Bruce Bawer's latest letter from Europe, First They Came for the Gays, is another powerful reminder on why the clash of civilizations matters to us, and on the dangers from the warped "Blame the West First" multiculturalism that's taken hold throughout the continent (and which is also being promoted by many, in the guise of "progressivism," on our shores).
There's much more from Bruce at BruceBawer.com
This New York Times news story asserts that there is no difference between the positions on matters gay among Huckabee, Romney, Giuliani and McCain. (In fact, Huckabee and Romney court the religious right and support a federal amendment to ban same-sex marriage; Giuliani and McCain don't.) Yet...
[The Democratic candidates] all support same-sex civil unions and say they would fight to repeal the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. And each of them says he or she would champion a federal anti-discrimination law that would protect lesbians and gay men.... All of the [GOP] candidates hold opposite positions from the Democrats on those matters, and although gay rights have not dominated the Republican contest so far, if past elections are any guide, they will become an issue after the primaries, [unnamed liberal] political strategists say.
To further make his case, reporter Andrew Jacobs misleading reports flatly that Giuliani opposes civil unions (Giuliani has stated "I support civil unions" but briefly and unfortunately was critical, specifically, of New Hampshire's version). In October, liberal Times columnist Frank Rich wrote, "No matter how you slice it, the Giuliani positions on abortion, gay rights and gun control remain indistinguishable from Hillary Clinton's."
Meanwhile, in Jacobs' reportage all the Dems are equally wonderful and splendiferous (even if they all oppose same-sex marriage). There is no attempt to hold the Democrats' rhetoric up to comparison with their records (no pro-gay congressional battles have been led by any of the big three: none, zero, nada) or their likelihood to spend political capital on gay issues in the future (and I have a bridge in Brooklyn you might be interested in).
Out of the presidential contenders who were serving in Congress in 2004, the only one who did risk political capital by speaking out forcefully and eloquently against the federal marriage amendment was...John McCain (CNN.com's coverage is here; read it).
Just shoddy journalism, or an effort to help ensure that lesbigay voters keep mindlessly giving their votes and dollars to the one true party? You decide.
What a non-issue civil unions are turning out to be.
I fully expected that the GOP candidates would leverage New Hampshire's newly enacted civil union law to remind voters that only they will protect the traditional family. I'm sure there were comments made at rallies and in restaurants that I didn't hear and that reporters chose to ignore. But short of Mike Huckabee's statement in the ABC/WMUR/Facebook debate that he and Obama likely held different positions on same-sex marriage, fulminations against lesbian and gay couples simply failed to materialize.
In point of fact, the positions of Huckabee and Obama are much closer than one may realize - no viable candidate for the White House supports same-sex marriage - but consider what the silence in New Hampshire portends. Just a little more than a week before the Jan. 8 primaries, the local papers were abuzz with news of the law taking effect. The steps of the capitol became the Dixville Notch for gay couples as three dozen of them said their "I do's" before family, friends and the media (and at least one cranky protester from Maine) at midnight on New Year's Day. Projections from those in the know suggest that over 3,500 couples will take advantage of the new law in the first year alone. That ain't chump change.
Meanwhile, the local GOP opposition isn't even trying to overturn the law. At present, it hopes to repeal the provision that says New Hampshire will recognize out-of-state civil unions. News flash: Not gonna happen. Gay Vermonters who work in the Granite State are tired of being legal strangers every time we head east across the Connecticut River, and our allies in New Hampshire will rally for us. Besides, four states now have civil unions: Vermont, Connecticut, New Jersey and New Hampshire. Only one has same-sex marriage (Massachusetts.). The trend line says that more and more states will enact civil union laws, and just as in New Hampshire, more and more people will have no objection when that day comes.
Now fast-forward to the spring of 2009. Imagine the next president proclaiming that the federal benefits that attend civil marriage (well over 1,100) would be extended by executive order to all federal employees whose relationships have been registered in one of the 50 states. And imagine that president calling upon Congress to pass legislation to extend those benefits to all couples so registered.
I'm deliberately avoiding the M-word here because for years now I've argued that we as a nation need to divorce the legal benefits of marriage from the religious connotations of the word. I've argued that civil unions need to be available to all. And the collective shrug seen in New Hampshire suggests that a move in that direction is possible, both on a statewide and on a federal level.
