IGF CultureWatch

With the passing of former President Gerald Ford last week at the age of 93, Republicans and Democrats have joined in bipartisan praise of the man who led the country through the aftermath of the Watergate scandal.

President Bush praised Ford as "a man of complete integrity" whose "life was a blessing to America." Conservative politicians, activists and journalists across the country echoed this sentiment. But in their encomiums to the late president, they have conveniently left out one important fact: in his later years, Ford was a prominent ­- though hardly outspoken - supporter of gay rights.

In a 2001 interview with the Detroit News, Ford said, "I have always believed in an inclusive policy, in welcoming gays and others into the party. I think the party has to have an umbrella philosophy if it expects to win elections."

But his support for gay rights was not just a matter of strategic concern; it had a moral basis as well. "I think they ought to be treated equally. Period," the straight-talking ex-President of firm, Midwestern-values said.

With Ford, there was none of the evasiveness that we hear from the current president, who speaks of the gay marriage issue with words like "civility" and "decency," while supporting unreconstructed, anti-gay policies. Nor did Ford have any problem saying the word "gay," one that President Bush has shown incredible reticence in uttering.

In 2001, Ford joined the short-lived Republican Unity Coalition, an organization dedicated to making sexual orientation a "non-issue" in the GOP. Former Wyoming Sen. Alan Simpson served as chair of the organization, and other prominent members included John Danforth, Mary Matalin and Diane Ravitch.

Following the coverage of Ford's passing in the mainstream media, one would have difficulty coming across any mention of his unprecedented support for gay rights. In a symposium on the web site of the leading conservative magazine National Review, not one of the nine conservative historians or journalists that the publication invited to share words on Ford mentioned this interview. Indeed, finding a conservative commentator or politician - aside, of course, from the Log Cabin Republicans - mentioning Ford's support for gay rights has been a futile effort.

That a former United States president would come out, essentially, in favor of gay marriage is no small thing. That he was a rock-solid Republican ought to give conservatives pause before launching into their next attack on the "homosexual agenda."

Gerald Ford was an honest, decent man who did a great service to his country in one of its most troubled times. In his statements on gay rights, he showed a better side of the Republican Party, one we have not seen much of lately, yet Ford reminds us what the party could still become. Ford's support for gay civil rights might have something to do with the fact that the man who saved his life from a 1975 assassination attempt in San Francisco, former Marine and Vietnam veteran Oliver Sipple, was gay.

When Ford took office in 1974, he assured the country that "our long national nightmare" - Watergate - was over. One day, when more Republicans show the same sense of fairness that Ford demonstrated, the door will be closed on our country's long, national nightmare of treating gay people like second-class citizens.

It is amazing how many politicians claim they support equal rights and oppose discrimination against gays, but then favor a ban on same-sex marriage, oppose allowing gays to serve openly in the military, even oppose adoption by gay couples.

Exactly what is equal about letting heterosexuals marry the person they love, but not gays; letting heterosexuals serve openly in the military, but not gays; and letting heterosexuals adopt children, but not gays--not even let them adopt gay youths?

I don't know about you, but I am getting a little tired of people who say they are for gay legal equality--except when they are against it, or saying they are against discrimination--except when they are for it, and then using all sort of verbal evasions to wriggle out of acknowledging how anti-gay they are.

My favorite evasive phrase is "unjust discrimination." Take outgoing Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. Please. Romney says, "I've opposed same-sex marriage, but I've also opposed unjust discrimination against anyone, for racial or religious reasons, or for sexual preference."

Romney not only opposes same-sex marriage, he also opposes the Employment Non Discrimination Act and ending "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Yet he says he is against "unjust discrimination." Romney advisor Barbara Comstock says he defends traditional marriage and opposes "unjust discrimination against anyone" but doesn't see a need for "new or special legislation" on DADT or ENDA.

It is worth noticing that the Pope uses the same phrase--saying he opposes "unjust discrimination" against "homosexuals." And we all know how gay-friendly the Pope is. Clearly people using the phrase hope to sound moderate and tolerant by creating the impression that they think discrimination is unjust--and many gullible people do take them to mean that.

But what they actually mean is that they think only some forms of discrimination are "unjust"--and those are the ones they oppose. But they think other forms of discrimination are entirely just--and those they fully support. And, of course, they get to decide which kinds are which. In other words, the term has no objective meaning. It is utterly empty. It means ... nothing.

