IGF CultureWatch

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on Tuesday about whether it should overturn a law allowing the federal government to withhold grants from universities whose law schools bar military recruiters from their campuses. Opponents of campus recruiting argue that that (take a breath) just because their schools accept federal money does not give the federal government the right to withhold that money if the schools discriminate against the federal government's military recruiters because those recruiters discriminate against gays.

Interestingly, the anti-recruiters and their gay activist allies cite the Supreme Court's ruling in Boy Scouts vs. Dale (which they strongly condemned at the time), holding that a private organization has the right to exclude those deemed contrary to the organization's values. Another case cited allowed organizers of a St. Patrick's Day parade to exclude a gay-identified contingent.

Reportedly, even some of the liberal justices seem dubious of the claim that the federal government could not chose to withhold its grants, although the libertarian Cato Institute argues that expressive rights shouldn't be curtailed by a limited degree of government support, for either Harvard, the Boy Scouts, or St. Patraick's Day organizers.

But regardless of the merits of the legal arguments, gay opposition to military recruiting is awful politics, sending a message that gays seek to weaken the military during a time of war.

I can't think of a less effective way to achieve an end to the military's anti-gay ban. And I have no doubt that officers drawn from Harvard, Yale and other elite universities (particularly their law schools) would be the most likely to move the military to a more accepting position. But then, many who oppose recruitment on campus, I firmly believe, are using the gay angle as a pretext-if the military accepted gay recruits, they'd still be fighting against recruitment because they see Iraq as Vietnam and America as the enemy of world peace and oppressor of third-world peoples. And gay activists who don't share those leftwing views have none the less proved themselves willing dupes for that cause.

Update: George Will notes, correctly, that "Schools eager to ban military recruiters from a few hours of access to students who want to meet them have faculties that expose students to a one-sided bombardment of political views." And other liberal campus hypocrisies.

Gay conservatives/libertarians at Harvard don't exactly find themselves embraced by either the BGLTSA student "queer" group or by the local GOPers (who, as the Harvard Republican Club, use the moniker "HRC"). As quoted by the Crimson, one non-leftie opines, quite sensibly:

I don't think there's any reason being gay should lead you to support bigger government and high taxes. These are issues that have nothing to do with being gay.

But I guess it's not easy finding support for personal autonomy, limited government, property rights and voluntary (non-coercive) association on a lib-left campus with a smallish conservative opposition. Nor in the wider world polarized betwixt a highly partisan left and right. (hat tip: Rick Sincere)
--Stephen H. Miller

Madam Heidi Fleiss is reportedly planning to open a Nevada bordello "stud farm" featuring prime male beef, but catering to women. However, some are crying foul, alleging discrimination if men aren't also serviced:

Nevada lawmaker David Parks, who is gay, plans to ask for a legal opinion this month on whether Fleiss would be violating the state's anti-bias law by letting only women hire her studs.

Seems fair. (Note to libertarians: I fully support business owners' rights to establish the type of service they desire to provide, free of government coercion.)

I've been out of town attending to family matters over the past several days, but did catch this moving piece from the Washington Post on the life and recent death of Pierre Seel, one of thousands of gay men imprisoned and tortured by the nazis (he was forced to watch his lover being ripped to pieces by attack dogs), who later spoke up against clerical homophobia.

Shifting gears, I received an email titled "from gay hustler to pope." Hmmm. But alas, it was in reference to John Voight first making his mark in "Midnight Cowboy" and now playing John Paul II in an ABC TV flick.

More Recent Postings
11/27/05 - 12/3/05

In his remarks commemorating World AIDS Day, President Bush included a sentence calling attention to the gay community's role in addressing AIDS:

Yet America still sees an estimated 40,000 new infections each year. This is not inevitable-and it's not acceptable. HIV/AIDS remains a special concern in the gay community, which has effectively fought this disease for decades through education and prevention. And the demographics of this disease continue to change. AIDS is increasingly found among women and minorities. Nearly half of the new infections are found in the African-American community.

The gay-inclusive statement is also included in a White House fact sheet. For a Republican conservative, that's a step forward. Will there be any supportive feedback to the president from our national organizations?

Also, in California, Gov. Arnold has appointed a lesbian former abortion-rights activist to be his new chief of staff. I'm sure that will go over big with social conservatives! And Daniel Zingale, former political director of the Human Rights Campaign, now serves as chief of staff to first lady Maria Shriver.

