Take a few minutes to visit a remarkable website, www.kamenypapers.org. Over a period spanning decades, Frank Kameny's courage and conviction probably did more for the cause of gay equality than any other single force in America. The Kameny project, led by Charles Francis and Bob Witeck, is working to safeguard his papers for posterity by archiving them at a major library. And what papers! This treasure trove of civil-rights source material spans 25 boxes of correspondence, legal documents, brochures, photos, memorabilia, even the original signs carried in the landmark Washington and Philadelphia pickets of 1965-68. The Kameny Project offers a taste of the riches online. (Check out the Congressman who writes Frank, "Please do not contaminate my mail with such filthy trash." All too typical.) Frank Kameny is very much alive and well, feisty as ever; let's hope this project to memorialize his legacy prospers.
ADVERTISEMENT
Dale Carpenter vs. Robert George
Here's Dale Carpenter's take on Robert
George. George seems to think that an argument against polygamy
isn't "principled" unless it's his own argument, which turns out
not to be an argument-just an assertion. Money quote:
Those of us who have been making a conservative case for gay marriage do so, fundamentally, because we believe in marriage. We do not want to see it harmed and we do not think that this reform means every proposed reform of marriage, including potentially harmful ones, must be accepted. Ironically, George and the Gang of 300 manifesto-writers agree that gay marriage means anything goes. I don't expect that George will hold to that position when gay marriage is actually recognized (indeed, he'll strongly resist the supposed slippery slope to polygamy then), but the damage he is doing now by making a tactical alliance with them and arguing the line cannot be held will not have been helpful.
More:
Maggie Gallagher chimes in. Jonathan Rauch replies
here.
16 Comments
First Amendment, Last in Our Hearts
A quick test of your commitment to the First Amendment is to ask yourself whether you support the American Civil Liberties Union in its lawsuit defending the right of the anti-gay Phelps clan to conduct its hateful demonstrations outside the funerals of American soldiers killed in Iraq. Many will answer no, saying something like, "I'm all for freedom of speech, but it has limits."
The same sentiment was widely uttered earlier this year after a Danish newspaper printed cartoons of the prophet Muhammad. Many commentators seriously asserted that no one has a right to offend other people's beliefs. Similar views are often expressed about protesters burning the American flag.
In the current session of the Washington D.C. city council, a bill to protect adolescents and children from the corrupting influence of violent or obscene video games was co-introduced by every council member but one. Its sponsors, including the openly gay chair of the committee with jurisdiction, were unmoved by the lack of evidence that viewing videos causes violent behavior, or by the fact that similar censorship laws elsewhere have consistently been overturned as unconstitutional. The lone dissenting council member, unsurprisingly, was also that body's leading civil libertarian. Fortunately, the council chair, now running for mayor, has heeded the city's attorney general on the bill's dubious constitutionality and withdrawn her support.
Recently, a draft rulemaking was published for implementation of the D.C. Human Rights Act's prohibition against discrimination based on "gender identity or expression." The local ACLU chapter and the Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance (of which I am a member) raised First Amendment concerns about a provision declaring the use of certain words in the workplace as presumptive evidence of discrimination. ACLU cited the Supreme Court in Clark County School Dist. v. Breeden, which stated that "simple teasing, offhand comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory changes in the terms and conditions of employment." Rather than consider that perhaps the regulations should be tightened to withstand court scrutiny, the leader of the transgender activists expressed disappointment that anyone would raise First Amendment concerns, because "the First Amendment has often been used against us." Here was a member of a persecuted minority treating the keystone of American civil liberties as a hindrance.
In 2000, the ACLU was widely attacked for defending the free speech rights of the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). In response to the criticism, an ACLU statement noted that over the years it had represented such diverse clients as a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, Oliver North and the National Socialist Party, adding, "In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.
"What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not."
I myself took part in the expulsion of NAMBLA and other pedophile groups from the International Lesbian and Gay Association in 1994, and toward that end I wrote a critique of NAMBLA that was printed in several gay papers. I used a copy of the NAMBLA Bulletin as the basis of my critique, which would have been impossible had it been censored by the government. Objectionable opinions are more effectively addressed by rebuttal than concealment.