Romney is not the only presidential aspirants emitting evasions. Consider the nearly incoherent obfuscation by Arizona Senator John McCain: "I do not believe that marriage between--I believe in the sanctity and unique role of marriage between man and woman. But I certainly don't believe in discriminating against any American."

Asked by George Stephanopoulos if he were for civil unions then, McCain continued: "No, I'm not. But (the Arizona anti-gay marriage initiative which he supported) did allow for people to join in legal agreements such as power of attorney and others." Question: "So you're for civil unions?" McCain: "No. I am for ability of two--I do not believe gay marriage should be legal. But I do believe that people ought to be able to enter into contracts, exchange powers of attorney, other ways that people who have relationships can enter into."

But signing contracts, exchanging powers of attorney and "other" arrangements are rights that friends, business partners, and every adult already has, so McCain is actually saying that he is not for anything beyond what already exists. But he is trying to seem "moderate" by saying what he is for, even if it is nothing new. Thanks for, literally, nothing, Senator.

Moving to the other side of the aisle, consider former North Carolina Senator John Edwards. Edwards described same-sex marriage as "the single hardest social issue" for him and said he had had a lot of "personal struggles" over the issue. Oh, John, John, we feel your pain! How hard it must be for you to grant others the same right you have to marry the person you love.

Edwards said he favored civil rights for gays but that it was a "jump for me to get to gay marriage … I am not there yet." So Edwards favors civil rights but opposes civil marriage. Apparently a civil marriage is not a civil right. And he has the effrontery to teasingly imply that he might change his position ("I'm not there yet") but suggests no sorts of reasons or criteria he would use in reevaluating his position. Apparently it is all just a mucky ooze of subjective feelings.

And where is the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation? The gay organization that should be monitoring these statements, publicly pointing out contradictions, obfuscations, and evasions, sensitizing the news media to detect them and advising how to ask follow-up questions to force candidates to answer more clearly? GLAAD is off partying with television and film personalities--"Dancing with the Stars."

Believe it or not, in the 1994 Massachusetts Senate race, Bay State governor and presumptive presidential candidate Mitt Romney ran to the left of Ted Kennedy on gay rights.

That Romney would have run to the left of Ted Kennedy - who so corpulently embodies the catchphrase "big government" - on any issue, never mind one as loaded as gay rights, might sound preposterous, but it's all in writing.

Last week, Bay Windows, a Boston gay newspaper, reprinted excerpts from a letter Romney wrote to the Log Cabin Republicans in 1994, hoping to gain the group's support in his campaign against the veteran Democratic lawmaker and Massachusetts institution.

"If we are to achieve the goals we share, we must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern," Romney wrote. "My opponent cannot do this. I can and will."

Romney lost that race by a wide margin, but came closer to defeating Kennedy than had any previous challenger in recent memory. Romney's support for the gay community did not end with his loss, however, as his political aspirations dictated otherwise. At the Boston Gay Pride Parade in 2002, when he ran for governor, Romney supporters marched and handed out fliers stating, "Mitt and Kerry wish you a great Pride weekend."

Twelve years later, Ted Kennedy actually supports "equality for gays and lesbians" as he has been a forthright backer of gay marriage and an outspoken opponent of the Federal Marriage Amendment. Mitt Romney, on the other hand, has made himself the poster boy for conservative opposition to gay marriage, conveniently positioned as he is at the geographical epicenter of the debate. The thought of Romney attending a Pride parade today is unthinkable. It is unlikely he would make it out alive.

Rather than making gay equality a mainstream concern, Romney has used the gays whom he was courting just four years ago as part of his nationwide comedy routine. That Romney is supposedly the lone sane person in a commonwealth full of radicals has become the crux of his presidential narrative. His stock line at GOP fundraising dinners across the country is that his being governor of Massachusetts is akin to being a "cattle rancher at a vegetarian convention."

Romney won the governorship there in 2002 on reformist credentials; he parachuted in not long after cleaning up the scandal-plagued Salt Lake City Olympics.

Romney's flip-flop on gay rights is part and parcel with a radical shift toward the right in his single term as Massachusetts governor. In a 1994 interview with Bay Windows, when asked about his views toward "conservative Republicans like Pat Robertson or Jesse Helms," Romney came just short of decrying them outright. Yet the mention of those men's names conjured the memory of his father, former Michigan Gov. George Romney, "fighting to keep the John Birch Society from playing too strong a role in the Republican Party," and his walking out of the 1964 GOP convention after presidential nominee Barry Goldwater pronounced that "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice."

