Around the Political Impasse

First published in the Chicago Free Press on November 23, 2005.

It is reasonable to wonder whether gays and lesbians are achieving anything politically, and wonder what to do about it if we aren't.

With a Republican president and a Republican Congress dominated by southern conservatives, we will see no progress at the national level. The president supports a Constitutional gay marriage ban. Congress will not repeal military's ban on gay servicemembers, nor will it approve a gay non-discrimination law.

The 2006 elections are not likely to change anything. Democrats are unlikely to win the 5 or 6 seats they need to control of the Senate. Even if they did, conservative Democrats would join Republicans to defeat gay-supportive bills Democratic leaders might propose. The most we can hope for is defeating a religious zealot like Rick Santorum.

Nor are the Democrats likely to win control of the House. Redistricting after the 2000 census created even more safe House districts, leaving only a handful in play politically. Even if Democrats won control of Congress, the president would veto any pro-gay legislation.

At the state level, to be sure, there has been some good news. The California legislature approved gay marriage although the bill was vetoed. The Connecticut legislature approved a civil unions law. The Illinois legislature approved and Maine voters upheld gay civil rights laws. Acknowledged.

But outside a few liberal areas, we have lost far more often than won. More and more states have added gay marriage bans to their Constitutions, bans that will be hard to overturn, some extending to any sort of civil union and domestic partner arrangements.

And think of all the gay bills that fail. They are defeated by the legislature, or more often never make it out of committee, or are not even introduced because, well, really, why bother if they are not going to pass. It is not so much that legislators are personally homophobic, although many may be, but that they fear electoral defeat if opponents can accuse them of supporting "the gay agenda." That's democracy, I'm afraid.

This analysis need not lead to despair, however, only a tactical shift in the focus of our efforts, focusing on thinking locally and acting locally. Here are three alternative models for making gay progress.

Focusing on the city level makes sense since cities are often more liberal than state legislatures. Cities that have not done so can be urged to pass gay civil rights bills, to approve domestic partner plans for city employees and require major city contractors to offer domestic partner benefits. The goal is to get gay partnerships legally recognized to establish a precedent.

We can urge cities to mandate their own lobbyists to pressure state legislatures to approve gay supportive legislation. We can invite mayors and council members to more gay events, assuming that their attendance promotes gay legitimacy. We can press school boards to enforce strict anti-bullying policies and mandate teacher sensitivity training about gay students.

Second, we need to keep in mind that young people are about twice as gay supportive as adults over 60, so future voters are more likely to be gay-friendly. We can support and hasten that change by assisting any Gay/Straight Alliances in local schools and the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network that fosters them.

Do they need supplies? Do they need books? Do they need money to rent films? Do they want guest speakers? Do they need money for a field trip? Do they want to donate books to the school library? (Will the librarian make them available?) Groups of supportive adults can help those students just as the ubiquitous "Boosters Clubs" support school athletic programs.

Third, gay Christians can join and help gay-supportive groups in their own denominations. Public opinion can be significantly affected in the long run by the policies of churches and pronouncements of prominent clergy, so efforts to move churches in a gay-supportive direction are vital.

Wealthy conservative Christians such as California's Howard Ahmanson have contributed vast sums of money to promote anti-gay organizing efforts in the Episcopal church and other denominations. We must respond with equal amounts of money, organizing and solidly-based theology. Existing gay Christian groups can form the nucleus of that effort, but need far greater support for their efforts.

Those are three important areas to work on. There are others. Employees at large companies can join the gay employee groups and work for domestic partner and other benefits. People can ask if local public librarians will accept gifts of gay books and donate some if so. They can write Letters to the Editor of the local newspaper. And, of course, most effective of all is coming out to everyone you know. Arguments can have an impact, but personal experience has more impact than anything else.

In short, no one has to remain silent and defenseless when gay people and their lives are attacked or ignored as insignificant. People have the means to defend themselves-if they but make the effort.

No Justice, Again & Again.

In Miami, Kansas, County Attorney David Miller has filed a new charge of "unlawful voluntary sexual relations" against Matthew Limon. In 2000, Limon, then 18, was sentenced to 17 years in prison on a charge of criminal sodomy for having sex with a 14-year-old boy. He served four years until the Kansas Supreme Court ruled the state can't punish underage sex more harshly if it involves homosexuals (and if Limon's partner had been a 14-year-old girl, the maximum he could have received would have been 15 months).

But Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline's office repeatedly described Limon as a "predator," and so this baseless, homophobic, double-jeopardy persecution continues.

Meanwhile, in Philadelphia, Lucas Dawson, a gay man who fought back while being punched by several gay-bashers, stabbing one of his attackers to death, was initially cleared of any wrongdoing but still may face prosecution for manslaughter.

Said Police Capt. Michael Costello, "the level of force used by Dawson did not correspond to the threat.... He [Dawson] wasn't all that injured, yet he introduced deadly force."

So, having been jumped and while being repeatedly punched by several bashers, Dawson should have evaluated what level of force would be just right? Or maybe the police view is more akin to the anti-Semites' view of Israel: Jews (or gays) should not be permitted to defend themselves. They should just die.

Acting Gay at the Movies (Again).

From the New York Times, "And the Winner Is...Only Acting Gay." Writes Caryn James:

There has been an explosion of Oscar-baiting performances in which straight actors play gay, transvestite or transgender characters.... The actors are straight as far as we know..., an issue that matters only because it becomes part of the filmmakers' shrewd if unspoken calculation.... [P]ortraying gay, transvestite and transsexual characters allows actors to draw on a huge supply of gimmicks-wigs and costumes, mannerisms of speech and posture-that signify Acting.

A bit cynical, in that snide, superior NYT culture-coverage way, but still of interest.
--Stephen H. Miller

More Recent Postings
11/13/05 - 11/19/05

Political Fissures and Factions.

George Will takes a look at the Republican coalition's internal contradictions in Grand Old Spenders. He writes:

The conservative coalition...will rapidly disintegrate if limited-government conservatives become convinced that social conservatives are unwilling to concentrate their character-building and soul-saving energies on the private institutions that mediate between individuals and government, and instead try to conscript government into sectarian crusades.

And he explains why, once in office, conservatives start to spend like liberals, owing to "Washington's single-minded devotion to rent-seeking-to bending government for the advantage of private factions" (which, of course, amply stuff politicians' pockets, whether the factions/special interests/professional fear-mongers are on the left or the right).

Will also quotes Gerard Alexander of the University of Virginia, who says:

Perhaps conservatives were naive to expect any party, ever, to resist rent-seeking temptations when in power. Just as there always was something fatally unserious about socialism-its flawed understanding of human nature-is it possible that there has also been something profoundly unserious about the limited-government agenda? Should we now be prepared for the national electoral wing of the conservative movement...to identify with legislation like the pork-laden energy and transportation bills, in the same way that liberals came to ground their identities in programs like Social Security?

Then Will warns of the possibility that "limited-government conservatives will dissociate from a Republican Party more congenial to overreaching social conservatives."

I think the social conservatives have crested (intelligent design and stem-cell research have done far more harm to their cause then attacks by the big-spending, bureaucracy-loving left). But then liberals do have a knack for scaring the country back to the right when a moderate course could deliver them victory. (hat tip: Right Side of the Rainbow)

Update: Andrew Sullivan has more on the GOP's lack of limited-government consistency, noting that not a single Republican Senator who voted against the federal anti-gay marriage amendment also voted for a recent spending-cut bill. [Correction: Sullivan was mistaken - one GOP Senator did vote for lower spending and against banning gay marriage: New Hampshire's John Sununu.]

So while there are plenty of social conservatives in the party who expect the federal government to enforce their moral codes, and a dollop of "moderates" who are socially liberal big spenders, there seem to be few real "social inclusives and fiscal conservatives" willing to step forward. But when one does, he or she might find more support then they imagine.

Making the Case.

Jonathan Rauch, IGF's co-managing editor, made the conservative case for gay marriage to students at Princeton, the Daily Princetonian reports:

Rauch said gay marriage would make people take the institution of marriage more seriously and encourage single parents to remarry. "My belief is that the cultural message that same-sex marriage will send is not that 'anything goes,' but that marriage goes," he said. . . . As a result, he said, fewer children would be born out of wedlock and more would be raised in two-parent homes.

Of course, the next day Maggie Gallagher, president of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, argued that changing the legal boundaries of marriage will destroy Western civilization.

