IGF CultureWatch

We can all wish Vice Presidential daughter Mary Cheney well in her intention to have a baby. If people want to go to the trouble of producing and caring for helpless infants and the even greater trouble of rearing them to be thoughtful and responsible adults, they deserve our blessing.

First announced a few weeks ago, Cheney's pregnancy recently became news again following her appearance at a panel discussion at New York's Barnard College where for the first time she spoke briefly about and defended her intention to have a child.

According to The New York Times, addressing the largely female audience, Cheney said, "Every piece of remotely responsible research that has been done in the last 20 years has shown there is no difference between children raised by same-sex parents and children raised by opposite-sex parents. What matters is being raised in a stable, loving, environment."

Well said! And the world needs to hear that repeatedly from prominent people, although strict accuracy would note that almost all research has been conducted among female partners and that the research found some marginal differences between children raised by female and opposite-sex couples, some of them to the advantage of same-sex parents' children.

But there was a certain contrived naivet� in her claim that, "This is a baby ... It is not a political statement. It is not a prop to be used in a debate on either side of a political issue. It is my child." No doubt she did not and does not intend her pregnancy to be a political statement, but that does not mean it does not have political significance. It is simply foolish to pretend otherwise.

In our celebrity-driven culture, almost anything a prominent person does is fuel for public discussion. After all, her father is Vice President and Cheney herself has been deeply involved in partisan politics. She managed her father's 2004 vice presidential campaign and even subtitled her recent book, "A Daughter's Chronicle of Political Life."

Then too, Cheney can hardy have avoided noticing that parenting by same-sex couples is a controversial topic on the social and religious right. And suddenly here we are with a prominent real-life example of something that is usually discussed in the abstract. So naturally discussion--or rather, polemics--surrounding the issue focus on her as the most prominent example.

A prominent lesbian couple having and raising a child is inevitably a political statement. It asserts in the face of vigorous disagreement that a lesbian couple having a child is just fine.

Mary Cheney also erred in her assessment of a recent exchange between her father and a CNN interviewer. CNN's Wolf Blitzer asked Vice President Cheney what he thought of religious and social conservatives such as James Dobson who had criticized his daughter for having a baby.

Cheney refused to answer and told Blitzer that he was "over the line." What line would that be, one wonders, and in what way was Blitzer over it? A line separating public and private? Hardly that since Mary's lesbianism and pregnancy are part of the public record. A line barring discussion of parenting by same-sex partners? There is no such line.

Mary Cheney, always a dutiful daughter, expressed the same view when she said that Blitzer "was trying to get a rise out of my father." But Blitzer was in fact giving Cheney an opportunity to defend his daughter against scurrilous attacks.

Most fathers would jump at the opportunity to defend their children. But, of course, the Vice President, among the most political of men, did not want to criticize--or even disagree with--a prominent conservative who has supported the administration. So in a classic example of displaced aggression, Cheney lashed out at Blitzer rather than Dobson, pretending that he had asked an inappropriate question.

But why, one wonders could Cheney not have replied simply, "Dr. Dobson is welcome to his views," or "Lynne and I love our daughter and will love our new grandchild" or even--a little feisty here--"As a father it is personally very painful for me to hear people criticize my daughter."

And it sure would have shown more family values for him to have said, "Every piece of remotely responsible research that has been done in the last 20 years has shown there is no difference between children raised by same-sex parents and children raised by opposite-sex parents. What matters is being raised in a stable, loving, environment."

I suspect that children do benefit from living with any two parents who see the world through different lenses and have different ways of relating to it. So if Dobson were truly worried about optimal parenting he would focus his attention on single parenting rather than attacking gay and lesbian parents.

Democrats are now in charge of Congress, having gotten there in part with the support of millions of dollars from national gay organizations and individuals and about 75 percent of gay voters. Gays are, indeed, perennially the third most loyal voting bloc for Democrats (behind blacks and Jews). Now, it's fair to ask, what are gay Americans going to get in return? How are we to gauge the progress made in the next two years? Below is a scorecard.

