IGF CultureWatch

According to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, "we don't have homosexuals like in your country … In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon. I don't know who's told you we have it." This has become the most infamous portion of his infamous speech at Columbia University last Monday.

A cynical explanation of Ahmadinejad's statement that Iran does not have gays "like" those in the United States is that Iran's friends of Dorothy don't wear Diesel jeans, listen to Christina Aguilera or drink Cosmopolitans. But I doubt that's what the Iranian president meant.

Rather, he claims that homosexuality itself does not exist in Iran, and, presumably, the rest of the Muslim world. This is obviously preposterous (homosexuality is a part of human nature and has existed in most, if not all, cultures throughout history) but the purported absence of Iranian homosexuals is certainly not for Ahmadinejad's lack of trying. His regime has presided over the widespread arrest, torture and murder of homosexuals; according to Iranian human rights groups, the Iranian government has murdered as many as 4,000 gays since the Islamic Revolution came to power in 1979.

The Columbia student body applauded Ahmadinejad throughout his rant, a display that should go down as one of the most shameful moments in the annals of American academia. To their credit, however, the audience laughed in Ahmadinejad's face when he uttered his assertion about gays. But Columbia's invitation to Ahmadinejad (who kills gays) and its near four-decades-long banning of the military (which merely prohibits them from serving openly) is no laughing matter.

In 1969, Columbia University expelled the Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) program from its campus in response to the demands of a faculty and student body radicalized by the Vietnam War. Today, the University maintains its opposition ROTC (as well as the Judge Advocate General Corps at its law school) based on the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, which prevents openly gay people from serving in the armed services. Columbia and other elite schools claim that allowing the military to recruit on campus would violate their non-discrimination policies.

While it is difficult to persuade supporters of this policy on patriotic grounds (for instance, that having a strong military is more important than sending a feel-good, yet ultimately futile, message about homophobia), the most effective argument in favor of bringing the military back to campus is that banning it actually hinders the cause of ending "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

The policy can only be changed by Congress (it was an act of Congress in the first place) and Congress will only change the policy once the military supports its repeal. The easiest way to change the attitude of the military is to staff its ranks with fair-minded people the likes of which are more likely to be found at a place like Columbia than amongst the rural Southerners who overwhelm the military ranks. As I wrote in these pages two years ago, "The military brass itself is far more likely to empathize with someone who once wore a uniform and risked their life than they are to heed the hectoring of a liberal faculty member."

The least that can be said in Columbia's defense is that its opposition to ROTC and JAG is a good-faith effort to oppose homophobic policies. If that's the case, then how can those supporting the school's position on ROTC and JAG possibly justify President Lee Bollinger's invitation to Iranian President Ahmadinejad?

The Iranian regime's crimes against homosexuals are long and documented. Homosexuality is punishable by death, though some Iranian gays have escaped with mere lashes.

How dare this vicious thug come to our country and deny the existence of the thousands of gay people his regime has murdered. And how dare the students in the audience, who - had this been 1939 and it were Adolf Hitler speaking (as the Columbia School of International and Public Affairs Dean John Coatsworth says he would have liked), would have fecklessly applauded the Fuhrer - cheered and clapped for this murderer.

If gay people are not angry at the spectacle that transpired on Morningside Heights last week, then they are not paying attention. It is disingenuous for Columbia to claim that it bans the military from campus in deference to the aggrieved dignity of gay people while simultaneously inviting a murderer of homosexuals. This is the farce that Columbia University has now become: a place where those wanting to serve their country are shunned while a man who murders gays is welcomed and applauded.

This is a partisan season, and will only become more so. I must therefore beg your indulgence while I defend the following assertion: Several recent developments suggest that significant further progress toward marriage equality in America will require that it be approached as a bipartisan issue.

To be sure, more Democrats than Republicans support civil unions, and more Democrats opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment that Republicans used in 2004 and 2006, along with anti-gay state ballot initiatives, to mobilize social conservatives. Encouragingly, there are signs that the Republicans went to that well once too often. But Democrats already held the progressive congressional districts before 2006. To win control, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chair Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Illinois) had to recruit more conservative candidates to match more conservative electorates. His success, consequently, did not change the fact that most American politicians oppose civil marriage equality.

In short, advocates of marriage equality have already picked the low-hanging fruit. Like Rep. Emanuel, we have to win over more moderate and conservative voters to gain the margin of victory. But how? As Providence would have it, a Republican stepped forward last week to show us the way.

By now you have surely seen the video from San Diego. On Sept. 19, Republican Mayor Jerry Sanders, a former police chief who is up for re-election in 2008, announced a change of mind. With his wife Rana standing beside him, and struggling with emotion, he said that he would sign a city council resolution petitioning the California Supreme Court to allow marriage equality. He revealed that his daughter Lisa and members of his personal staff were gay.

"The arrival of the resolution - to sign or veto - in my office late last night forced me to reflect and search my soul for the right thing to do. I have decided to lead with my heart ... to do what I think is right, and to take a stand on behalf of equality and social justice. The right thing for me to do is sign this resolution." He continued, "I just could not bring myself to tell an entire group of people in our community they were less important, less worthy or less deserving of the rights and responsibilities of marriage, than anyone else, simply because of their sexual orientation."

Sanders made it clear that his basic values have not changed. "A decision to veto this resolution would have been inconsistent with the values I have embraced over the past 30 years." He then offered a simple yet crucial insight: "I do believe that times have changed. And with changing time, and new life experiences, come different opinions. I think that's natural, and certainly it is true in my case."

