IGF CultureWatch

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.

I don't have children, don't plan to have children, and don't particularly want children. If I were to adopt children, my main criterion would be that they be old enough to operate the vacuum and do some light dusting. So same-sex parenting is not an issue with which I have a deep personal connection.

Except that the religious right is making it personal. Their most popular argument against same-sex marriage goes something like this: to endorse same-sex marriage is to endorse same-sex parenting. Same-sex parenting is bad for children, since it deprives them of either a mother or a father. Therefore, we ought not to endorse same-sex marriage.

It is not surprising that arguments against same-sex marriage quickly morph into arguments against same-sex parenting. For one thing, the tactic is rhetorically effective: indeed, it has more than a faint whiff of "scare tactic." Less cynically, there is a significant connection between marriage and parenting, which is not to say that children are the only reason for marriage or that other reasons (such as mutual support) are insufficient by themselves. In any case, the argument cannot be ignored.

Does an endorsement of same-sex marriage necessarily entail an endorsement of same-sex parenting? It seems not. One does not have to be married to have children, and one does not have to want children to be married. Indeed, we allow people to get married even when everyone agrees that it would be undesirable for them to have children (e.g. convicted felons serving life sentences). So the connection is not automatic.

Still, public policy is often based on averages, not necessary connections. On average, heterosexual couples produce their own biological children; homosexual couples never do. If they want children, they must adopt, use reproductive technology, or otherwise go outside the relationship. This fact is at the crux of the argument.

As an aside, it's worth noting that gays who want children do these things already, even without the benefits of marriage. (So do many straights.) Unless opponents can show that same-sex marriage would increase the prevalence of non-biological parenting, their argument falls short.

But do gay couples "deliberately deprive children of either a mother or a father"? Consider first the case of adoption. It seems to me not merely odd, but foolish and insulting, to describe adoptive gay parents as "depriving" their children of anything, rather than as providing them with something. Of course, specific adoptive parents, like specific biological parents, may deprive their children of all sorts of things (affection, education, material needs, and so on). But when anyone--gay or straight--takes a child who does not have a home and provides it with a stable, loving one, we should not invoke the language of "depriving." To do so is akin to describing soup-kitchen workers who provide stew to the homeless as depriving them of sandwiches.

Oddly enough, many same-sex marriage opponents recognize this. Glenn Stanton of Focus on the Family, whom I publicly debate on a regular basis, describes the sacrifice of gays who provide a loving home to orphaned children as "noble" and "honorable;" he has said the same of single parents who adopt. After all, however bad you think being raised by two mommies or two daddies is for children, being raised by the state is surely worse.

So perhaps the deprivation argument applies primarily to those who use reproductive technology. One might contend (for example) that mothers who go to a sperm bank, with no intention of including the biological father in the child's life, deprive that child of a relationship with its father. That, indeed, is Stanton's position, and he holds it whether the sperm-bank patron is homosexual or heterosexual.

Whatever you think of the merits of this argument, it has absolutely nothing to do with same-sex marriage. The vast majority of those who use reproductive technology are heterosexual. Why, then, bother gays about this? As William Saletan wrote in Slate, "You want to stop non-biological parenthood? Go chain yourself to a sperm bank."

Presumably, the same considerations would apply to those who create a child by having sex with a third party outside the relationship. Objecting to their actions hardly provides a blanket argument against same-sex parenting, much less same-sex marriage.

To argue against same-sex marriage on the grounds that it deprives children of a parent is like arguing against same-sex marriage on the grounds that it leads to divorce: yes, it sometimes does, but so does heterosexual marriage, and far more often in terms of raw numbers.

So even if we grant the controversial assumption that deliberately raising children apart from their biological parents "deprives" them of something, the deprivation argument proves both too little and too much. It doesn't apply to most same-sex couples (few of us have children, and fewer still by insemination), and it applies to many heterosexual ones. In short, it's a red herring.

More than six out of 10 college freshmen say they support the concept of "legal marital status" for gays and lesbians, according to a newly-released survey of freshmen conducted each fall by the Higher Education Research Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles.

The freshmen's support for "legal marital status" for same-sex couples rose in 2006 to an all time high of 61.2 percent, a 3.3 percentage point increase over fall 2005 when support stood at 57.9 percent. The increase continues a relatively steady upward trend since the question was first asked in 1997 when support stood at 50.9 percent.

The survey was based on responses from more than 271,000 freshmen at 393 colleges and universities, statistically adjusted to reflect responses of 1.3 million freshmen in 2006.

In a related question, only 25.6 percent of freshmen believed that it is "important to have laws prohibiting homosexual relationships," a decline of 1.8 percentage points from 27.4 percent in 2005. When that statement was introduced in 1976 it was intended to refer to sodomy laws. But in recent years students have no doubt interpreted it to refer to laws and constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage.

This year for the first time the Institute also separated out data for freshmen labeling themselves liberal, conservative and middle-of-the-road. The survey found that 83.6 percent of the liberal freshmen supported "legal marital status" for gays, as did 63 percent of middle-of-the-road freshmen. Among conservative freshmen support stood at 30.4 percent.

The results demonstrate clearly what has been implicit in the recent years, that among college freshmen, at least, supporting "legal marital status" for gays is the middle-of-the-road position. It is particular interesting that even among conservative freshmen, almost one out of three now support legal gay unions, a level of support you would not anticipate considering the opposition of prominent conservatives.

In the question about the importance of laws against legalized gay unions, only 11 percent of the liberal freshmen and only 22.8 percent of the middle-of-the-road freshmen agreed. Further, only 48.5 percent--fewer than half--of the "conservative" freshmen thought such laws are important.

Although a plurality of freshmen, 43.3 percent, still call themselves "middle-of-the-road," the centrist position has lost support in recent years while the ideological polarities of liberal and conservative have both gained support: 31.2 percent of the freshmen now call themselves "liberal" or "far left" and 25.6 percent call themselves "conservative" or "far right."

Legalized gay unions and abortion were the two issues on which liberal and conservative freshmen were most sharply divided: 78.3 percent of liberals favored legalized abortion while only 31.8 percent of the conservatives did. The findings raise the possibility that those are defining issues by which freshmen determine whether they are conservative or liberal rather than their holding those positions because of some antecedent determination that they are liberal or conservative. The data are insufficient to decide.

Consistent with previous years, freshman women were about 15 percentage points more supportive of gay unions than were the men: 67.9 percent of women supported legal marital status for same-sex couples but only 52.9 percent of freshman men.

This year was the first time that more than two-thirds of the women support legal marital status for gays and the first year that a clear majority of the men did so. Fall 2005 was the point at which exactly half of the men--50.1 percent--supported legal gay unions.

There was a similar gender divide regarding prohibiting legal gay unions. Fewer than one in five freshman women--19.3 percent--thought laws barring gay unions were important while almost exactly one-third--33.4 percent--of freshman men thought so.

Freshmen at private colleges and universities were more supportive of legalized gay unions than those at public institutions, a difference probably reflecting family income level. Freshmen at Catholic and non-sectarian private schools were far more supportive than freshmen at "other religious" colleges, primarily conservative Protestant, who were even less supportive than freshmen at public institutions. Freshmen at colleges with more rigorous entrance requirements were more supportive than freshmen at less selective institutions.

On other public issues, 37.1 percent of the freshmen supported legalized marijuana; 73 percent supported a national health care plan; 47.1 percent thought affirmative action in colleges should be abolished; 58 percent thought wealthy people should pay higher taxes; 34.5 percent thought the death penalty should be abolished; 46.7 percent thought illegal immigrants should be denied access to public education; and 56.8 percent thought abortion should be legal.