One way to evaluate congressional Democrats is to ask whether they'll be better on gay issues than Republicans were during their twelve years in power. Republicans weren't as bad as some gay activists predicted they would be. In fact, during the 12 years of Republican rule, Congress passed only one major piece of anti-gay legislation-the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Of course, DOMA also had the support of many Democrats and was signed by President Clinton.

In fact, there were mildly positive developments during the Republican reign. AIDS funding remained largely intact. President Bush formally kept in place Clinton's executive order barring discrimination in federal employment; there was no attempt to repeal the order by legislation. The first hearings were held on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).

But it must be admitted that Republican congressional leaders tried to do more harm than they actually did, as by pushing for a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Republican congressional leaders also set a tone of hostility toward gay Americans, exemplified by the comments of former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Penn.) warning that decriminalizing gay sex would lead to "man on dog."

The Democrats will be an improvement on this. The tone will be much better. We will hear pleasing and soothing words from congressional leaders for a change. The federal marriage amendment won't even get a vote for the next two years.

Is this enough? For some people it will be. Moreover, all manner of excuses will be made for any lack of action: why pass legislation the President will veto, other matters require more immediate attention, the Democrats can't afford to be seen as beholden to "special interests," it's more important to concentrate on electing a Democrat to the White House in 2008, and so on.

For those who expect more in exchange for gays' loyalty to the Democrats, here is a point system for grading them.

(1) Federal recognition of gay relationships (up to 50 points): Congress could vote to repeal DOMA (35 points). It could vote to give spousal benefits to the same-sex domestic partners of federal employees (15 points). At a minimum, Democratic leaders could hold hearings on these matters that will get the ball rolling toward eventual federal recognition of gay relationships (3 points).

(2) Gays in the military (up to 30 points): With strong Republican support, a Democratic Congress and Democratic president gave us "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in 1993. The new Democratic Congress could make amends by voting to repeal the law, leaving to the president the power to decide whether to allow gays to serve (20 points). Or it could vote simply to ban discrimination against gays in the military (30 points). At a minimum, Democratic congressional leaders could hold hearings on anti-gay discrimination in the military (3 points).

(3) ENDA (up to 15 points): Seventeen states and the District of Columbia already prohibit employment discrimination against gays. A federal bill making this national policy has been pending in Congress in one form or another for more than three decades. The latest version being pressed by national gay groups would also ban discrimination against transgendered people, which complicates its chances of passage even with Democrats in control.

Congress could pass the legislation (with or without protection for transgenders) (15 points), though it might pass a weak bill with lots of broad exemptions for small businesses, religiously affiliated institutions, and the like (deduct one point for every 10 percent of gay employees not covered). At a minimum, congressional leaders could schedule another round of hearings (1 point).

(4) Hate crimes legislation (up to 5 points): There's no evidence hate crimes laws actually deter hate crimes. There's little evidence the states aren't already prosecuting anti-gay crimes. But a federal law would have some symbolic value. Congress could pass such a law (5 points). Yet a federal hate crimes law might be unconstitutional. Alternatively, Congress could pass a bill assisting local law enforcement with the investigation and prosecution of such crimes (up to 4 points). Hearings on this are of little value (1 point).

Cut this column out of this paper (print it out if you're reading online). Stow for two years. Come November 2008, before you vote, pull it out of your desk and total the Democrats' score. Here's how to evaluate the total:

• 75-100 points: Never vote for another Republican.
• 50-74 points: Democrats are worth our first-born children.
• 30-49 points: Democrats are willing to fight for gay equality, at some political risk.
• 10-29 points: Democrats will do the minimum necessary to mollify gays.
• 0-9 points: Democrats know they can take gays for granted.

It's an inexact science, but a fun one! It may not be enough fun, however, to ease the pain of what I predict will be a very low score.

What happens when we put all the gay movement's marbles in one party's basket? We're about to find out.

The Human Rights Campaign has finally shed any semblance of staying non-partisan in the fight for gay civil rights. Leaders of the D.C.-based HRC told the Boston Globe in a story published last week that their new strategy is to "become a steady source of funds and grass-roots support for Democrats-more akin to a labor union than a single-issue activist group."

