Gays & Abortion, Again.

Law professor Stephen Clark provides another look at why constitutional decisions voiding anti-"sodomy" laws (Lawrence) and voiding anti-abortion restrictions (Roe) "aren't conjoined twins." He argues:

Lawrence is the considerably stronger of the two and is less likely to be threatened by any separation. Pro-choice advocates have far more to gain from associating Roe with Lawrence than gay-rights advocates have to gain from associating Lawrence with Roe. Conflating the two may put Lawrence at unnecessary risk.

But failure to pledge fealty to Roe was a key reason why leading gay groups such as NGLTF and HRC condemned John Roberts, and NGLTF has already condemned Samuel Alito. No, abortion is no longer always stated up front, but it's there, lurking in the "penumbra" and "emanations" of the language about "far right extremism."

Further: Here's more in the way of constructive criticism on the failed tactics of groups such as HRC, from Washington Blade editor Chris Crain. He notes, for instance:

Last year, when Laura Bush was pressed by the media on whether she supported her husband's constitutional ban on gay marriage, her innocuous answer was that the issue was "something people should talk about and debate." Rather than welcome the invitation, HRC's then-leader Cheryl Jacques released a letter criticizing the first lady, saying there were more important issues-like the economy!-for Americans to discuss.

Sad, but all too typical, and still ongoing.

On Alito, It’s HRC vs. HRC.

The homepage of the Human Rights Campaign prominently features a photo of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, which links to HRC's rather dismissive assessment ("The Alito Record-Negatives for Gay and Transgender Americans"). [Editor's note: modified since originally posted.]

But interestingly, if you follow the press release links you find Alito's 1971 Gay Support Raises Hope, citing this AP story.

Is HRC of two minds? Or perhaps the big homepage-linked item is red meat for the membership while the press release is meant to help divide Alito from his conservative backers, which would explain this pickup of HRC's release by the religious right's CNS News. Or maybe I'm just being churlish.

Another Flawed Sex Survey

First published in the Chicago Free Press on November 2, 2005.

In mid-September, the National Center for Health Statistics, a branch of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, released a 55-page study claiming that 4.1 percent of both men and women ages 18 to 44 labeled themselves homosexual or bisexual.

In addition, the survey found that 6 percent of men 15 to 44 have had oral or anal sex with another man and 11.2 percent of women 15 to 44 have had some sort of unspecified "sexual experience" with another women. For men age 25 to 44 the figure was 6.5 percent and for women 25 to 44 the figure was 10.7 percent.

Finally, the survey found that, depending on age group, between 2.6 and 3.3 percent of men have had oral or anal sex with another man in the last year and anywhere between 2.4 and 7.7 percent of women have had a "sexual experience" with another women in the last year.

As with most such surveys, the study made claims for its rigor and accuracy and was accepted uncritically by the mainstream press. It was, after all, based on information from 4,928 men and 7,643 women and derived "sensitive" information about sex by having respondents enter their answers into a laptop computer rather than telling the interviewer directly.

But careful analysis revealed ambiguities, inadequacies, inconsistencies and omissions.

The most obvious problem was that more than 20 percent of the people contacted refused to participate. Why did they refuse? A distrust of privacy assurances? Shyness about sex? A desire to cover up something? Although women generally tend to be more reticent about sex, a higher proportion of men (22 percent) than women (20 percent) refused to participate.

Another problem was that while only 4.1 percent of both men and women labeled themselves "homosexual" or "bisexual," almost the same number (3.8 to 3.9 percent) labeled themselves "something else" than either of those or "heterosexual."

No doubt some people, especially at lower educational levels, did not understand the terms homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual. Kinsey often pointed out that standardized questionnaires offer no way to clarify meaning or adapt language to the level of the respondent.

Then too, some people may insist on an affirmative term such as "gay" or "lesbian" rather than the clinical sounding "homosexual." Or they may prefer some argot term such as queer, kinky, swinger or polyamorous. Similarly, some African-Americans insist they are not gay, which they associate with whites or effeminacy, but say they are "down low" or "same-gender loving." This latter seems especially likely since a stunning 7.3 percent of Hispanic men and 7.5 percent of black men-more than three times the percentage of whites-said they were "something else."

Other black and Latino men think of sex with other men as just "having fun with friends" but insist that "sex" is only what you do with women, so they might actually think of themselves as heterosexual or "something else."

