IGF CultureWatch

I've recently discovered something about myself: I'm not a partisan.

I thought I was. I'm a stalwart Democrat. I have strong opinions.

But even though there are issues I feel strongly about - gay civil rights, universal health care, abortion rights, the role of government in society - I tend to believe that a person's political party doesn't define them as a person.

And that means that a person's political party doesn't necessarily reveal their positions on political issues.

Sometimes they do.

In the way that you can generally guess that if someone is gay they are also a Democrat, you can guess that if someone is a Republican they are more likely to be socially conservative.

The company we keep does define who we are, to a limited extent. After all, who among us hasn't found that our views on some issues were influenced by the political party we choose to support?

But not all gay people are Democrats (hence the Log Cabin Republicans), not all Republicans are socially conservative, and not all Democrats believe in gay civil rights.

Americans like labels.

I'm thinking about this because I work in a mostly gay office, where almost everyone follows politics closely and has strong opinions.

Last week, during the Republican National Convention, many of my colleagues dropped by to ask me what I thought of the speeches, what I thought of Sarah Palin, what I thought of John McCain.

And one of them said: "I just don't understand the Log Cabin Republicans. How can someone be both gay and Republican?" Someone else, commenting on a news story on the web, compared gay Republicans to Jewish people who worked for the Nazis.

I understand the feeling here.

Many Republicans have proven themselves to not be friends on our issues. John McCain, for example, has never voted for any gay rights bill. Sarah Palin's church is one that tries to convince gay people that they can become ex-gay - and that this would be healthier, more fulfilling and more pleasing to God.

But just because some Republicans feel this way, and because the party as a whole does not accept the fight for gay civil rights as part of its platform, doesn't mean that Republicans are de facto evil. Republicans are not, in fact, Nazis, and it is offensive to call them so.

I grew up with Republicans. My mother, my father, most of my neighbors, the parents of my friends - pretty much all Republican. Only a few of my high school teachers admitted to being Democrats.

I myself thought I was a Republican until just before my 18th birthday, when I registered as a Democrat.

Most Republicans, I think, want what most Democrats want: a country that is prosperous, with people who are able to work, own homes and have families. A country where everyone has an equal shot at the future they choose for themselves. A democracy where we can criticize the government, make fun of our president, and choose the leaders who best represent us.

Republicans and Democrats just have different visions for how you get to that place. As for socially conservative issues - well, the Log Cabin Republicans are clearly on the right side of those. It's not an oxymoron to be a socially liberal Republican. Think Abraham Lincoln. Or think of my mother, now canvassing for Obama because it makes her sick to think of her party not allowing her daughter to marry.

There are times when it is worth staying in a party or a city or a country in order to help it move forward.

If I had to define myself politically, I'd say I was a pragmatic centrist. I believe that to advance our civil rights, we need to work with everyone who will work with us. I believe that we need visionary idealists to set goals that are high above us and far away, but that change itself is often slow and incremental. Large successes are built on a stepladder of smaller ones.

Republicans are not the enemy. They are not crazy and misguided by definition, though there are crazy, misguided Republicans just as certainly as there are crazy, misguided Democrats.

Republicans are just members of a party we have not converted yet. But we will never convert them to the support of gay civil rights if we dismiss everything they say as being idiotic and morally wrong.

No, Republicans are not the enemy. They are simply Republicans. They comprise about half the country. And if we want our rights, we need to work with them to show them why they should want our rights, too.

I'm sick of the phony reasons some gay people give for opposing Barack Obama. I am not talking about my friends in Log Cabin Republicans, who prefer John McCain for broader ideological reasons. I am talking about angry Hillary Clinton supporters.

For example, Sirius OutQ talk-radio host Larry Flick, still upset that Clinton had not won the Democratic nomination, slammed Obama on Aug. 28 for opposing same-sex marriage. Yet Clinton holds the same position on marriage - except that she would only repeal Article 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, whereas Obama favors total repeal.

Flick challenged Sirius Left host Mark Thompson, an African American minister and activist with whom I've worked for years, on his support for Obama. Flick expressed outrage that Obama accepted help from "blatant, aggressive homophobes" Donnie McClurkin and Illinois state Sen. James Meeks. Yet Clinton enjoyed support from homophobic Bishop Eddie Long of Lithonia, Ga., and from former D.C. City Council member Vincent Orange, who as a mayoral candidate in 2006 called his opponents morally unfit for supporting marriage equality.

Flick said Obama "has not voted in favor of these issues on gay rights in any fashion." In fact, the Human Rights Campaign's Congressional Scorecard for the 109th Congress shows that Clinton and Obama had identical LGBT voting records and earned an HRC score of 89. This included, among other things, voting against the Federal Marriage Amendment. I have not yet seen the scorecard for the 110th, but the Congressional Record shows that in 2007, Clinton and Obama were co-introducers of the transgender-inclusive Hate Crimes Prevention Act - later incorporated into the National Defense Authorization Act - and voted "aye" in a key cloture vote.

