A Victory for the Self-Appointed Thought Police.

Following protests from the "muzzle 'em all, muzzle 'em now" crowd at GLAAD and its anti-free speech allies, ABC has canceled the broadcast of its new reality show "Welcome to the Neighborhood."

From the ads I had seen and ABC's description, the show explored the prejudices among Middle American Red Staters and how they are eventually (more or less) overcome. The premise: a diverse group of families, including a gay couple, competed to win a 3,300-square-foot, four-bedroom, 2 1/2 -bath house on a cul-de-sac near Austin by convincing the neighbors to welcome them. I had been looking foreard to watching it.

However: "These residents are making their judgments because of race, national origin and religion," Shanna Smith, National Fair Housing Alliance president and CEO, complained. She also hinted that the show violated the federal fair housing laws, which could subject ABC to prosecution, since the neighbors air their concerns about the "suitability" of some of their potential neighbors, and we're all suppose to pretend that such considerations never, ever happen in real life.

The Post also reports that "the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation also had cautioned ABC after seeing the first two episodes." Specifically:

GLAAD entertainment media director Damon Romine, who has seen the entire series, said that although it's clear "the producers intended to send a powerful message about the value of diversity and embracing the differences of others," the episodic format "created serious issues in terms of depicting the neighbors' journey from intolerance to acceptance."

Got that? GLAAD admits that showing people confronting their prejudices might be worthwhile, but the show could initially confuse the masses into incorrect thinking, and thus must not be permitted to air.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that if, heaven forbid, these would-be cultural commissars ever had the political power, they'd be burning books and videotapes in the streets.

GLAAD's mission ought to be to respoind with intelligence and conviction to the anti-gay polemics of the religious right -- not stiffling debate, and not telling us all what we can and can't read or watch. But that's just not as much fun, I guess.

Changing World.

First Canada, now Spain.

Don't expect the U.S. to be swayed to follow their examples anytime soon. But it definitely is a changing, and changed, (Western) world.

Update: Some bizarre assertions about the beneficence of European socialism, effectively refuted, in the comments zone.

Marriage and Privilege.

The American Political Science Association issued this release on critical views toward gay marriage - from feminists and lesbigaytransqueeractivists who'd like to do without marriage altogether.

The author of the study, Jyl Josephson, director of women's studies at Rutgers University, writes:

For some queer critics of the same-sex marriage quest, the current heterocentric vision of marriage inappropriately associates the public granting of a privacy privilege with adult citizenship for those professing lifelong, monogamous sexual relationships. Their objection is not so much to the fact that same-sex couples wish to have such relationships recognized, but rather to privileging this form of sexual relationship above all others.

If married couples-opposite or same-sex-are provided greater social, economic, and political privileges than nonmarried individuals, the result will be secondary exclusions and reinforcement of an undesirable link between a particular form of intimate association and adult citizenship.

Surprise, the libertarian in me doesn't think this is totally off the walls. Government should recognize and enforce private contracts between individuals, but perhaps we should leave it to the voluntary institutions of civil society to support and encourage those types of relationships that their adherents feel ought to be supported and encouraged.

I happen to favor marriage as a stabilizing institution; but I don't think it's right for everyone. And I have qualms about government using its awesome power to "promote" it with a broad range of incentives.

Still, it will be a long trek to the time when state and federal governments don't see themselves as mandated to use the laws and tax code to favor matrimony over other relationships - and certainly, in the view of some (not all) IGF authors, that's well and good for society as a whole. And as long as government is both recognizing and "privileging" heterosexual marriage, surely it's unacceptable not to do the same for same-sex marriage, too.

Gays in the Islamic World

First published June 28, 2005, as a Cato Institute Daily Commentary.

This year's Gay Pride festivities in New York City climaxed with the 36th annual parade down Fifth Avenue. As usual, the raucous affair thrilled some and rattled others, but everyone walked away intact.

One would have to fantasize about such an occasion, however, in most Muslim nations where homosexuality remains as concealed as a bride beneath a burqa. When it peeks through, it isn't pretty. While many liberals (and President G.W. Bush) call Islam a religion of peace, "celebrating diversity" is hardly on its agenda. Consider these recent examples of the Islamic world's institutional homophobia:

  • In Saudi Arabia, 105 men were sentenced in April for acts of "deviant sexual behavior" following their March arrests. Al-Wifaq, a government-affiliated newspaper, claimed they illegally danced together and were "behaving like women" at a gay wedding.