After all, most of us intuitively grasp the distinction between a license filed away in a musty vault somewhere and the moment enacted before witnesses where two people wed their lives to each other. The latter, not the former, constitutes marriage. The rest is paperwork.
I do not discount the symbolic important the M-word has for many in our world today, which is why I'm happy to report that people routinely refer to my partner and I (neither one of us likes the word "husband") as married. The state cannot withhold the word or the ceremonial rites of marriage.
The legal rights of marriage, in contrast, are held exclusively by the state. Let's keep prying those rights free from the word itself. One of the fastest ways we can do that is to elect a president who can help make this distinction clearer, who respects all couples for their intrinsic worth and sees their genuine need for the protection of their relationships that only the law can afford. And when the GOP nominee starts squawking about civil unions on the state and federal level, say: You had your chance to speak up in New Hampshire. It's time for you now and forever to hold your peace.
On Sunday night, my partner and I caught TCM's "Silent Sunday" showing of the 1928 film "West Point," starring the all-but-forgotten William Haines. But it's Haines' own story that should be turned into a movie. As Wikipedia recounts, by 1925 he was MGM's most important male star. But...
Haines lived openly as a homosexual. Starting in 1926, Haines lived with Jimmy Shields, whom he had met when Shields was his stand-in during the production of a film. Studio publicists were able to keep Haines' sexual orientation from the press....
In 1933...Louis B. Mayer, the studio head at MGM, delivered an ultimatum to Haines: choose between a sham marriage or … [end] his relationship with Shields. Haines chose Shields and they were ultimately together for 50 years. Mayer subsequently fired Haines and terminated his contract.
And there's much more:
Haines and Shields began a successful career as interior designers and antique dealers....Their lives were disrupted in 1936 when members of the Ku Klux Klan dragged the two men from their home and beat them, because a neighbor had accused the two of propositioning his son. Crawford, along with other stars such as Claudette Colbert, George Burns, Gracie Allen, Kay Francis and Charles Boyer urged the men to report this to the police. Marion Davies asked her lover William Randolph Hearst to use his influence to ensure the neighbors were prosecuted to the full extent of the law, but ultimately Haines and Shields chose not to report the incident.
The couple finally settled into the Hollywood community in Malibu, and their business prospered until their retirement in the early 1970s, except for a brief interruption when Haines served in World War II.
During his film career, Haines may have made it a point to interject gay asides into his material. In "West Point," for no reason in particular he refers to his (platonic) pal as his "boy-friend." One of his films bore the title "Brothers Under the Skin" (in which a shipping clerk and the vice president of the same company "have similar marital problems").
Oh, and as the Internet Movie Database notes, "He was an active supporter of the Republican Party and a close friend of Ronald Reagan."
College freshmen continued their decade-old upward trend of support for gay marriage in fall 2007, according to a mammoth annual survey of more than 270,000 freshmen at 356 colleges and universities and just released by the Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) at the University of California, Los Angeles.
One year earlier, in fall 2006, 61.2 percent of college freshmen supported "legal marital status" for gay and lesbian couples. By fall 2007 that percentage had risen by 2.3 percentage points to 63.5 percent.
When the question was first asked in 1997, just 50.9 percent of freshmen supported "legal marital status" for gays. Except for a downward blip in 2004 prompted in part by President George W. Bush's advocacy of a constitutional amendment barring gay marriage, the percentage of support has risen at an average rate of slightly over 1 percentage point per year.
The language "legal marital status" was chosen to refer only to civil unions or civil marriage and avoid the issue of whether churches should offer religious marriage ceremonies.
The survey also asked whether "it is important to have laws prohibiting homosexual relationships." Support for such laws fell from 25.6 percent in fall 2006 to 24.3 percent in fall 2007, a drop of 1.3 percentage points.
When that question was first asked in 1976, freshman support for such laws stood at 43.6 percent, so anti-gay attitudes have fallen nearly 20 points in 30 years. Support for anti-gay laws rose briefly during the peak years of the AIDS crisis in 1986 and 1987, but as public anxiety subsided support resumed a steady decline.
The term "homosexual relationships" is ambiguous, however. In 1976 it clearly referred to sodomy laws since legal gay marriage was not a public issue. But now that gay marriage is an issue, some students may take the term to refer to "defense of marriage" laws limiting marriage to a man and a woman. If so, the continued decline in support for such laws is especially welcome news.