As members of a minority group, LGBT people should be especially alert to censorship's two-edged sword. In her excellent book, Defending Pornography: Free Speech, Sex, and the Fight for Women's Rights, ACLU President Nadine Strossen points out that the anti-pornography campaign led by feminists Catharine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin ended up being used against feminists themselves. After Canada, heeding the MacDworkinites, banned pornography that could be considered dehumanizing or degrading to women, Canadian officials began seizing shipments of books to gay and women's bookstores, including works by Dworkin herself.
Freedom of speech means nothing if not the right to offend, short of defamation and other narrowly drawn exceptions. In a 1943 Supreme Court ruling against forcing anyone to say or even stand for the Pledge of Allegiance, Justice Robert Jackson wrote, "Freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom."
In 1820, Thomas Jefferson wrote of academic freedom at the University of Virginia, "This institution will be based on the illimitable freedom of the human mind. For here we are not afraid to follow the truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is free to combat it."
You should not seek liberties for yourself that you would deny to others. Sure, it takes more effort to refute something offensive than simply to say, "Shut up," but if we cannot make our case without silencing our critics, we are in trouble. There is no good substitute for persuasion, and there are no shortcuts to freedom.
40 Comments
There They Go Again.
Limited blogging through next week due to a family health situation. But I wanted to note Jonathan Rowe's take on the latest calumny from anti-gay crank Paul Cameron and his admirers in Christian-right media.
Unrelatedly, more signs that the Human Rights Campaign has abandoned any pretense of being nonpartisan, with its membership in America Votes, a coalition of the left that mobilizes voters for a full range of big-government, take-your-money schemes.
19 Comments
ADVERTISEMENT
Not So Fast, Mr. George (2)
In his reply to my post, for which I thank him, Robert George fairly notes that many of the family radicals who signed "Beyond Marriage" favor SSM. Of course they do. But so do nearly all left-wing and queer-theory academics and activists, which is what these folks are. (With the exception of Chai Feldblum and a few others, they have not played prominent roles in the same-sex marriage fight. I mean, Cornel West? Gimme a break.) The important distinction is that SSM is only part of what these folks favor, and the rest is what they really care about. As the title of their manifesto proclaims, they are looking beyond same-sex marriage: they favor SSM, not as an end in itself, but as a way-station toward a post-marriage society in which all concepts of family enjoy equal status and marriage is irrelevant.
There's no denying that they speak for a prominent element of the gay-rights movement (not the gay marriage movement; there's a difference). I worry about their influence, as I do about that of socialized-medicine advocates and anti-globalists and gender-abolishers and other members of the ultra-egalitarian left, but I don't think they'll prevail, even within the gay universe, most of which is neither radical nor "queer."
There's a legitimate argument here about whether the culture will interpret gay marriage as "anything goes" or as "marriage goes." Actually, some of both may happen, but I expect the dominant vector to be reaffirmation of marriage's privileged status as the family structure of choice. Parents asking their gay kids, "So, you guys going to get married?", plus the longstanding social preference for the unique commitment of marriage (as expressed, for example, in corporate benefits reserved for married couples), plus the fact that most marrying gay couples marry precisely because they see marriage as a unique commitment - all these, I expect, will lead the culture to read SSM as a return to the values of marriage, not a further flight from them. The wind brings positive straws from Massachusetts, where a number of employers are revoking domestic-partner benefits now that SSM is legal.
In any case, it's hardly fair to saddle homosexuals with the burden of exclusion from marriage in hopes of preventing heterosexual folly. If straights insist on trashing marriage, it's not gays' job to stop them. Question: how many American heterosexuals would give up their own marriages to (maybe) forfend polygamy? Who would even consider asking them to do so? I'm often saddened by otherwise compassionate conservatives' willingness to think of gay people, in the SSM debate, as pawns to be manipulated for some larger social good. They must forgive us for declining to think of ourselves that way.
Regarding polygamy...OK, let me see if I get this. Polygamy destabilizes societies, is inconsistent with liberal democracy, shows pronounced inegalitarian and misogynistic tendencies, is frivolous by comparison to SSM, has no logical connection to SSM, and indeed is logically antithetical to the principle of SSM properly understood (everyone should have the opportunity to marry)...these are not principled arguments? Whereas "one man plus one woman makes baby" is not just a principled barrier to polygamy, it is the only principled barrier?
