IGF CultureWatch

There are always those who misguidedly believe that "unity" trumps all else, including justice. Sadly, that is the view now taken by the U.S. Episcopal Church, which has bowed down to Canterbury's demand, on behalf of African Christofascists (who campaign in their home countries to make gays socializing together a crime) that it stop blessing same-sex unions and ordaining gay bishops.

Why the U.S. Church didn't break with Britain in 1776, I don't know. But unless the Episcopalians belatedly declare their independence, it makes no sense for gays to stay with them. This church worships the false idol of "unity" above all. It has chosen the dark side.

More. Have I over-reacted to what is, in effect, a "cooling off period"? Maybe, but it seems to me that gay Episcopalians have shown enormous loyalty to their church through the years. I don't see that being responded to in kind. Anglican Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria is an evil man who corrupts the essential gospel message, and instead of going the distance to placate/appease him, he should be called out for the promoter of hate that he is.

Larry Craig watch. On a much lighter note, catch this video.

"In Iran we don't have homosexuals like in your country." So declared Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as he in effect proclaimed the Islamofascist tyranny over which he presides (and in which known homosexuals are arrested and executed) to be gay-free. Chillingly, Ahmadinejad went on to defend the use of capital punishment against anti-social elements, saying:

Can a physician allow microbes, symbolically speaking, to spread across a nation? We have laws. People who violate the public rights of the people by using guns, killing people, creating insecurity, sell drugs, distribute drugs at a high level are sentenced to execution in Iran, and some of these punishments-very few are carried in the public eye, before the public eye. It's a law based on democratic principles. You use injections and microbes to kill these people, and they are executed or they're hung, but the end result is killing.

Some conservative sites have made much of Iran's murderous state-sponsored homophobia, as for example, on the Wall Street Journal editorial page:

His regime funnels sophisticated munitions to Shiite militias in Iraq, who use them to kill American soldiers. Oh, and by the way, his regime also executes homosexuals for the crime of being themselves. Maybe if Columbia University President Lee Bollinger were aware of the latter fact he would reconsider his invitation to the Iranian president to speak on his campus today.

A cynic might say that this is a tactic to divide the left (where some still feel if you hate George Bush with enough vehemence, it excuses all else). But it's still good to see the right take on gay bashing-even if it's in Iran.

Update. Iran's state news agency has censored all references to gays from the official Farsi-language transcripts of Ahmadinejad's remarks.

More. Right Side of the Rainbow is rightly appalled at left-wing students, "some of whom are surely gay themselves," who cheered and applauded the butcher, and who say they'd rather have him as president than Bush. Blogger Paul provides a video of an Iranian execution of gay teenagers, but don't expect anything to get through to some of these Ivy League idiots.

The Republican mayor of San Diego, Jerry Sanders, has reversed his opposition to gay marriage, noting that his daughter is gay (here's video of his announcement). As the AP reports:

[Sanders] fought back tears as he said he wanted his adult daughter, Lisa, and other gay people he knows to have their relationships protected equally under state laws. ''In the end, I could not look any of them in the face and tell them that their relationships-their very lives-were any less meaningful than the marriage that I share with my wife Rana,'' Sanders said.

So much for the good news from the Golden State. Unfortunately, California Gov. Schwarznegger has said he will once again veto legislation that would give same-sex couples the right to marry, as he did two years ago, and pledges to keep vetoing the measure as long as lawmakers send it to him (so much for those who claim same-sex marriage is always imposed by activist judges superceding the legislative process). Conservative groups, naturally, warned Schwarzenegger to take a strong stand against the bill.

Mayor Sanders is up for re-election next year and the religious right is mobilizing against him. A victory could send an extremely positive message to the party. (Here's more, from the San Diego Tribune, looking at the election implications for Sanders.)

The Classical Values blog ponders why sexual liberation for gays and others got tied to the nanny state left. Blogger Eric writes:

I don't think it is rational for Republicans to declare war on sex and to appear to embrace erotophobia, because of their traditional "leave people alone" philosophy, but there's not a damned thing I can do about it except write posts like this. As to the Democrats, they see sex not as a form of freedom to be embraced, but as something to be manipulated to gain power.