When a public figure conspicuously switches positions on a controversial issue and prevails, others may be emboldened to take the same step. Many such conversions are needed if civil marriage equality is to carry the day across the country.

Don't get me wrong. If the choice in a given race, at least on gay issues, is between a flawed Democrat and a worse Republican, then the choice in favor of the Democrat is relatively easy. But the whole point is that we are not talking about voters who already embrace gay-affirming positions. Members of Congress generally reflect the views of their constituents, and we are not likely to make much more headway until we change conservative hearts. Even assuming a Democratic sweep in 2008, there will still be many Republican legislators at the state and national levels, and it ill behooves us to write off all their supporters. Between elections, even a fierce partisan like my own congresswoman, Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), reaches across the aisle on issues such as voting representation for D.C. in Congress.

As for those officeholders who say yes to civil unions but no to marriage, it will take more than rhetoric to change them. This is where our dollars, letters, and volunteer efforts come in.

We have our work cut out for us. Time and again, otherwise gay-friendly officials shy away from supporting marriage equality. In California, Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger again threatens a veto. In Maryland, Democratic Governor Martin O'Malley backs away from his earlier support. These officials need to hear from us and they need to pay a price for their political cowardice. This requires us to re-examine our own calculations and ask ourselves whether it is truly in our interest to give money to someone just because he is a Democrat when he endorses an anti-gay ballot initiative as former Rep. Harold Ford (D-Tennessee) did last year during his U.S. Senate race. Make that his failed Senate race.

The social context is ever changing. On Sun., Sept. 23, near the end of NBC's Chris Matthews Show, the host congratulated panelist Norah O'Donnell on the birth of her new babies, then turned to Andrew Sullivan and congratulated him on his recent wedding. Matthews mentioned Andrew's husband Aaron, and showed a photo of the happy couple.

It was a simple, gracious and profound moment. We need many more. To translate them into electoral victory, we have to do more of what has worked in Massachusetts: more conversations, more phone calls, more targeted contributions, more voter mobilization.

Until they succeed in changing the prevailing wisdom, leaders like Jerry Sanders will be few. Let's be sure to thank and reward them, whatever their party affiliation.

As an appropriate follow-up to last week's column about a New Jersey school district that dropped a gay-inclusive video about different kinds of families, Banned Books Week (BBW) is coming right up, Sept. 29 to Oct. 6.

BBW is a project of the American Library Association's Office of Intellectual Freedom designed to draw attention to the number of formal challenges to books in school and public libraries lodged by parents or patrons urging that the books be removed from the shelves.

In 2006, there were 546 known attempts to remove books from libraries--and those were just the ones reported. Most book challenges were reported by school libraries--71 percent; most of the rest were reported by public libraries--24 percent. Parents lodged 61 percent of the book challenges, library patrons 15 percent, and administrators 9 percent.

As the ALA's Office of Intellectual Freedom points out, 546 challenges is more than one per day. Considering the 380 or so challenges to books in school libraries alone, that amounts to more than two a day during the typical 180-day school year.

The challenges were typically lodged on the basis of a small number of objections: sexual content, homosexuality, occult or satanic content, violence, drugs, offensive language, rather vague claims of being "anti-family," of "insensitivity," and the all-purpose "unsuitable to age group."

Not surprisingly, I suppose, given the number of "pro-family activists" around these days, four of the 10 most frequently challenged books drew objections in part because of "homosexuality." As I mentioned last week, the single most frequently challenged book was the children's picture book "And Tango Makes Three," about two male penguins who brood and hatch an egg and begin raising their baby penguin.

"Tango" (and again I urge you to read it) drew objections for homosexuality, anti-family content and unsuitability for age group. Never mind that there is not a hint of homosexuality in the book. Anti-family? The two males with their chick seem more like a traditional family than any single parent household. And since the story is true, Nature appears to have a broader understanding of "family" than the religious right--but some people must not want children to know that.

The other three books that drew challenges in part because of homosexuality were "Athletic Shorts" by Chris Crutcher, "The Perks of Being a Wallflower" by Stephen Chbosky, and books in the "Gossip Girl" series by Cecily von Ziegesar. (Other Top 10 challenged books are listed at the BBW website.)

A year or so ago for a different project I began reading gay-themed children's and "young adult" books. There are quite a number by now--upwards of 200, maybe. I have not read the "Gossip Girl" books but "Athletic Shorts" is a collection of six short stories about young athletes, one of whom has two gay fathers, and another of whom meets a young man dying of AIDS.

"The Perks of Being a Wallflower" is a sort of omnibus of problem situations high school students might encounter, one of which is the presence of two gay students. Considering all the other things in the book--rape, child abuse, etc.--the two gay youths come across as perhaps the most decent and least troubled characters in the book. Maybe that is what the challengers really objected to. To be honest, I found parts of "Perks" uncomfortable reading, but that is not to say that the book shouldn't be in libraries. It may actually help young people be better prepared if they encounter some of the things included in the book.

Fortunately, not all the challenges to library books are successful. Most are rejected by librarians and library boards--and the books stay on the shelves. In many ways, librarians are real heroes of the First Amendment, dedicated to keeping materials with a variety of social and political viewpoints available for readers.

Many people don't seem to grasp this point. They think that if they and their children use the library and their taxes help pay for the book, they should be able to determine what books the library offers. But they ignore the fact that other people might want to read precisely the books they object to and that their taxes also help pay for the books.

Putting that another way, what they want is to control not only what they and their children take out from the library and read, but what everybody else and their children can take out and read. In other words, they have no regard for individual freedom or respect for the working of other people's minds. I think we know where that can lead.