IGF CultureWatch

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.

The Evesham Township School District in New Jersey has been embroiled in a dispute over whether to show Debra Chasnoff's video "That's a Family" about non-traditional families. The video includes families with adopted children, mixed-race families and same-sex couples with children.

According to the New York Times (Sept. 14) several parents objected after the video was shown to third grade students. The objections eventually led to the video being dropped.

Divorce, adoption, even mixed-race parents, those are just facts about the modern world. But same-sex couples with children? That's not a fact. That's a controversy.

Parents who objected to the video claimed that they were not motivated by prejudice against gays but by concern that the video was not suitable for such young children.

The Times quoted one parent as saying, "I don't think it was appropriate. If it was maybe in the fifth grade, but in third grade they're a little too young." But then the parent retracted even that plausible position, adding, "It's something to be discussed within families. I think it's the parents' responsibility to teach the kids about that stuff."

Another parent reportedly said that children "shouldn't learn questionable things in school that they're not ready for and don't understand." What is questionable? Whether gay parents exist? Whether they love their children?

Steven Goldstein, chairman of the gay rights group Garden State Equality, said the opposition was fueled not by concerns about parental control but "about fear of gay people."

But I suspect that Goldstein is not quite correct on either point. The opposition to the video was likely fueled not so much by fear of gay people as by plain, old, ordinary antipathy--disapproval, hostility--to gay people and to any mention in the curriculum of their existence.

And the objections were prompted precisely by the issue of parental control. Parents understandably want to determine what and how their children learn, but parents who want to keep their children from knowing about the way the world is are doing them few favors.

It is hard to justify letting some parents control what government (tax-supported) schools teach since the schools are paid for by parents with a variety of values and attitudes. In other words, the objecting parents want to control what other people's children as well as their own are "exposed to."

In other times and places, these are the same type of parents who object to school lessons on other aspects of the modern world--evolution, birth control, sex education, comparative religion. In the past they would have objected to any mention of interracial marriage. And now they are objecting to saying anything about gays--whether gays as parents, gays as couples or just the fact that gays and lesbians exist.

None of the parents bother to explain why they think young children "aren't ready for" and "don't understand" about gay parents or gay couples. What is so hard to understand about two men adopting a child or two women raising the child of one of them from a previous marriage? If children grow up with that information it does not seem odd or incomprehensible; it is just another aspect of a fascinating and varied world they are learning about. The children probably think of the gay couple as "best friends" or "roommates."

The problem is not with the children's understanding, but with the parents' importation of a different issue. When religious conservatives think about gays, they think primarily of sex. Gays? Sex. Gay couples? Sex. Gay parents? Sex. And they do not want their children learning about gay sex. But it is doubtful that third graders connect gay parenting with sex. Conservative parents see sex where it isn't even mentioned.

This is the same mentality that made the children's book "And Tango Makes Three" the library book that drew the most parental objections last year. The book is a charming true story (by all means read it) about two male penguins who together brood and hatch an egg and begin raising the baby penguin. Homophobic parents objected to the book because it was "about homosexuality." But nowhere in the book is there even a hint that the two penguins engaged in sex.

Such beliefs border on psychosis.

If conservative parents fear anything, it is not homosexuals, but that their children may abandon the parents' hostility toward gays and come to accept gays as just another part of the world around them. It is this loss of control over their children's values and social attitudes, not the facts that the children learn, that upsets conservative parents most. But that is always the risk of education.

David Blankenhorn is the kind of same-sex marriage opponent you might consider inviting to your (gay) wedding.

I'm not saying you should. After all, in his books, articles and talks, Blankenhorn has defended the position that same-sex marriage weakens a valuable institution. So when your minister intones "If anyone here has any objections to this union…" all eyes would be on him.

But Blankenhorn is virtually unique among same-sex marriage opponents in his insistence on "the equal dignity of homosexual love." He has stated this belief repeatedly in his talks, particularly those to conservative audiences. And he stated it again recently in an online "bloggingheads" discussion with same-sex marriage advocate Jonathan Rauch. Despite his ultimate opposition, Blankenhorn concedes that there are a number of strong reasons for supporting same-sex marriage, not least being our equal worth.

This is an unusual, refreshing, and significant concession.

Before you call me an Uncle Tom-excited about crumbs from the table rather than demanding my rightful place at it-let me be clear.

I think Blankenhorn is dead wrong in his opposition to same-sex marriage. In particular, his argument is marked by some serious fallacies:

(1) The leap from "Most people who want to dethrone marriage from its privileged position support same-sex marriage" to "Most same-sex-marriage supporters want to dethrone marriage from its privileged position." That's like moving from "Most professional basketball players are tall" to "Most tall people are professional basketball players." In fact, most couples who want same-sex marriage do so precisely because they recognize marriage's special status.

(2) The leap from "Same-sex-marriage support correlates with 'marriage-weakening behaviors' (non-marital cohabitation, single-parent childrearing, divorce)" to "Same-sex marriage should be opposed." Putting aside the questionable claims about correlation, this argument falsely assumes that only bad things correlate with bad things. As I've argued before, that's not so. (Worldwide, affluence correlates with obesity, but it doesn't follow we should oppose affluence.)

Besides, Blankenhorn overlooks all of the good things that correlate with same-sex marriage (higher education rates, support for religious freedom, respect for women, and so on).

(3) The move from "Children do better with their biological parents than in other kinds of arrangements" to "Same-sex marriage is bad for children." Blankenhorn's argument here is more subtle than most. It's not that gay and lesbian couples make bad parents (indeed, Blankenhorn supports gay adoption); it's that same-sex marriage reinforces the notion that marriage isn't primarily about children. And widespread acceptance of that notion-particularly in the hands of the heterosexual majority, who do not escape Blankenhorn's critique-is bad for children. This argument (which deserves more than a cursory treatment) is marked by a number of dubious empirical assumptions; it also ignores children who are already being raised by same-sex parents and would palpably benefit from their parents' legal marriage.

Beyond these concerns, I'm tempted to respond to Blankenhorn's point about "the equal dignity of homosexual love" with an exasperated "Duh!" Yes, we love our partners! We rejoice with them in times of joy; we suffer when they ail; we weep when they die. The failure to notice this is not just obtuse, it's morally careless. Thanking someone for acknowledging it feels akin to thanking the neighbor kids for not peeing on my lawn, or thanking my students for not sleeping in class-those were never supposed to be options, anyway.

Ironically, it's largely because of kids that I resist giving this kind of snarky response. It's all well and good that I think truths about our lives are obvious. But in the real world-the one we actually live in-people believe and spread vicious falsehoods about us. I'm concerned about our kids' hearing them.

Blankenhorn may be mistaken-even badly so-but he isn't vicious. What's more, he has the ear of audiences who would never listen to me, much less to the ideological purists who call me an "Uncle Tom." And he's telling those audiences about the equal dignity of our love. I'm genuinely grateful for that.

Would I prefer that Blankenhorn preached the equal dignity of same-sex love without opposing marriage equality? Of course. But I don't always get what I prefer. And I also realize that, if Blankenhorn shared all of my preferred views, he wouldn't have the attention of opponents I want to convert-if not to marriage equality, then at least to a belief in our equal dignity.

Do I need Blankenhorn's approval for my relationship? Of course not. But public discourse matters. Ideas matter; votes matter. They matter to us, and they matter to those who come after us.

When Blankenhorn tells our opponents about "the equal dignity of homosexual love," he's talking to people with kids. Some of those kids will be gay. For their sake, I'm critical of him. For their sake, I'm also grateful to him.