Still, it's good that conservatively minded students heard that there's another view of gay marriage beyond the social right's fear-mongering and the gay left's focus on "rights" and "equality" (which sound good to liberal ears but won't win arguements with conservatives who've been told gay matriomy will destroy the institution).
--Stephen H. Miller

Good Intentions Are Not Enough.

The left teaches that the impoverished are victims of an unjust economic system that the government should mitigate through confiscatory taxation and economic redistribution. The right believes that the poor remain mired in inter-generational poverty owing to dysfunctional individual and family behavior, made worse by a culture of welfare entitlement.

This story of a Minnesota lesbian couple that tried to help a displaced Louisiana family seems to make the case that culture counts.

‘Brokeback Mountain’: Hype and Hope

Newsweek has a glowing pre-release story about Ang Lee's gay love movie "Brokeback Mountain," starring Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger. Writes Sean Smith:

"Brokeback" feels like a landmark film. No American film before has portrayed love between two men as something this pure and sacred. As such, it has the potential to change the national conversation and to challenge people's ideas about the value and validity of same-sex relationships.

Yet he also quotes James Schamus, co-president of Focus Features, which is releasing "Brokeback":

"When the trailer plays in theaters where there are a lot of young men in the audience, it's often met with snickers or outright laughter. How do you get those guys to see the movie? You don't."

Instead, along with gays, the marketing is being directed at women.

Sight unseen, the buzz is that the film represents a significant step for mainstream American movies. Yet so, too, were earlier films such as the independently produced "Longtime Companion" and (in my view less convincingly, but with big studiio backing) "Philadelphia." Many, however, will simply dismiss "Brokeback" as Hollywood again thumbing its nose at conventional values. So I don't expect it to significantly alter the cultural/political landscape.

Still, it may very well alter the lives of some who see it, and that is no small thing.

In Defense of Self-Defense.

If more gays were armed and fought back against gay bashers, might there be fewer gay bashings? This account of a repeat victim who fought back and killed a basher is a tragedy for the family of the basher, but a gay man is alive because he was carrying a weapon (in this case, a knife). He's now thinking about getting a gun permit.

Red State Democrats Move Closer to Republicans—on the Wrong Issues?

The Nov. 14 edition of the "New Yorker" provides more evidence of the growing Democratic strategy of running closer to Republicans on social issues such as abortion. It's not online, but the article "The Right to Choose: The Democrats Compromise on a Core Issue," covers the Pennsylvania senate race, in which Republican Rick Santorum faces pro-life Democrat Robert Casey, Jr.

I've noted before how Democrat Tim Kaine, newly elected as Virginia's next governor, opposes changing that state's law in order to allow gays to adopt, and now favors adding an anti-gay marriage amendment to the state's constitution. His mentor, outgoing Democratic Gov. Mark Warner, signed a bill outlawing civil unions. Democrats are heralding Kaine's victory as a sign of the party's renewal.

In the Pennsylvania race running against vile homophobe Santorum, Democrat Casey explicitly favors abortion restrictions. On gay marriage, National Review Online reports "he's also against gay marriage but doesn't want a constitutional debate over it," which is certainly preferable to Santorum's anti-gay demogoging. Unfortunately, Casey has himself been demagoging against Social Security reform (which he characterizes as a "scheme" to undermine, rather than save, the program) and against Bush's lowered tax rates (which probably headed off a depression, following the bursting of the worst stock market bubble since the Great Depression). In all of this, Casey, while a social conservative, is lamentably acting in traditional Democratic fashion.

I'm not sure what to make of this new Democratic trend of trying to woo Red state voters on the "moral" issues. A Casey victory (and yes, against Santorum, he's clearly the better of two evils) would further the push for Democrats to hew closer to social conservatism. It will be interesting to see how far they feel they can go with this.

More Recent Postings
11/6/05 - 11/12/05

A NYT Surprise.

From Friday's New York Times, on Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito:

David J. Stoll, the former Alito clerk who now works with Lambda Legal, said that like Justice O'Connor, Judge Alito would not bring any ideological agenda to cases. "I think he is fantastic," Mr. Stoll said.

I was skeptical at first, but the more I learn about him, the more I like him.

Update: Oh, never mind. Foolish me, actually believing something I read in the Times!