In addition, a much higher percentage of black (3.2 percent) and Latino men (3.5 percent) than white men (0.7 percent) refused to answer the sexual orientation question at all. So another disadvantage of questionnaires is that there is no way to pressure people to answer. But it is worth remembering that Kinsey pointed out long ago that if he met resistance anywhere it was when he reached questions about homosexuality.

Then there was the problem that the survey asked men only about the disease-transmitting behavior of oral and anal sex, but asked women about any "any sexual experience" at all with another woman-which could include kissing, "making out," body rubbing, or masturbation with a partner.

The study does not explain why it was so much more interested in any sort of female same-sex eroticism. But by refusing to include analogous male same-sex body rubbing, interfemoral (intercrural) sex and masturbation with a partner, the latter a common enough activity among some gay men, the survey artificially depressed the quantity of gay sex, the number of gay men and, accordingly, its reliability as an index of sexual behavior.

There were other problems too. If the survey wanted to find out how many gays there were or how much homosexuality there was, why ask if people had engaged in same-sex sex at least once-which could mean just once or a very few times? Asking, as the survey does, about same-sex sex in the last year is a little more relevant, but you would think the survey would ask something about how frequently with how many partners. But no.

And what about the 23 percent of the self-defined "homosexual" men who said they were attracted only to women? Kinsey would never have let anyone get away with such an obvious contradiction. Did they mean they like women better as friends, or are attractive to women, or want to be attracted to women, or are attracted to the idea of being women? Who knows? With a standardized computer questionnaire, no one could notice the discrepancy at the time and find out.

This is what the CDC offers as state of the art sex research.

Gay Rights Before Palestinian Statehood

Much criticism has been leveled at gay organizations for their reluctance to make much ado about the Iranian government's public hanging of two gay youths this past summer. The incident was not a rarity in the Islamic world, but the availability of photographs documenting the murder stunned a gay community complacent when it comes to the rights of gays abroad-perhaps because of our own, relatively tame, struggles here at home.

While the outrage over gay organizations' indifference to the plight of Iranian gays was necessary, it ought to be directed toward a political situation where gay Americans can have more influence: the Arab-Israeli conflict.

In this tumultuous dispute, there is plenty of room for debate about the control of land, whether or not Israeli responses to terror are too aggressive, and what the final political settlement should entail. But let there be no mistake: In Israel, gays enjoy the freedoms and tolerance of a liberal, Western democracy. In the disputed territories run by the Palestinian Authority, gays are routinely harassed, tortured and murdered.

A 2002 article in The New Republic documented the dire predicament of several gay Palestinians. A 21-year-old recalled that he "was forced to stand in sewage water up to his neck, his head covered by a sack filled with feces, and then he was thrown into a dark cell infested with insects and other creatures he could feel but not see." One man fled to Tel Aviv, only to be captured by the Palestinian police upon his return to Nablus, a city in the West Bank.

"They put him in a pit," a friend of the man recalled. "It was the fast of Ramadan, and they decided to make him fast the whole month but without any break at night. They denied him food and water until he died in that hole." Tel Aviv, Israel's flourishing gay hub, has become for Palestinian gays what Miami is for Cubans: a refuge of freedom from tyranny.

In August, Israel evacuated settlers from the Gaza strip, helping to make way for the eventual establishment of a Palestinian state. But what would a Palestinian state actually look like? That is a question that the United States and Israel must ask before acceding to its creation. Surely, the United States should not expect Israel to agree to live alongside a neighbor that is highly militarized, territorially aggressive, and run by Islamic extremists. Imagine if Canada fit this profile: would we not have serious problems with such a prospect?

Comments earlier this month from Hamas's man in Gaza-newly emboldened by the Israeli pullout-are not encouraging. On the question of gay rights, Mahmoud Zahar recently said, according to the Times of London, "Are these the laws for which the Palestinian street is waiting? For us to give rights to homosexuals and to lesbians, a minority of perverts and the mentally and morally sick?" Hamas is a major player in Palestinian politics; in January, it won 76 out of 118 Gaza municipal council seats in the first-ever election held in the territory.

Granted, gays are oppressed in most areas of the world, so why should the United States pay any particular attention to Palestinian ones? Because our involvement in the Arab-Israeli peace process gives us the ability to influence Palestinian politics.

Advocating that the creation of a Palestinian state be conditioned on human rights, and specifically gay rights, is one step gay groups can take. The United States is intimately involved in the creation of a two-state solution, and it would be an affront to the ideals of this country were we to encourage, never mind preside over, the creation of an Islamist regime intent on murdering gay people.