In Sweden, a model state according to many U.S. lefties, Pentecostal pastor Ake Green was sentenced to one month in prison for a sermon in which he condemned homosexuality. He's now been acquitted by the Supreme Court of Stockholm, to the chagrin of Swedish gay activists:

Gay right groups have condemned the verdict, saying that it makes a nonsense of the law. "It is extremely serious when the church is turned into a free zone for agitation," said Soren Andersson, chairman of gay rights group RFSL. ... Prosecutor Stefan Johansson argued that Green had gone much further than the Bible, and had expressed his own views. ...

Andersson said that the judgment showed the need for the law to be strengthened. ... "Agitation and threats, such as those uttered by Ake Green, limit LGBT people's rights and opportunities to participate in debate."

OK, even if the sermon was over the top, barring what a pastor can preach in front of his own congregation shows an appalling lack of respect for basic civil liberties. Sadly, it's what many censorious gays would like to see enforced here as well, and why moderates become fearful of "the gay agenda."

For more, check out this analysis on the Swedish Law Blog (no kidding!). Krister Bruzelius comments:

The sermon does not seem to fit very well with the kind of language one would expect to see in a speech contrary to the hate crime legislation. ... Neither does [Green's] closing statement in his sermon: "We must never think that some people, because of their sinful lives, would end up outside of grace." ... Nothing about killing all gays at all; only a disgusting expression of assumed moral superiority over sinners.

--Stephen H. Miller

The document on gay priests has been released. It's not an outright ban, as some expected, but the decree holds that men with "deep-seated homosexual tendencies" or who fail to reject "gay culture" may not become priests. Men who have "overcome" tendencies that were "transitory" and who have remained celibate for three years before joining the seminary are still eligible.

The language is just ambiguous enough to allow it to be used, or not used, in an arbitrary and cruel fashion. But judging from this silly L.A. Times headline, "Vatican Document Bans Active Gays as Priests," you might think that prior to the document noncelibate gays had been deemed ok.

The Human Rights Campaign weighed in with a call for gay Catholics to speak out, which is fine, but their statement refers to the Vatican "Decision Banning Gays," which is not quite accurate (and if you're opposing a policy, you really should understand what that policy is). [Update: A subsequent HRC release got it right, correctly noting the policy is a "restriction of gays in the priesthood."]

To add insult to injury, the Vatican then came out with another official statement, charging that homosexuality risks "destabilizing people and society," has no social or moral value and can never match the importance of the relationship between a man and a woman. The more things change...

According to this report:

More than two dozen gay Arab men-arrested at what police called a mass homosexual wedding-could face government-ordered hormone treatments, five years in jail and a lashing, authorities said on Saturday....

On Friday the minister of justice and Islamic affairs, Mohammed bin Nukhaira Al Dhahiri, called on parents to be vigilant for "deviant" behaviour in their children.

... [A spokesman] said the Interior Ministry's department of social support would try to direct the men away from homosexual behaviour, including treatment with male hormones. "Because they've put society at risk they will be given the necessary treatment, from male hormone injections to psychological therapies," he said.

Isn't the United Arab Emirates supposedly one of the more "advanced" Arab countries?

Update: The U.S. State Department, reports the Washington Blade, issued a statement saying that "The United States condemns the arrest of a dozen same-sex couples in the United Arab Emirates and a statement by the [UAE] Interior Ministry spokesman that they will be subjected to government-ordered hormone and psychological treatment." The Blade reports further that "Last year's State Department human rights report chronicled several anti-gay abuses." A good sign of incremental but important progress.

Libertarian-minded columnist Cathy Young has an interesting take on what's happened since the Netherlands first legalized registered same-sex partnerships, and then full gay marriage. She finds that neither the social conservatives' fears of moral chaos, nor the optimistic predictions of some activists, have come true. She writes:

As this [Dutch Central Bureau of Statistics] table shows, same-sex marriages peaked in 2001 when they were first legalized; that year, there were 1,339 male-male marriage and 1,035 female-female ones. (Male-female marriages that year numbered 79,677.) The figures have dropped in every subsequent year, to 579 male-male marriages and 631 female-female marriages in 2004. In the same year, there were 261 civil partnerships registered between two men, and 322 between two women; these figures have held relatively steady over the past four years. (Registered partnerships first became available in 1998.) . . .

. . .[W]hile I fully support legal rights for same-sex partners, I think both sides in the marriage debate have been prone to unwarranted and exaggerated claims about the social impact of same-sex marriage. The legalization of same-sex marriage has not, as some have claimed, led to polygamy in the Netherlands. But at least so far, it has not created a "marriage culture" among gays and has not boosted marriage among heterosexuals. As we continue our own discussion of same-sex marriage, we need to have all the facts on the table.

Of course, the Netherlands isn't the U.S. And just because many choose partnerships over marriage (because they're easier to dissolve) when both are available, or take advantage of neither, doesn't mean that marriage isn't going to transform gay culture in profound ways.