The problem, which is immediately obvious, is that "one man plus one woman makes baby" is no kind of barrier to polygamy, either logical or practical. Logically, man-plus-woman-makes-baby is a biological fact, but one-plus-one-makes-marriage in no way follows from it. Men are perfectly happy to marry all the women they can make babies with, as they have been wont to do since the dawn of history. Given that most human cultures have been polygamous (and quite a few still are), and that presumably all of these cultures have been well aware that heterosexual couples make babies, it seems self-evident that the man-woman-baby argument has little or no deterrent effect on polygamy.
A point of honest disagreement with George is this: in my opinion, the reasons to oppose polygamy are instrumental, not metaphysical, and all the stronger for that. And they are the same reasons for favoring gay marriage. Society and (generally) individuals are better off when everyone can marry and most people do.
That disagreement aside, I wish George would reconsider his strategy of pooh-poohing all the arguments against polygamy (and polyamory) that don't also militate against SSM - which is to say, virtually all the arguments against polygamy. Surely we could agree that this strategy does monogamy no favors. As SSM and gay partnerships gain acceptance, conservatives will be stuck with their own arguments that any change to the boundaries of marriage entails every change. It will be harder for the public, sensible though it is, to hold the line with conservatives insisting there is no line to hold. Sometimes I wonder if, like Col. Nicholson in "Bridge on the River Kwai," slippery-slope conservatives are forgetting what they're supposed to be defending. (Hint: not polygamy.)
As for polyamory, if by that George means group marriage, it might be different in some ways from polygamy, but it's analytically similar: frivolous, logically antithetical to SSM, and, to judge by the last several thousand years of experience, likely to devolve in the vast majority cases into polygamy. As for fending off formal recognition of non-marital polyamory (e.g., group cohabitation benefits), gay marriage is the surest method of preventing that.
In any case, it's well to remember that all this polygamy/polyamory talk amounts to changing the subject. Gay people are asking only for what straight people currently have: the opportunity to marry someone we choose (not anyone or everyone we choose). When straights get the right to marry two people, their mother, a dog, or a toaster, gay people will want the same opportunity. But not before.
64 Comments
Strange (and Brief) Bedfellows.
"Less than a week after becoming the 170th member of Congress to affirm that his office does not discriminate in its employment practices based on 'sexual orientation or gender identity and expression,' U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., on Wednesday rescinded his signature on the diversity statement," gay.com reports.
Santorum's signature came after a meeting between the senator and GenderPAC volunteers, who got Santorum to pose for a picture with them (and just what must he have been thinking!). A copy of the senator's statement was faxed to GenderPAC on Aug. 1, and the signature was confirmed the next morning by Santorum's openly gay communications director, Robert Traynham.
But the next day, Santorum faxed GenderPAC a new statement that read in part, "To be clear, my office has not adopted the proposed 'diversity statement' nor the agenda of your organization. ... My name should no longer be reported as having adopted the 'diversity statement.' "
What happened? All too predictable criticism from Santorum's Christian right base, such as this missive from the Agape Press blog:
What does Rick Santorum have to gain by placing his John Hancock on this statement? ... why would Santorum sign a propaganda pledge that bestows legitimacy to a cause Santorum has long fought? Why bolster your opponents at a time when you have them on the ropes? Why let the enemy impose his will on you?
Thus even this obviously disingenuous political feint toward the center gets quashed by the Republican theocratic right.
20 Comments
Winning — but Slowly
The latest Pew Research Center poll of Americans' social attitudes found that 56 percent of adults oppose gay marriage while only 36 percent support it. However, 54 percent said they support same-sex civil unions and only 42 percent oppose them. The poll of more than 2,000 people also found that adults under 30 are more supportive of gay marriage than people over 30 and that Americans are less likely than a few years ago to think that someone's sexual orientation can be changed.
A few quick points:
- Clearly many more people are concerned about preserving the
word "marriage" for heterosexual unions than are worried about
depriving gays of the legal entitlements.
- Young people are comfortable about gays, having grown up
knowing gays among their peers and seeing them in popular
culture.