Flick acknowledged that he would probably vote for Obama given the alternatives, but "I won't allow any of his people to come on my show." He even claimed that Democratic Party leaders decided a year ago to back Obama for the nomination because they never thought Hillary could win. This conspiracy mongering ignores the fact that the Clintons were a dominant force in the party while Obama was given little chance. During the primaries, Clinton landed her share of blows, as shown by McCain's use of them in his commercials. Clinton and Obama have reconciled, and she has hit the campaign trail for him. As Thompson suggested, her supporters should consider the larger stakes and not let the election be reduced to a clash of personalities.

Flick repeatedly said to Thompson, "You're not a gay man, you don't understand." Thompson was admirably restrained. He stated that blacks and gays share a "mutual struggle," and that comparing oppressions was a mistake. He noted that he himself has differences with Obama, "but we would be better off holding a President Obama accountable than a President McCain." Thompson also sang the praises of Clinton, describing the exhilarating moment during the roll call when she moved to nominate Obama by acclamation. He said it was time to move forward together: "Today is bigger than him."

We should heed Thompson's advice. McCain's eagerness to distract voters from the issues is evident in his vice-presidential choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who opposes Clinton on nearly every issue. Former Hewlett-Packard Chairman and CEO Carly Fiorina, in response to journalistic scrutiny of Palin, stated, "The Republican Party will not stand by while Sarah Palin is subjected to sexist attacks."

Oh, really? Ten years ago, McCain joked, "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno." How does a man who could say such a thing about a political opponent's teenage daughter dare have his surrogates cry sexism over press examination of his running mate's qualifications - or declare family matters off-limits, even as he parades the family in question before the cameras? How is an out-of-wedlock pregnancy nobody's business, while it's okay to accuse gay people of undermining families? How in the world does this show McCain putting his country ahead of his political ambition?

Our intelligence is repeatedly insulted as GOP wordmeisters put just about anything on the telerompter that will get a roar from the crowd. Given the recent tone of McCain's campaign, his promise to bring the country together is as credible as President Bush's old line, "I'm a uniter, not a divider."

As Obama said on Sept. 6, "They must think you're stupid." Prove them wrong.

One unfortunate byproduct of presidential elections is that they make really acute people say really obtuse things in an effort to help their preferred candidate. Supporters of John McCain have done plenty of this, of course. But since this is a gay newspaper, where you're likely to read nonstop criticism of McCain and all things Republican, I want to focus on some recent commentary by gay supporters of Barack Obama.

Start with the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the flagship national gay-rights organization. It makes perfect sense for a group focused solely on gay equality to back Obama, as HRC has done. (The analysis is different for the Log Cabin Republicans, whose mission is to work for gay rights within the GOP.) On paper at least, Obama is better than McCain on every gay issue.

So you'd think HRC would have enough material to justify its choice without stretching the truth. But just as the Republican National Convention ended, HRC sent out an email littered with distortions about McCain's record on gay issues.

HRC flatly claimed that McCain "believes same-sex couples should never be allowed to adopt children." It's true that McCain initially told the New York Times in an interview that he "doesn't believe in gay adoption." But his campaign later explained that he had expressed only a "personal preference" - not a policy view.

More importantly, McCain recognizes that when the biological parents are gone, the child needs "caring parental figures." This gender-free language seemingly includes adoption by same-sex couples. It's a bit ambiguous, I agree, but there's no ambiguity in HRC's criticism. Explaining the context and nuance requires more thought than HRC thinks we deserve.

In the same email, HRC also charged (in bold type) that McCain supports "writing discrimination into the U.S. Constitution" through a federal constitutional amendment on marriage. This is both misleading and deeply unfair.

McCain has said he would support a constitutional amendment allowing states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages from other states if a federal court ruled otherwise. Arizona should not have to recognize gay marriages from Massachusetts if it doesn't want to, he believes. That's the law now and it's entirely consistent with McCain's defensible view that states should decide the issue for themselves.

For the same reason, he courageously and loudly opposed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage - and twice voted against it as Senator. He paid a heavy political price within his own party for taking that stand. Yet HRC doesn't mention it.

HRC even chides McCain for saying things slightly favorable to gays. For example, McCain supports letting gay couples "enter into legal agreements" to get some benefits of marriage because he wants them to "have the rights of all citizens."

Instead of noting this, HRC criticizes him for not supporting full marriage. "If GLBT Americans don't have marriage rights then they don't have 'the rights of all citizens' - simple as that," HRC lectures us. That's true, but Obama also opposes gay marriage, a fact unmentioned by HRC.

In fact, few gay supporters of Obama ever acknowledge that he opposes gay marriage for explicitly religious reasons. Defending his view that marriage is between "a man and a woman" at the Saddleback Church forum in August, Obama told the faithful that "God is in the mix."

This is blatant pandering to religious conservatives. Worse still, rhetoric like this legitimizes much of the opposition to gay marriage. If McCain justified his views about marriage solely on religious grounds, you can be sure gay-rights groups would be huffing and puffing about the separation of church and state.

Ordinarily independent bloggers, too, have donned election-year blinders. Chris Crain, an incisive gay commentator, recently castigated GOP Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin because her Down's Syndrome baby, Trig, "requires far greater attention than Palin could give as vice president or president." There are plenty of reasons to be dubious about Palin, but contrived and sexist concern about her maternal duties isn't one of them.