For the same reason that we must see democracy through in Iraq-in order to leave that country behind in a better state than in which we found it-the United States and the international community have the exact same obligation in helping Israelis and Palestinians.

Not surprisingly, gay rights groups have ignored gay Palestinians, as has the pre-eminent human rights organization, Amnesty International. The Palestinian "struggle" has long been a cause celebre for the left and it is tempting to view the Palestinians as an oppressed underdog fighting the imperialist, apartheid Israeli state.

As difficult as life may be for the Palestinians (a predicament caused almost entirely by their support for terrorism and corrupt leaders), nothing can excuse their systematic oppression of gays. By standing up for the rights of gay Palestinians, groups like Amnesty and the Human Rights Campaign may lose support from their more radical members. But these organizations are worth nothing if they remain indifferent to the fates of people they are intended to protect-all for the purpose of maintaining harmony on the left.

More on the ‘Conservative’ Case for SSM.

IGF contributing author Dale Carpenter guest blogs at The Volokh Conspiracy on same-sex marriage. This site is very popular with smart conservatives, so kudos to Dale.

By the way, Dale's posting was in response to an earlier, anti-gay marriage piece by the dreadful Maggie Gallagher. Libertarian Cathy Young has more to say about Gallagher and the debate over at Volokh, here.

It’s Alito.

First take on Bush's nomination of Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court: he's no John Roberts, unfortunately. The Advocate says that in 2001 he authored a decision that declared unconstitutional a public school district policy that prohibited harassment against students because of their sexual orientation or other factors. If we must force students into these government/educrate mis-run, taxpayer-money down-the-rathole monstrosities (known as "public education"), you'd think that policies prohibiting the bullying of gay kids, even if mostly ineffectual, would be a small positive. But noooo.

This may provide a misleading picture, or it may be an accurate indicator of who Alito is. We'll see. Harriet Miers, you're looking better and better!

Update: Some informative comments. I'm not taking a position at this point, but I do note that some civil libertarians believe the harassment policy Alito struck down was overly broad. He wrote in Saxe v. State College Area School District:

There is no categorical 'harassment exception' to the First Amendment's free speech clause....When laws against harassment attempt to regulate oral or written expression on such topics, however detestable the views expressed may be, we cannot turn a blind eye to the First Amendment implications.

It's also been noted that in another case, Shore Regional High School Board of Education v. P.S., Alito helped reverse a district court in order to uphold the claim of a student regularly called names such as "faggot," "gay," and "homo" that he was not afforded appropriate protection from harassment.

I'm not sure what to think, but I'm not accepting the activists' charges without further evidence. So onward to the hearings!
--Stephen H. Miller

On Hollywood Closets and “Gay Face” Roles.

The AP reports that Star Trek's Mr. Sulu, actor George Takei, has come out in an interview with Frontiers magazine. This continues the recent trend of late-in-life (ok, I won't say "over the hill") Hollywood B-list celebs coming clean about being gay-think Richard Chamberlain and Tab Hunter or, a bit earlier, the late Dick Sargent.

But while coming out before time passes by is now easier in the pop music world (from George Michael to Rufus Wainwright) and on reality TV (examples too numerous to mention), few successful young actors are willing to cross the line. More distressingly, while the number of gay roles in movies and TV has greatly increased, they're being played by actors who are either straight (as in Ang Lee's new "Brokeback Mountain") or closeted. Britain's Rupert Everett stands out as such an exception that he helps prove the rule.

Seeing straight actors playing gay, while I appreciate their willingness, always makes me feel queasy-sort of like watching Ricardo Montalban with heavy eye makeup playing Japanese in the film "Sayonara" back in the 50s. It was called "yellow face" and outlived the more obviously racist "black face" period. I guess we remain in the era of "gay face"- and gay actors coming out only when they have no more roles to lose.

More Recent Postings
10/23/05 - 10/29/05

Miers Withdraws, Alas.

It was probably all over for Harriet Miers once the Washington Post ran the following, which armed social conservatives with more ammunition against her:

In an undated speech given in the spring of 1993 to the Executive Women of Dallas, Miers appeared to offer a libertarian view of several topics in which the law and religious beliefs were colliding in court.

"The ongoing debate continues surrounding the attempt to once again criminalize abortions or to once and for all guarantee the freedom of the individual women's [sic] right to decide for herself whether she will have an abortion," Miers said.

Those seeking to resolve such disputes would do well to remember that "we gave up" a long time ago on "legislating religion or morality," she said. And "when science cannot determine the facts and decisions vary based upon religious belief, then government should not act."