- The "ex-gay" campaign is making no headway whatsoever. People
who get to know gays fairly quickly realize that there is no defect
to be "fixed" or "repaired."
- Despite these seeming gains, political progress will be slow in coming.
Elaborations:
Point #1. To many people, especially but not exclusively religious people, marriage is not something that can be extended to homosexuals because the word "marriage" means heterosexual unions-a bride and groom, man and woman. To speak of "gay marriage" is self-contradictory as if we were to speak of a round square or cold fire. There isn't any argument for this, it is just the way the world is.
To them, it is as if someone claimed that gravity pulls "up." We all could answer: "No, that direction is called down. You just don't understand what the word 'up' means." Or if somone claimed that parallel lines meet, we could all reply, "No, calling them 'parallel' means that they do not meet. That is what 'parallel' means." So all our counter-examples about childless heterosexual unions or same-sex couples with children simply have no persuasive power. They are irrelevant. How to reach such people requires careful thought.
Point #2. The pro-gay trend will continue as more gays are open about their lives and as gays are visible in popular culture. You're thinking of Lance Bass. Yes, but think too of the syndicated comic trip "Zits." On July 25, teenager Jeremy pointed at fellow-student Billy's shoes and says "Billy, your shoes look so gay." Billy replies patiently, "I AM gay, Jeremy," to which Jeremy replies "I know. I didn't mean 'gay' as in 'homosexual,' I meant 'gay' as in 'lame.'" Then in a thought bubble the puzzled Jeremy adds, "Why do people always misinterpret what I say?"
The strip is not only a wry critique of the popularity of "gay" as a generic put-down among students, it is remarkable for the casual way it introduces a gay character and lets Jeremy treat that fact as insignificant. It is a notable addition to the number of comic strips that have included gay characters such as "Doonesbury," "For Better or Worse" and "Brenda Starr." Things are changing: Less than twenty years ago the Tribune Syndicate forced the cancellation of a story line in "Winnie Winkle" in which Winnie's son Billy was to come out.
Point #3. The fraudulent "ex-gay" movement is simply the tail end of the century-long notion that homosexuality can be altered. Gay poet Edward Field's recent autobiography "The Man Who Would Marry Susan Sontag" (the reference is to gay writer Alfred Chester, not Field himself) reminded me of the enormous damage that error caused to gays who felt pressured in the 1940s, '50s and '60s to enter therapy to be heterosexualized. Martin Duberman's autobiography documents the same thing.
Therapy never worked-except to make gays unhappy, guilt-ridden, and sexually repressed. And it inhibited their assertion of legal and social equality. That is the real agenda of today's "ex-gay" programs. The Viennese satirist Karl Kraus once caustically observed, "Psychoanalysis is the disease for which it claims to be the cure." That statement is equally, especially true of the ex-gay movement. Incidentally, in case anyone (such as the New York Times) doubted Susan Sontag's lesbianism, Field discusses it at length.
Point #4. Although the Pew Research Center poll suggests a welcome increase in gay-supportive attitudes, that does not automatically or rapidly translate into legal or political progress. Referendums usually result in 5-10 percent lower support for gays than opinions surveys indicate. People lie to opinion pollsters, giving answers they think pollsters will approve and most "undecided" people are evading stating a negative opinion.
A more important factor, however, is that our opponents feel more intensely about gay issues than our heterosexual supporters. With a few honorable exceptions, for most of our supporters, gay equality is not a major motivating issue. Our opponents, whether motivated by religious doctrine, stereotypes or visceral distaste, are more likely to vote in elections, vote in primaries, and canvass among their friends and neighbors when gay issues are at issue.
14 Comments
ADVERTISEMENT
Thinly Veiled Bigotry.
This attack parody aimed at Joe Lieberman, "Joe and Dub's Fabulous Wedding," trots out a slew of anti-gay stereotypes to demean its target. Sample lyrics: "pansies up and down the aisle," "their Fairy Tale wedding," "afterwards there was dancing, possibly more prancing" - plus the Village People! It's featured at the Huffington Post, the same "progressive" site that showed Lieberman in blackface. (But hey, they can't be bigots; they're on the left!).
Here's hoping Lieberman, now running as an independent, and trounces Lamont in November.