Andrew Sullivan, an often inspiring and visionary gay writer, has recently turned his blog over to constant and fevered opposition to the Republican ticket. A low point was reached when he peddled baseless and vicious rumors that Trig might not even be Palin's baby.

Finally, even gay "news" sources have let their bias distort their reporting. The Republican National Convention was notable for its lack of gay-bashing. In contrast to George Bush in 2004, McCain made no mention of gays or gay issues in his acceptance speech. He didn't even take a swipe at gay marriage, which is especially tasty red meat for social conservatives.

The Advocate, however, reported that McCain's speech had nevertheless been "slyly" anti-gay. First, McCain chided judges "who legislate from the bench," which the story claimed was a "coded" complaint about the recent California marriage decision. GOP opposition to judicial activism does indeed include concern about judicially mandated gay marriage, but it's much broader than that. And more than a few of us who support gay marriage believe it should be achieved legislatively.

The second reference said to be a "thinly veiled dig at gays" was McCain's observation that education is "the civil-rights issue of this century." McCain was referring to the poor quality of education available to minorities. It takes special powers of indignation to see this as a derogatory comment on gay rights.

Support Obama, if that's your preference, but turn on your bovine-offal detector.

I admit it: I was fascinated by the announcement that Sarah Palin's 17-year-old daughter is pregnant.

It's no surprise that teenagers have sex-even evangelical Christian teenagers, and especially very good looking ones, in Alaska, where there's not much to do but hunting and fishing and…well, you know.

And it's certainly no surprise that sex makes babies.

But when a conservative politician who advocates abstinence education has a very public failure of abstinence in her own family, revealed just a few days after she's announced as the Republican vice-presidential nominee, it's bound to get people talking.

If nothing else, the social and political contours are interesting. Right-wingers admire Palin's principles, but some wish she would put aside her political ambitions to tend to her family. Left-wingers reject this idea as anti-feminist, but they also reject Palin's politics.

Let me make two things very clear.

First, Bristol Palin is not running for office; Sarah Palin is. Bristol Palin, like all expectant mothers, should be wished well-especially since she finds herself pregnant during the frenzy and scrutiny of her mother's vice-presidential campaign. She deserves our compassion, as does her new fiancé.

Second, Sarah Palin is no hypocrite-as some uncharitable commentators have suggested-for embracing her yet-unwed pregnant daughter.

There's no inconsistency in believing both that we should teach abstinence until marriage and that we should support those children who become pregnant anyway. There's no hypocrisy in striving for an ideal that you and your loved ones occasionally fall short of. You don't stop endorsing speed limits just because you (or your kids) sometimes lose track of the speedometer.

The fact is, Sarah Palin's rejection of comprehensive sex education deserves criticism on its own merits. Her family's behavior has nothing to do with it, aside from adding anecdotes to the statistics suggesting that "abstinence only" doesn't achieve what its proponents hope and claim.

For example, abstinence advocates are fond of citing studies by Yale's Hannah Brückner and Columbia's Peter Bearman, who show that adolescents who take abstinence pledges generally delay sex about eighteen months longer than those who don't. What the advocates don't mention is the researchers' finding that only 12 percent of these adolescents keep their pledges, and that when they do have sex, they are far less likely to use protection.

In other words, the failure rate of condoms pales by comparison to the failure rate of abstinence pledges-88 percent, if you believe Brückner and Bearman.

But it's not Sarah Palin's rejection of comprehensive sex education that's bugging me here. What's bugging me is the right-wing reaction, which for the most part boils down to "Nobody's perfect, life happens, but you love and support your children and grandchildren."

That, of course, is the proper reaction.

But it stands in sharp contrast to their usual reaction to gay kids, their rhetoric about "Love in Action" and "Love Win[ning] Out" notwithstanding.

For example, contrast the right-wing reaction to Palin's grandchild with their reaction to Dick Cheney's grandchild Samuel-son of his lesbian daughter Mary. At the time, Janice Crouse of Concerned Women for America announced that Mary's pregnancy "repudiates traditional values and sets an appalling example for young people at a time when father absence is the most pressing social problem facing the nation." She was hardly alone in such denunciations.

Now here's the same Crouse on Palin: "We are confident that she and her family will handle this unexpected situation with grace and love. We appreciate the fact that the Palins…are providing loving support to the teenager and her boyfriend."

There are differences in the two cases to be sure. Bristol plans to marry the father, and thus will provide the baby with a "traditional" family (in one sense); Mary won't. Bristol's pregnancy was probably accidental, whereas Mary's was certainly deliberate.

On the other hand, Mary's child arrives in the home of a mature and stable couple; Bristol's in the home of a young and hastily formed one.

But the sharpest difference in the cases is the contrast in right-wingers' compassion. It's the difference in empathy, a trait that's at the core of the Golden Rule.

They tell heterosexuals: abstinence until marriage-and if you fail, we forgive you. For gays, it's abstinence forever-and if you fail, we denounce you.

For heterosexuals, "Nobody's perfect, life happens, but you love and support your children and grandchildren."

For gays, not so much.