He continues:

I think that the anti-sex wing of the GOP is colluding with the Democrats to make other Republicans afraid. Not merely afraid of sex, but afraid to talk about sex unless they condemn it.

Of course, civil equality for gay people is not the same as "sex," but it may be true that "erotophobia" is as much responsible for anti-gay animus as the nebulous "homophobia." In any event, the "right" has become a coalition of libertarian/small government "leave us alone" types, capitalist free marketers, pro-trade globalizers and social reactionaries who don't mind using the state as a cudgel, while the "left" conjoins civil libertarians with anarcho-nihilists, enviro-Luddites, union reactionaries, redistributionists and total-statists. So why expect coherence?

Mitt "Mr. Consistency" Romney has launched a new ad in Iowa whose punchline is, "We must oppose discrimination and defend traditional marriage."

Hmm. Oppose discrimination? At last check, Romney opposed anti-discrimination, in the form of the proposed federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act. So Romney is anti-discrimination and anti-anti-discrimination. Got that?

In principle, Romney could coherently argue that discrimination is wrong but the law shouldn't forbid it. But, of course, so far as we know he doesn't oppose anti-discrimination laws covering race, ethnicity, gender, and religion. Only anti-discrimination laws that help gay people are "burdensome." So he's against discrimination and against laws against discrimination, except when he's not.

The real burden that's intolerable to Romney, apparently, is the burden of consistency. Nothing new there.

Dale Carpenter on Maryland high court's rejection of a gay marriage claim:

SSM [same-sex marriage] has lost in every state high court to consider the issue since the stunning success in Goodridge in Massachusetts in 2003... When you consider that SSM legal advocates have carefully chosen the most sympathetic venues since Goodridge, this record of losses is especially significant. It means that strong anti-SSM precedents are being created in the friendliest states, making pro-SSM rulings in other states even more unlikely in the near future... If SSM is to advance much in the near future, it will probably have to come legislatively.

Which is where advocates should have focused their efforts in the first place.

Larry Craig Watch: The ACLU has filed a brief on behalf of Sen. Larry Craig, arguing (correctly, in my view) that arresting someone for signaling a desire for sex is unconstitutional. Public sex is a crime, but that's too far a leap from merely expressing an interest in sex (which may or may not take place in public). Also correct: The aim of the police in conducting restroom stings "is to make as many arrests as possible-arrests that sometimes unconstitutionally trap innocent people."

Of course, this is not the defense that Larry (not signaling anything) Craig himself is putting forth.

Syrupy singer Barry Manilow canceled a scheduled appearance on ABC's "The View" after ABC refused his request not to be interviewed by co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck (he dislikes her conservative politics). "Unfortunately, the show was not willing to accommodate this simple request, so I bowed out," his statement said, adding "I strongly disagree with her views. I think she's dangerous and offensive. I will not be on the same stage as her... I cannot compromise my beliefs."

Now, just imagine the outcry if a conservative entertainer canceled because the network refused his "simple request" to push aside a liberal interviewer? The cries that he was asking the network to discriminate on the basis of the interviewer's political beliefs would be heard throughout the land.

The U. of Michigan's Daily reports that the school's Office of Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Affairs plans to pick a new name in an effort to be more inclusive:

"Part of it is that the letters are more exclusive than inclusive," [Gabe Javier, an LGBT affairs assistant] said. "There are lots of people who are part of the LGBT community that may not identify as a lesbian, bisexual or gay person."

How does one begin to communicate the irrelevance of "LGBT" (often followed by an even more unmanageable string of consonants). Suffice to say that outside of the activist/academic milieu, no one has a clue what it means. Alas, it's likely that the Michigan group may end up turning to an even worse moniker, the offensive and ugly "queer." But here's a novel suggestion; unless a case can be made for a better alternative that's easily understood, not demeaning and has historic resonance, how about "gay"?

In brief: Gay bars are closing across the country, perhaps because "as gays gained greater acceptance in society, older gays became more monogamous, and younger gays gravitated toward nightclubs that cater to a mixed crowd," per the Orlando Sentinel. (Andrew Sullivan takes note with a posting he calls "End of Gay Culture Watch.")