As in past years, women were far more gay-supportive than men. More than seven out of ten freshman women (70.3 percent) thought that gays should have the right to legal marital status. Among freshman men a smaller 55.3 percent thought gays should have that right.
Similarly, only 18.1 percent of freshman women-fewer than one out of five-approved of laws prohibiting homosexual behavior, while 31.8 percent of freshman men approved of such laws. Still, this was the first year that support among men fell below one-third.
People have speculated about the reason for male/female differences in attitudes. But two possibilities stand out. When the term homosexual is used, most people probably think of male homosexuals. Most heterosexual men are offended by femininity in other men, so to the extent that gay men are still conceived to be feminine, they tend to be anti-gay. By contrast, most heterosexual women do not seem to be bother by male femininity.
The other possibility is that attitudes toward gay men are influenced by focusing on their sexual behavior, so what has been called the "yuck factor" that affects many male heterosexuals when they think of gay sex comes into play and contaminates their public policy views.
The only obvious way to counter both is for more heterosexuals to get to know gays as individuals, which would reduce their tendency to think of gays' behavior in the abstract.
The freshman survey is designed primarily to elicit information about the freshmen's family and academic background and their college and career plans. But it does contain a small unit asking freshmen whether they agree or disagree with statements about more than a dozen public issues, of which the questions about gay marriage and sodomy laws are a part.
On other issues of potential interest, 56.9 percent support legal abortion; 35.1 percent oppose capital punishment; decriminalized marijuana drew 38.2 percent approval; 25.8 percent supported raising taxes to reduce the federal deficit; only 31.4 percent think military spending should be increased; and 66.2 percent think that the U.S. military should remain all-volunteer.
Thirty-two percent of the freshmen described themselves as "liberal" or "far left," an increase over last year of 1 point, while the percentage describing themselves as "conservative" or "far right" fell by a similar 1 point to 24.6 percent. The rest described themselves as "middle of the road." There was no option offered for "libertarian" (socially liberal, free-market advocate).
And finally, exactly 25 percent described themselves as "Born-Again Christian" and 9.8 percent as "Evangelical." But more than one-fifth (21.4 percent) described themselves as having "no religious preference," an all-time high for that category. There was no option offered for "atheist" or "agnostic."
David Frum, a prominent neocon who, while not a religious rightist, has supported socially conservative positions such as banning same-sex marriage, seems to be moderating. He opines in the New York Times:
Social traditionalists too need to adapt to new realities. Opposition to same-sex marriage is dwindling. The pro-life cause, though gaining strength, remains a minority point of view. If social conservatives can avoid seeming judgmental or punitive, their core message will become more relevant than ever to an America where marriage is equaling college as a tollgate to the middle class.
By "core message," I believe Frum means that marriage is fundamental but under threat. If that concern can be separated from paranoia over gays wanting to get hitched, social conservatism could play a more constructive role (encouraging marriage, for example) and we'd all be better off.
Speaking of which, IGF's own Dale Carpenter and Jonathan Rauch will join David Frum and other conservatives at an upcoming symposium titled Is Gay Marriage Conservative? The Feb. 15 event, sponsored by the Southern Texas Law Review, seeks "to foster civil debate among conservatives and within conservative thought about gay marriage" and will focus on "the underlying policy question of whether gay marriage is a good idea from a conservative perspective."
It's the kind of open exchange of ideas between independent gay intellectuals and prominent conservatives that IGF loves to see, and that the "progressive" LGBT echo chamber organizations have long shunned.
I agree that this approach would be a far more effective long-term strategy:
Prior to the New Hampshire primary, the Boston-based gay newspaper Bay Windows-which circulates across New England-was approached by representatives of several Democratic candidates seeking an endorsement, editor Susan Ryan-Vollmar said.
Instead, Ryan-Vollmar wrote a biting column asserting that none of the front-runners-Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama or John Edwards-had shown enough courage on gay issues to deserve the customarily generous financial support of gay donors.
"They've merely settled on what the Democrats have staked out as a safe, consensus position, just far enough ahead of where the party was in 2004 to give a sense of progress but not so far as to threaten Middle America," Ryan-Vollmar wrote. "That's not leadership, it's poll-tested and party-approved pandering, pure and simple."
Rather than donating to any presidential candidate, gays and lesbians should give money to state and local candidates who support marriage rights, she wrote.
