IGF CultureWatch

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.

Bit by bit, support for the military's ban on openly gay service members is crumbling. In a recent and important op-ed in the New York Times, retired army general and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1993 to 1997, John Shalikashvili, concludes that the anti-gay "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy should be phased out.

Shalikashvili's stand is especially significant because the Joint Chiefs, who comprise the nation's top officers in each branch and advise the president on military matters, were the most influential opponents of President Clinton's proposal to lift the ban on gays in the military back in 1993. In fact, their opposition to lifting the ban was the decisive factor in creating DADT as a "compromise" that would supposedly allow gay Americans to serve as long as they hid their sexual orientation.

In fact, DADT changed nothing in practice since it was always the case that service members whose homosexual orientation was unknown could serve. In some ways, DADT appears to have made things worse, perhaps by heightening awareness in the military about the presence of thousands of gays in the ranks. Discharges for homosexuality have risen almost every year since the policy became effective.

The basic reason Shalikashvili gives for his conversion is that the experience of the last 14 years has shown that allowing gays to serve openly would not undermine morale, harm recruitment, or hurt unit cohesion -- long the main claims of those who have opposed allowing gay Americans to serve.

He cites four factors as support for his new view. First, we can look to the experience of more than two dozen other countries (including the world's most effective militaries, person-for-person, Britain and Israel) that allow gays to serve openly. These military forces have not suffered the problems predicted by opponents of allowing gays to serve openly.

Second, attitudes in the military have softened considerably since 1993, when many service members strongly opposed letting gays serve. A recent Zogby poll of more than 500 military personnel returning from Afghanistan and Iraq showed that three quarters were comfortable interacting with gay people. Only a small percentage indicated they would have a serious problem serving with gays.

Third, Shalikashvili has interviewed gay service members and learned that gays are already serving openly and honorably in many units. His interviews included "gay soldiers and marines, including some with combat experience in Iraq, and an openly gay senior sailor who was serving effectively as a member of a nuclear submarine crew." Back in 1993, Sen. Sam Nunn (D-GA) luridly took reporters on a tour of the cramped quarters in a submarine to demonstrate the inappropriateness of allowing gays to serve. Shalikashvili's interviews showed him "just how much the military has changed, and that gays and lesbians can be accepted by their peers."

Fourth, the country can no longer afford the luxury of discharging perfectly capable military personnel. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the larger war on terror, require an all-hands-on-deck approach to military recruitment and retention. "Our military has been stretched thin by our deployments in the Middle East, and we must welcome the service of any American who is willing and able to do the job," concludes Shalikashvili.

The time has come for Congress to look seriously at lifting the ban. Other former military leaders and supporters of DADT have urged likewise. A study earlier this year showed that DADT has not only cost the country the service of thousands of personnel, but has also wasted hundreds of millions of dollars in lost training and expenses for investigations of soldiers' private lives. Polls show that a majority of Americans favor lifting the ban.

I'm guessing the new Democratic Congress will be reluctant to revisit the issue just now, however. Other issues -- like what to do about the mess in Iraq -- are far more pressing. The Democrats' Achilles' heel is the perception that they are hostile to the military and weak on defense, a perception that voting to lift the ban might unfairly reinforce. At least that is what they will fear.

Of course, in the unlikely event President Bush were to announce that he favors a reconsideration of DADT, that would give Congress the political cover it needs to move forward. Bush could paint such a move as an effort to strengthen the nation's defenses in time of war.

The change could proceed incrementally, perhaps beginning by allowing gays to serve openly in administrative and other positions where heterosexuals' privacy concerns are least implicated. Or the ban could be suspended for the duration of the Iraq war and then reviewed in, say, five years. Or Congress could simply repeal DADT as federal law, allowing the president to decide what policy to have, as presidents could do before 1993. This would enhance executive power, and when has the president not favored that?