Since this interview, Romney has appeared as a guest on Robertson's popular Christian television program "700 Club" and has made outreach to religious conservatives a crucial part of his campaign.

Poor Mitt Romney. As he will soon discover, the evangelical Christian right will brook no opposition to their "values" agenda. They can spot a phony when they see one and are not so cynical as to endorse a charlatan like Romney over someone who has a track record on their issues. There are other potential candidates who fit their bill, who lack the baggage of past expressions of pro-gay support. Sen. Sam Brownback immediately comes to mind.

Romney was unmistakable in his support for gay equality in 1994, and that he would now come out in favor of laws that explicitly ban gay equality indicates one of two possibilities: that his views about the rights of gays underwent a complete and utter transformation in a four-year period or that Romney did the math and figured that he would have a better chance of winning his party's nomination if he ran to the right of John McCain.

So, is Mitt Romney a hypocrite, an opportunist or a nihilist? Can I choose all three?

The new Conservative government in Canada has lost its promised attempt to repeal same-sex marriage in that country. The vote in Canada's parliament was even more favorable to gay marriage than it was in 2005, with more Conservatives voting for it than last time. According to a story in the Toronto Sun, this appears to end the matter in Canada:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper said he heard the message and will respect it. "We made a promise to have a free vote on this issue, we kept that promise, and obviously the vote was decisive and obviously we'll accept the democratic result of the people's representatives," Harper said. "I don't see reopening this question in the future."

The question put to MPs was whether they wanted to see legislation drafted to reinstate the traditional definition of marriage, while respecting the existing marriages of gays and lesbians. That Conservative motion failed 175-123....

Ultimately, more MPs supported same-sex marriage than in the last vote on the issue in June 2005. During that charged vote last year, only three Tories voted in favour of expanding the definition of marriage. Today, the number who approved the status quo was 13, including high-profile politicians such as Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay, Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon and International Development Minister Josee Verner....

The action in Canada follows what has become a familiar pattern. Same-sex marriage emerges (sometimes through judicial action, sometimes not), which is followed by strong political resistance that weakens over time as people in the jurisdiction grow accustomed to the idea and see no ill effects from recognizing gay families in marriage.

The House of Commons has been dealing with the issue of same-sex marriage in earnest since 2002, when the Commons voted overwhelmingly to support the traditional definition of marriage. In 2003, however, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that barring same-sex couples from marriage was unconstitutional.

Gays and lesbians began marrying in the province, and soon other jurisdictions faced similar rulings and began issuing licences. About 12,000 gay Canadians, as well as foreign visitors, have been married in the last three years.

A similar pattern emerged in Massachusetts after the Goodridge decision in 2003. There was a swift and strong political resistance to the decision, manifested in an initial vote to repeal gay marriage by constitutional amendment in the state legislature.

The next year, after an election in which opponents of gay marriage lost seats in the state legislature, there was much less support for repeal and the effort was overwhelmingly rebuffed. The Republican leader in the state senate stated that after a year of allowing gay marriage in the state he had not detected any changes-except that more people could now get married.

Seeing they no longer had the votes in the state legislature to enact a state constitutional ban, opponents of gay marriage then tried the tactic of forcing a popular vote on the issue, which would require the support of only a minority of the state legislature. That may still happen, but it probably won't succeed if it does. Almost three years into the recognition of gay marriage, with no evidence of ill effects, polls in the state show majorities now supporting gay marriage.

Vermont followed a similar pattern, too. In 2000, when the state supreme court ordered the state legislature to give gay couples equal benefits, there was strong legislative and popular resistance to the idea. In that fall's election several supporters of civil unions were defeated in a campaign marked by the slogan, "Take Back Vermont." But the furor subsided, played no significant role in subsequent elections, and is now over.

In states where the recognition of gay relationships emerged legislatively-like California and Connecticut-popular resistance seems to have been even lower. An effort to place the issue on the ballot in California has so far failed. There has been little or no organized resistance in Connecticut.

More tests of this pattern are coming soon. The New Jersey legislature has just voted, under pressure from the state supreme court, to extend civil unions to gay couples. It will be interesting to see whether New York and Washington state, whose legislatures will likely be dealing with the issue in the coming months, meet much resistance, and if so, whether that resistance also subsides after the state gains actual experience with recognizing gay families in law.

If the pattern of fierce-resistance-followed-by-acceptance continues, a future history of the struggle for gay marriage might appropriately be titled, "Much Ado About Nothing."