated to a prominent position, our efforts will necessarily and predictably be viewed as "cynical tokenism." That is the unfortunate legacy of identity politics.

On the other hand, neither we, nor anyone else can pretend that gay people aren't gay. It is, in fact, the consciousness of homosexuality that drives this discussion. What is unique now is that those who are comfortable talking about gay people have the advantage. This is one important way the right - and the GOP in particular -- is losing its credibility with the public. Sen. Sessions can no longer avoid having to discuss openly homosexual candidates for the Supreme Court. He seems to be dealing with this in good faith, but is still struggling with the vocabulary that every high school student speaks fluently.

Gays do not want - or intend -- to talk about their sexual activity any more than heterosexuals do . . . particularly not at a public hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee. It is only a few lost souls who can't keep a person's sexual orientation separate from that person's private sexual conduct. Over time, they will have to get rid of that tendency.

The Obama administration and Congress may be working overtime to put the government on tax-and-deficit-fueled steroids, to extend their regulatory tentacles and grow the power of the state over us all. But outside the beltway, as IGF contributing author David Boaz writes on the Cato Institute's blog, genuine citizen activism is having an effect on state legislatures that's led to an inspiring culture shift toward liberty on two fronts: the legal use of marijuana and marriage equality. On the latter, Boaz reflects that:

[One of] the striking things about the rapid succession of [pro-marriage-equality state legislative] votes is the lack of public opposition. Conservatives have been remarkably silent, perhaps because some of them genuinely do feel less outrage about legislative action than about "judicial tyranny," and perhaps because opposition to gay marriage is getting to be embarrassing among educated people.

Concludes Boaz:

The "shift to the left" that we seem to observe on economic policy is depressing to libertarians. But that's mostly crisis-driven. When the results of more spending, more taxes, more regulation, and more money creation begin to be visible, we may see the kind of reaction that led to Proposition 13 and the election of Ronald Reagan at the end of the 1970s. Meanwhile, this cultural "shift to the left" is far more encouraging.

In addition to Jennifer Vanasco's column posted at left, "Obama's No Show," it's beginning to dawn on some activists (not those at the Democratic Party auxiliary known as the Human Rights Campaign, but to some others) that their president is a bit of a let down when it comes to being the promised "fierce advocate" for gay rights (excepting for the small matter of the right to marriage, which he upfront opposes as un-Christian).

Reports the New York Times, "President Obama was noticeably silent last month when the Iowa Supreme Court overturned the state's ban on same-sex marriage." And while the president has urged Congress to pass a dubious bill federalizing hate crimes against selected victims, he's delayed action on one of his key campaign promises that, like marriage, involves fundamental equality under the law: repealing the military's "don't ask, don;t tell" gay ban.

Last weekend, Richard Socarides, who advised President Bill Clinton on gay issues, published an opinion piece in the Washington Post headlined, "Where's our fierce advocate?"

It's about eggs and baskets, and what happens when you put all in one (HRC to Obama last year: here's our unconditional support plus our dollars and volunteer hours, given at the expense of fighting anti-gay state initiatives; we trust you'll be kind to us and invite us to your victory parties).

More. From Steve Clemons of the liberal New America Foundation, "Obama Needs to End Silence on Biggest Civil Rights Move of Our Time".

Furthermore. See Ross Douthat's New York Times op-ed column, "Faking Left." He writes:

the Obama administration does seem to have a plausible strategy for turning the "social issues" to liberalism's advantage. The outline is simple: Engage on abortion, and punt on gay rights.

The punting has been obvious. On the campaign trail, Obama promised to repeal the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy He still intends to - but not yet, not yet. He said he supported federal recognition for civil unions. His administration has ignored the issue. He backed repealing the Defense of Marriage Act. Don't expect that to come up for a vote any time soon.

With every passing day, it becomes clearer to those with eyes that so many professional LGBT leaders were and are merely Democratic party operatives, first and foremost.

Still more. From Andrew Sullivan, with whom I rarely agree, but perhaps he's beginning to see the light:

Here we are, in the summer of 2009, with gay servicemembers still being fired for the fact of their orientation. Here we are, with marriage rights spreading through the country and world and a president who cannot bring himself even to acknowledge these breakthroughs in civil rights, and having no plan in any distant future to do anything about it at a federal level. Here I am, facing a looming deadline to be forced to leave my American husband for good, and relocate abroad because the HIV travel and immigration ban remains in force and I have slowly run out of options (unlike most non-Americans with HIV who have no options at all).

And what is Obama doing about any of these things? What is he even intending at some point to do about these things? So far as I can read the administration, the answer is: nada. We're firing Arab linguists? So sorry. We won't recognize in any way a tiny minority of legally married couples in several states because they're, ugh, gay? We had no idea. There's a ban on HIV-positive tourists and immigrants? Really? Thanks for letting us know. Would you like to join Joe Solmonese and John Berry for cocktails? The inside of the White House is fabulous these days.