Shalikashvili also wants to proceed slowly with the change, not take it up as the first issue in the new Congress. "By taking a measured, prudent approach to change," he writes, "political and military leaders can focus on solving the nation's most pressing problems while remaining genuinely open to the eventual and inevitable lifting of the ban. When that day comes, gay men and lesbians will no longer have to conceal who they are, and the military will no longer need to sacrifice those whose service it cannot afford to lose."

Every morning after I walk my dog, the homeless guy who hangs out next door nods to me in greeting.

"Hey," I always say in return. "How are you today?"

"I am blessed," he says.

And every day I think about that. I think: Can saying it make it so?

The new trend in psychology right now is happiness studies, or positive psychology. Some practitioners believe that happiness can be taught�to prove it, they've started teaching classes to undergraduates at Harvard and other places. The idea is that wellbeing is the capstone of certain building blocks: optimism, gratitude, mindfulness, hope, spirituality, generosity, absorption in work or play. You can refine your happiness skills. You can exercise them, like muscles.

This might be a problem for gays and lesbians, where sunniness is not, on the whole, encouraged. We like sarcasm. We like doomsday. We like drama. We worry that contentment equals complacent, and complacent ain't never got anyone no rights.

Anger is what leads to change. Frustration is what propels movements forward. Sarcasm is what gets you through the tough times that come when you're seen as a packet of "special rights" instead of a person.

It's better to be an unhappy Socrates than a happy pig, said philosopher John Stuart Mill, more or less.

Mill wasn't gay (He had a smart, feminist wife) but many of us wind up agreeing with him. A sunny, hopeful optimist is either going to get his ass kicked outside the local gay bar one night or his ass kicked on the courthouse steps by the religious right one day. We'd rather be smart. We'd rather be wary. We'd rather be bitter.

Despite what we call ourselves, "gay" is the last thing we are.

We're a creative people, gays and lesbians, and creativity stems from our outsider status, from loneliness, from rage and despair (think Van Gogh). We have camp and drag because we like to try on other characters for a while. We like to see what it would be like to not be us. If we're going to smile, smile, smile, than we'd rather do it in heels and glitter, or a fake beard.

And yet.

And yet the world is changing. We don't have to be as much on our guard any more. We don't have to wear our martyrdom like a glamorous coat.

We've already got embedded in our community one happiness key: doing good. It seems that seeking pleasure only places us on a hedonistic treadmill (oh, don't we know it). Drugs, sex, shopping, chocolate, smoking, drinking--these things give our senses a burst of pleasure that never translates into full wellbeing. To keep the feeling of "happiness," we must up the ante. Another hit; another, perhaps more dangerous partner; the entire menu at chocolatier Max Brenner.

We forget, I think, what in the 1980s we knew so well. Our community is strengthened by how well we care for one another. By meals we bring friends when they're sick. By groceries we shop for when someone we know is homebound. By stands we take when we're faced down by the sharp-toothed tigers of inequality.

Sometimes it seems that gay and lesbian service has stuttered to an almost-stop; that it's become enough to pay $200 to attend a glittering ball or four, and say you've done your community duty. It's enough to write a check. It's enough to nod in agreement when political leaders on television mouth our words.

But it's not enough. It's good �our organizations need money and we need to keep supporting them. But in addition to cash, we need to give them time. We need to give time to organizations and to our friends and to all those who really need our help, our kindness, our skills, our gratitude.

Writing a check just doesn't give us the same glow of wellbeing as mentoring your local, truculent teenager. It doesn't feel as good as buying your local homeless guy a meal. It doesn't lighten your heart like visiting AIDS or cancer patients in the hospital, or painting a school, or doing errands for your elderly gay neighbor who can, in turn, share with you his great stories of his younger days.

In order to give to others, though, it helps for us to realize how truly lucky we are, no matter what our situation in life is. It helps to stretch our gratitude, work out our mindfulness, do multiple reps of hope.

Even the most catty gay man, the most depressed lesbian, can, in fact be happy. We can, in fact, learn happiness.

The question now is: Do we want to?