Any Republican that anti-gay snip David Frum would vehemently oppose is probably OK in my book. But the social right has done her in despite her strong history as a pro-business litigator, while liberals actually seemed to hope for a far worse alternative they could more easily demonize for fundraising purposes. They'll probably get their wish.

Update-Hypocrites Alert. NGLTF, which would certainly have opposed Miers' confirmation (and that of any other nominee who did not swear fealty to Roe v. Wade), is shedding crocodile tears over her withdrawal. Ditto HRC, the large abortion-rights lobby that targets gay and lesbian donors.

Same-Sex Marriage: The End of Rights?

During a recent debate in Bar Harbor, Maine, I was confronted with a seemingly novel argument against same-sex marriage. Rev. John Rankin of the Theological Education Institute of Hartford, Connecticut, claimed that same-sex marriage, far from being a civil right, actually undermines the very foundation of civil rights.

His argument is detailed in his document Yes to Man and Woman in Marriage, No to Same-Sex Marriage or Civil Unions, published in the Hartford Courant in April 2005. It reads, in part:

  1. In the United States, the civil rights which we all enjoy are rooted in "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," in the unalienable rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness.
  2. The unique source for unalienable rights is the Creator, the God of the Bible.
  3. The Creator defines true marriage as one man and one woman in mutual fidelity. The health of society and well-being of children are rooted in this foundation. Thus, the Source for unalienable rights also gives us the true definition of marriage.
  4. In human history, no society rooted in the approval of homosexuality has ever produced unalienable rights for the larger social order.

(The full text is available at Rankin's website.)

The core of Rankin's argument is the second premise: the unique source for unalienable rights is the God of the Bible. From this, he derives the conclusion that we ought to define civil marriage according to biblical teaching.

If I understand Rankin's argument correctly (and during our debate he admitted that I did), then it's the worst kind of argument: it proceeds from what is not true to what does not follow.

It is not true that the unique source for unalienable rights is the God of the Bible. The notion of "unalienable rights" was introduced during the Enlightenment, when philosophers and politicians rejected appeals to biblical revelation in favor of the sovereignty of human reason.

Among those philosophers and politicians were our nation's Founders, who quite deliberately made no mention of God in our Constitution. Indeed, when Franklin (himself quite skeptical about religious authority) proposed during the Constitutional Convention to begin each session with a prayer, Alexander Hamilton reportedly quipped that this was no time to seek "foreign aid."

While the Founders were not atheists in our sense of the term, neither were they biblical literalists. Quite the contrary, they considered much of the Bible to be, in Jefferson's words, "defective and doubtful." Which is why, even if one grants Rankin's historically confused premise about the source of unalienable rights, it does not follow that we ought to define civil marriage according to biblical teaching. For it could be that the Bible is right about unalienable rights-or would be, if it actually contained that notion-but wrong about various other things, such as slavery, or homosexuality, or the status of women.

More generally, Rankin's inference is an example of the genetic fallacy, which confuses the historical source of an idea with its justification. Thus, for example, from the fact that many abortion-clinic bombers have been inspired by biblical teaching, it does not follow that the Bible actually provides any support, much less the sole support, for abortion-clinic bombing. Same for unalienable rights.

Besides, the Bible has historically inspired as many rights-abusers as rights-supporters. One could just as easily argue that the unique source for the divine right of kings is the God of the Bible, and then advocate replacing our democracy with a monarchy.

Rankin's argument also depends on a suppressed premise, namely, that if the Bible teaches a doctrine, it ought to be made a matter of civil law. Put aside debates over whether the Bible actually contains a blanket condemnation of homosexual conduct. Taken to its logical conclusion, Rankin's position entails that I have no right to sleep in on Sunday, since the Bible clearly teaches us to keep holy the Sabbath. Yet Rankin claims (inconsistently) that he supports freedom of religion.

One premise I do accept is Rankin's fourth: no society rooted in the approval of homosexuality has ever produced unalienable rights. But that's because no society has ever been "rooted in the approval of homosexuality." One might as well argue that no society rooted in the approval of left-handedness has ever produced unalienable rights-or anything else, for that matter. Non-existent societies don't produce anything.

If, however, Rankin means that societies tolerant of homosexuality have been more hostile to unalienable rights than those intolerant of homosexuality, then his claim is simply false. If there is any correlation between tolerance of homosexuality and respect for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, the correlation is a positive one.

A resounding lesson of history is that we ought to be very careful when people try to make their interpretation of God's commands the basis for civil law. In that sense, Rankin's position is unfortunately not very novel at all.