But it won't happen because too many LGBT inside-the-beltway lobbyists see themselves as Democrats targeting the lesbigay community on behalf of their party, with the hope of one day achieving their personal goal of a nice apparatchik position in a Democratic administration.
Jonathan Kay writes on the National Post website:
Brokeback Mountain, Heath Ledger's masterpiece, has been Youtubed, South Parked, Family Guyed and Saturday Night Lived so many times, that it is sometimes difficult to recall what an astonishingly good film it was. Had Brokeback been the only film Ledger had ever made, we would still properly be mourning the loss of one of the world's great actors.
And Alex Altman reflects at Time magazine online:
Though the late actor had taken on other roles since, it was his Oscar-nominated performance as Ennis Del Mar, a sheep rancher who discovers his homosexuality in Brokeback Mountain, that mourners referred to again and again. His death was particularly poignant to gay New Yorkers. "He is a gay icon," says John Lopez, 22, who works in a gourmet food store that Ledger frequented. "To support us, he broke a lot of taboos." From overseas, the film's director Ang Lee said in a statement, "He brought to the role of Ennis more than any of us could have imagined - a thirst for life, for love, and for truth, and a vulnerability that made everyone who knew him love him. His death is heartbreaking."
Of course, couldn't you just predict this.
Addedndum. A look back at Hollywood hypocrisy and more from our Brokeback archive.
I'm not quite sure why I think the ongoing travails between the increasingly reactionary Anglican Communion vs. the (predominantly) inclusive-leaning U.S. Episcopal Church are of so much importance. But, as Theo Hobson blogs, the struggle between inclusiveness and naked bigotry seems to encapsulate the ongoing tension between corrupt religious institutions and the essential Gospel message. He puts it nicely:
An institution that discriminates against homosexuals is without moral credibility-and moral credibility is rather important in religion. Furthermore, it contravenes the spirit of Jesus's teaching. His commandment "Judge not" could almost have been invented for the problem of homosexuality, which most straight people find challenging on some level, but must learn not to condemn. Tolerance seems the only moral response, and a rule against gay priests obviously falls short of tolerance. It institutionalises prejudice....
In my opinion, the gay crisis shakes the foundations of ecclesiology. Organised religion has always been authoritarian, in calling certain moral rules God's will, in saying that moral and doctrinal orthodoxy must be upheld. As I see it, Christianity rejects this; it dispenses with the moral "law". It claims, scandalously, that God wills a new freedom-from "holy morality", from the bossy legalism inherent in religious institutionalism.
I agree, which is why I'm appalled by those who would turn their backs on the Gospel of Love for the sake maintaining the "unity" of the Anglican Communion, at any cost.
Kudos to the Washington Blade for editorializing on why gay fealty to one political party is not now, and never was, good strategy.
In a lawsuit, former Democratic National Committee gay outreach director Donald Hitchcock charges he was fired as director of the DNC's Gay & Lesbian Leadership Council in May 2006 after his domestic partner, Paul Yandura, wrote that "All progressives need to be asking how much has the DNC budgeted to counter the anti-gay ballot initiatives in the states. We also need to know why the DNC and our Democratic leaders continue to allow the Republicans to use our families and friends as pawns to win elections." DNC memos brought to light as a result of the suit reveal the extent to which the DNC expects gays to shut up and keep sending dollars.
Comments Blade Editor Kevin Naff:
it serves as a reminder of what happens when one party knows it can count on the support of a constituency group, no matter what. We have seen this problem manifest before. When Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, a Democrat who once publicly supported gay marriage, changed his position and invoked the Catholic sacraments following that state's high court ruling upholding a gay ban, our national advocacy groups were silent. It's a safe bet that if O'Malley were a Republican, the indignant press releases would have been flying and rallies would have been scheduled for Annapolis.
When Democrats like John Kerry and 2004 running mate John Edwards announce support for anti-gay state marriage amendments and gays line up dutifully behind them anyway, we teach the party that there are no repercussions for betraying us.
This doesn't mean gay voters should pull the lever for any of the Republicans now in the running. Rather, gay voters, donors and campaign staffers need to learn the art of the barter system: you give something, you get something. No one knows that concept better than the evangelical Christians.
"Free gay votes and dollars for Dems; nothing required" has for too long been the operating principle of major national (and some state) LGBT organizations.