Some LBGT activists will no doubt be upset that California's courts have allowed a small, private Lutheran High School to expel two 16-year-old girls for having a "bond of intimacy" that was "characteristic of a lesbian relationship," as reported by the Los Angeles Times. The girls sued; they lost.

Here's a suggestion. Maybe the girls should not go to a school that's founded on religious beliefs that view homosexuality as immoral, rather then trying to use the coercive power of the state to force the Lutherans to modify their dogma-based practice-at a private Lutheran institution-and thereby play into every fear being promoted by the religious right.

A libertarian friend suggests that perhaps we should tell the right that if they agree to marriage equality, we'll drop anti-discrimination laws-and then we could claim the mantle of freedom and diversity. LGBT activists would never go for that one, but advocating that private, religious organizations be treated as serfs of the state really isn't a good idea.

More. Our liberal readers are agast. Typical responses: "Change schools? How insensitive can you get?" and "If it gets one dime for transportation, books, physical ed, health ed, etc., the school can not say it is private."

But reader "Walker" responds to the point:

Religious schools generally don't get government money. But most institutions in a society with a government as big as ours do get some kind of financial "support" from government. Do you really want to bring the entire society under the control of government? Does that sound like a good plan for freedom and diversity? Or for a small minority that depends on tolerance? If you say you can attach all-enveloping strings to ANY government money, then you'd better be confident that your allies will always be in charge of that all-powerful government.

As to the question "Do you really want to bring the entire society under the control of government?," I bet their answer would be, "Yes!"

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Bruce Bawer reflects that in Europe, "instead of encouraging Muslim immigrants to integrate and become part of their new societies, Western Europe's governments have allowed them to form self-segregating parallel societies run more or less according to Shariah." One result:

Ubiquitous youth gangs, contemptuous of infidels, have made European cities increasingly dangerous for non-Muslims-especially women, Jews and gays. ...

One measure of the dimensions of this shift: Owing to the rise in gay-bashings by Muslim youths, Dutch gays-who 10 years ago constituted a reliable left-wing voting bloc-now support conservative parties by a nearly 2-to-1 margin.

If our anti-gay religious right were predominantly Muslim and violent instead of Christian and merely reactionary, would the U.S. left be throwing gays under the bus?

I am of very mixed mind about this YouTube -- a bouncy, charming and catchy ditty about the "tiny minds" of some of our opponents. The song is about bigotry in general, and the creator of the video used the song to make his more specific point.

This is the Proposition H8 generation settling in somewhere between offensive and playful. On the one hand, I kind of like its breeziness about homophobia, which is the opposite of victimization -- certainly a major step forward for this generation. On the other hand, it's the sort of thing that gets all up in Maggie Gallagher's grill -- it's exactly what she loves to complain about.

On the third hand. . . it's the sort of thing that gets all up in Maggie's grill with some style. Unlike some of the snarling references to right wing bigotry by our spokespeople on the cable snooze shows, these kids really aren't worried that someone else's bigotry will turn them into simpering, cowering lumps of citizen-mush. Their self-respect is fully intact no matter what someone else thinks about their sexual orientation.

And the style is such a supreme contrast to the gloomy, ominous alarm of Maggie's Gathering Storm video -- which is still generating much-deserved parodies.

I would so much like the public debate to be high-toned and respectful. And much of it really is, as anyone who watched the Maine legislative debate today could see. I'd love to know if Maggie agrees about that. But a lot of public debate takes place in cultural niches that don't have any civility rules. These include, today, Miss America contests, the parking lots of Mormon temples, and now YouTube videos. I prefer the campy incivility of this video to the toxic innuendo of The Gathering Storm. But that's because I think people can live with campy incivility a lot more easily. And campy incivility is something you can grow out of. I don't think that's true of toxic innuendo.

Over at Cato, IGF contributor David Boaz notes that Sen. Jim DeMint, writing in the WSJ, makes a strong case for letting different states make different policy choices. "Centralized government infringes on individual liberty and...problems are best solved by the people or the government closest to them." If "choices look different in South Carolina, Maine and California," why, that's just fine.

Except when it's not. DeMint, of course, favors a national ban on same-sex marriage. No word from the Senator on how he squares the circle. We're waiting. This kind of blatant illogicality, in combination with a callous attitude toward the needs of gay individuals and couples, is part of what cratered Republicans' credibility.

More: Here's what else has Republicans looking toxic to young people and moderates: one of their leading national spokespeople, Joe the Plumber, calls gays "queer" and says he would not let them "anywhere near" his children. Lots of Republicans will be wincing privately at this almost refreshingly direct expression of bigotry, but let's see how many repudiate Joe Wurzelbacher publicly. Will the folks at the National Organization for Marriage, who are so quick to call gay-rights advocates out for incivility, defend Wurzelbacher as a victimized truth-teller?

He is for federalism, though. Maybe he'll come out against the Marriage Protection Amendment. Hold your breath.