The "new HRC" isn't just belaboring the obvious-that the Democratic Party is clearly better on gay issues than the GOP. HRC's head honchos have gone much further, deciding that the fate of the movement lies inexorably with the fate of Democrats generally, which means throwing money and support wherever Dems say it's needed, even if it means pulling money out of actual pitched battles over our civil rights.

How has the Democrat-ization of HRC worked out so far? For one, HRC took money out of the fight last November to defeat ballot initiatives that ban gay marriage, even those that amended state constitutions. HRC chief Joe Solmonese told the Globe he was "more effective by focusing on candidates."

So HRC sank money instead into quirky priorities of the Democratic National Committee not even marginally relevant to gay rights. As a result, the Globe reported, HRC turned out to be the single largest donor in New Hampshire state Senate races. How exactly does that bring gay Americans closer to equality?

The most obvious danger of the new DNC-controlled HRC is putting all the gay movement's marbles in the Democratic Party basket, even though from Bill Clinton and John Kerry on down, the party has almost never taken a political risk for its gay constituents.

Democrats don't even deliver for organized labor, HRC's supposed new role model. HRC must be the only lobby in the group anywhere, and certainly the only civil rights organization, modeling itself after labor unions. We can all see how powerful they aren't, after sinking themselves into a one-party, no message strategy.

At this point, it's too soon to know whether HRC's blind faith in Democrats will bear fruit, and whether Solmonese will muster the courage to criticize his fellow partisans if they follow previous patterns.

Color me skeptical. Solmonese came to HRC from Emily's List, a women's rights group that chose to officially align itself with the Democratic Party. Clearly, Solmonese envisions something similar for the nation's richest gay rights group.

Unfortunately, people like Solmonese who are so committed to partisanship will forgive all sorts of abuses from their party under the guise of "taking one for the team." They will invariably accept excuse after excuse why now isn't the time for Democrats to expend political capital on the civil rights of gay people.

"What makes you politically powerful is money and membership," the Globe quotes Solmonese as saying. Notice that missing from that poli-sci lesson is anything about the message. In the Solmonese playbook, having a meaningful message just doesn't count. (Neither does Solmonese's claim about membership, since he admitted last year that HRC cooks its books, counting in perpetuity as "members" anyone who's ever given even a single dollar to the organization.) His laser-like focus on politics may be exactly what HRC needs, but in a political director, not a president.

The Solmonese partisan allegiance, along with his disregard for winning hearts and minds, is what's really behind the decision to divert money from ballot measures to backing Democrats. The vote on a number of those ballot measures was close, and one was defeated in Arizona, proving they're winnable. And losing has a serious cost, given the difficulty of re-amending a state constitution to once again permit marriage (and in many cases, even civil unions).

But that isn't the biggest blow to the movement from Solmonese's failure to keep his eyes on the prize, as MLK would say. (Can anyone imagine the Civil Rights Movement putting a political operative at the helm, much less suborning the dream of equality to one political party?) Unlike the countless, faceless races in which HRC spent gay rights money on somewhat-pro-gay Democrats, these ballot initiatives are about "our issues." They represent an important opportunity to engage the public on marriage, something our leaders always say we need to do more of but never seem to get around to doing.

In fact, HRC has wasted lots of money in the past on ballot measures, usually on ads that rather than explaining why we want to marry instead invoke bromides about "not writing discrimination into the constitution" or pointing out gay marriage can be banned other ways. It's the kind of message that tests well with focus groups but doesn't win elections, much less engage on the issue itself, reaching "the mushy middle" of the American public that is sympathetic but can't get over "the M word."

Rather than see HRC money was wasted because of how it was spent, Solmonese instead diverted crucial funds even further from the actual battleground. That's because the new HRC of Joe Solmonese has given up reaching those people, and instead has chosen the lobbyist end-run: sliding money through the backdoor to vie with labor unions for influence in the Democratic Party.

It's a big gamble and one that shows little faith in the power of the message of equality. (Remember the equals sign?) It's certainly no way to run a movement.