IGF CultureWatch

It was a classic bait-and-switch. When gay-rights opponents sought to amend Michigan's constitution to prohibit, not only same-sex marriage, but also "similar union[s] for any purpose," they told us that the amendment was not about taking away employment benefits. They told us that in their speeches. They told us that in their campaign literature. They told us that in their commercials.

They lied.

The initiative passed, the constitution was amended, and before the ink was dry the opponents changed their tune and demanded that municipalities and state universities revoke health-insurance benefits for same-sex domestic partners.

For a while it looked like we might win this battle. In a trial court opinion Judge Joyce Draganchuk argued that "health care benefits are not benefits of marriage and cannot be construed as 'benefits of marriage' that are prohibited by [the amendment]."

Last week the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed Draganchuk's decision and ordered an end to health-care benefits for same-sex partners of state employees. They leaned heavily on the reasoning of Attorney General Mike Cox, who argued that the operative clause of the amendment--that "the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose"--is "best interpreted as prohibiting the acknowledgement of both same-sex relationships and unmarried opposite-sex relationships. More simply, the only relationship that may be given any recognition or acknowledgment of validity is the union of one man and one woman in marriage."

But that is not quite what the amendment says. To see why, consider another relationship to which we give "recognition or acknowledgment of validity": the parent-child relationship. Most employers, including state employers, provide health insurance for employees' children, and their doing so does not run afoul of the amendment. The reason is simple: contra Cox, the amendment does not prohibit recognizing relationships other than marriage. It prohibits recognizing them "as a marriage or similar union." Giving health insurance to your employees' domestic partners does not entail that you recognize their relationship "as a marriage or similar union" any more than giving it to their children entails you recognize the parent-child relationship as "a marriage or similar union."

On the other hand, let's be real. The reason certain employers give health-insurance benefits to the same-sex domestic partners (and typically not to the opposite-sex domestic partners) of their employees is precisely because they recognize these relationships as being similar to marriage in relevant ways. Employers know that it is good for employees to have someone at home whose job it is to take care of them (and vice-versa), and gay employees are no different in this respect than anyone else.

Given the makeup of the Michigan Supreme Court, our chance of winning this on appeal is about as good as that of Mike Cox marrying Antonin Scalia. Which means that unless and until the constitution is re-amended (something that won't happen easily), state employers will no longer be able to offer domestic-partner benefits.

This result is tragic for several reasons. It means that people will lose their health insurance. It means that gay employees who availed themselves of these benefits will effectively take a pay cut. And it means that Michigan's state universities, among other state employers, will be less competitive for top talent.

Remember: the people who fought for this assured us that none of this would happen, then they worked hard to make it happen. Family values, indeed.

In his eloquent dissent to Bowers v. Hardwick, which upheld the right of states to criminalize homosexual conduct, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun wrote, "It took but three years for the Court to see the error of its analysis in Minersville School District v. Gobitis and to recognize that the threat to national cohesion posed by a refusal to salute the flag was vastly outweighed by the threat to those same values posed by compelling such a salute. I can only hope that here, too, the Court soon will reconsider its analysis and conclude that depriving individuals of the right to choose for themselves how to conduct their intimate relationships poses a far greater threat to the values most deeply rooted in our Nation's history than tolerance of nonconformity could ever do."

It took not three years, but seventeen, for Blackmun's vision to be realized, when in its 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas the Court repudiated its earlier position in Bowers. I wept that day with relief and joy. I can only hope that I'll live long enough to shed similar tears at the news that Michigan corrected course and repealed this awful amendment.

Until then, I'm going to work like hell to make it happen. The liars are on notice.

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.