Avee comments: "The oh-so-smug and morally superior left is quick to reach for anti-gay and even anti-black tropes (Condi Rice as Aunt Jemima)." Quite so.
From Ilya Shapiro at TCS Daily:
Lamont adviser Jesse Jackson said in an op-ed in the Chicago Sun-Times Monday that "A loss for Lieberman would be a win for progressives." Jackson went on to fault his party's putative Vice-President ... for "embracing key elements of the conservative agenda," including questioning certain excesses of affirmative action and supporting cuts in capital gains taxes that have ushered in a new class of investors.
Such arguments expose the nasty truth at the heart of the modern "Party of Jefferson": You have to embrace the entire Democratic catechism (abortion on demand, racial preferences, etc.) or risk banishment from this "party of inclusion."
And James Pinkerton writes, on "heretics" and "infidels":
Lieberman had not only to be defeated, but to be crushed and vilified. Which he was. Lieberman supporter Lanny Davis detailed in the pages of The Wall Street Journal all "the hate and vitriol of bloggers on the liberal side of the aisle" that poured down on his candidate, including scurrilous anti-Semitism.... So far, at least, the "infidels" in this particular Demo-drama, aka the Republicans, can sit back and enjoy the heretic-burning show.
Meanwhile, the gay left's John Aravosis of blog America believes the imminent threat of mass murder by Islamofascists is just a great big pro-Republican, anti-Lamont conspiracy:
And isn't it queer that the emergency is declared within a day of Republican party leader Ken Mehlman launching an all-out offensive against Democrats following Joe Lieberman's loss in Connecticut, an offensive in which Mehlman, the White House and Republican operatives are claiming that Democrats no longer care about national security or the war on terror.
No, this is not a parody.
56 Comments
Virginia Attacks Gay Couples’ Property Rights; Gays Flee.
Virginians, who will vote this November on a constitutional amendment excluding any "unmarried individuals" from "union, partnership or other legal status similar to marriage," live with an untested 2004 law prohibiting "civil unions, partnership contracts or other arrangements between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage."
Gay couples now fear (with some justification, say some family-law attorneys) that their shared ownership of homes and businesses could be cast in doubt if a state court feels the underlying contracts too closely mimic the intent of marriage. So it's no surprise that gays are beginning to flee the Old Dominion, reports the Washington Post:
...even though it is more expensive to live in the District or Maryland, where taxes are higher than in Virginia. One former Virginian who moved to the District was shocked to face a $14,000 recordation tax on the purchase of a $650,000 condo; the same tax in Virginia would have been less than $1,000, Johnson said. The buyer proceeded with the sale anyway.
People are not solely motivated by economic ends (although they are more so than liberals will admit); nevertheless, Virginia has succeeded in making even the confiscatory, redistributionist mecca of D.C. appear to be a more rational economic choice for gay people.
More. The Outright Libertarians blog has words of warning using the example of Alabama, which wasted millions on a failed campaign to attract Silicon Valley firms. A first-hand description of one unsuccessful pitch:
The Alabama rep was furious. "You're saying we have to accept that lifestyle to get investment," he fumed. He didn't understand that not harassing or targeting gays is not "accepting a lifestyle," but rather following the dictates of the Bill of Rights.
He insisted that Intel, Apple, AMD, Hewlett-Packard and other companies could simply force their employees to move to Alabama - he wasn't aware that most of the top marketing, strategy, design, engineering and finance people at all of those companies have standing offers for employment at competitors which they could take at any time.
He then insisted that the companies could move their heterosexual-only employees to Alabama. Ignoring the absurdity of such a proposition (can you imagine the HR implications?), he didn't understand (or care to understand) that often, gay employees are the decision-makers in such a scenario and would never go for it.
Priceless.
30 Comments
Who Now Supports the Judicial-First Strategy?
From U.S. World & News Report, For Gays, New Math: Rethinking Tactics After a Series of Setbacks:
The losses may have been self-inflicted. ... Matt Foreman of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force acknowledges, "Our legal strategies got ahead of our political strategies."
Gee, when I said that, some were quick to express their indigation.
More. Trying a different strategy in Colorado: a gay-supported constitutional ballot initiative to secure domestic partnership rights.