    "Calling the event a 'gay wedding' has become a lightning rod to justify discrimination against gay people," Widney Brown of Human Rights Watch told Patrick Letellier of gay.com.

    Seventy men received one-year prison sentences while 31 got six months to one year, plus 200 lashes each. Four others face two years behind bars plus 2,000 lashes. If these four receive their lashes at once, Brown fears their wounds will prove fatal.
  • "Anyone caught committing sodomy - kill both the sodomizer and the sodomized," Islamic cleric Tareq Sweidan demanded on Qatar TV last April 22. As the Middle East Media Research Institute (memri.org) reports, Sweidan continued: "The clerics determined how the homosexual should be killed. They said he should be stoned to death. Some clerics said he should be thrown off a mountain."
  • Ogudu Emmanuel and Odjegba Tevin admitted that they were male lovers after their neighbors reported them to Nigerian cops. They were arrested January 15 and charged with "crimes against nature." The pair apparently escaped from jail while awaiting trial and potential 14-year prison sentences. Gay rights activists worried that cops or other inmates may have killed them in custody.

    Last November, an Islamic court in Keffi, issued an arrest warrant for Michael Ifediora Nwokoma after neighbors accused him of having sex with a man named Mallam Abdullahi Ibrahim. Nwokoma quickly fled. Ibrahim was charged with the "unholy" act of "homosexualism." The court postponed Ibrahim's trial indefinitely and incarcerated him until Nwokoma surfaces.

    In northern Nigeria, where Sharia law governs 12 Muslim states, homosexuality requires capital punishment by stoning.
  • Iraq's terrorist Ansar al-Sunnah Army, the Islamic Army in Iraq, and the Mujahedeen Army issued a statement last December 30 urging Iraqis not to vote in last January's elections, lest democracy spawn un-Islamic laws such as "homosexual marriage," in their words. To be sure, many Americans also oppose gay marriage, but they at least have the good manners not to detonate advocates of same-sex unions. Ansar-al-Sunnah is incapable of such restraint. It scored major headlines when it claimed responsibility for a December 21 bombing at a U.S. military mess tent at a base in Mosul. It killed 22 people, 18 U.S. GIs among them.
  • Egyptian cops have met gay men online and through personal ads, then arrested them, according to a March 1, 2004 Human Rights Watch report. Since 2001, HRW says at least 179 men have been charged with "debauchery," prompting five-year prison sentences for at least 23. As the Associated Press' Nadia Abou El-Magd wrote, HRW "interviewed 63 men who had been arrested for homosexual conduct. It said they spoke of being whipped, bound and suspended in painful positions, splashed with cold water, burned with cigarettes, shocked with electricity to the limbs, genital or tongue. They also said guards encouraged other prisoners to rape them" - thus using coercive gay sex to penalize consensual gay sex.

While he notes that secular nations such as Jordan, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Syria are more relaxed about homosexuality, Robert Spencer, director of JihadWatch.org and editor of The Myth of Islamic Tolerance, warns against equating the homophobia of strict Muslim states with, say, American social conservatives' opposition to gay-rights laws.

"Jerry Falwell and others like him do not call for the deaths of homosexuals, while these people do," Spencer tells me. "This demonstrates the bankruptcy and, ultimately, the danger of such moral equivalence arguments, which are nonetheless ubiquitous today in discussions of Islamic terrorism."

Unlike Sunday's marchers, many in the Muslim world literally risk their lives and limbs by merely peering out of the Islamic closet.

Corporate Sponsors Stay the Course

Despite boycott threats from anti-gay groups and the perception of a gay marriage backlash from the American public, corporate sponsorship of gay pride festivities held around the country remained strong this year.

As I wrote some time back in my article Corporate Liberation, "the religious right isn't the only group attacking business support for gay events. The gay left is simply beside itself," labeling the acceptance of corporate money as "a surrender to 'commodity fetishism.'" (Rick Rosendall provides more examples of anti-corporate animus, in the comments zone.)

But whereas some on the gay left like to complain about being targeted as a highly desirable market demographic (to paraphrase, "give us your money, capitalist pigs"), it's actually something to celebrate - and take pride in.

Homophobe Rights?

Blogger Jonathan Rowe looks at the case of a man fired by Allstate for posting an anti-gay-rights missive (that quoted the discredited statistics of Paul Cameron) on a socially conservative website. The fired guy is now claiming religious discrimination.

I think that, in general, companies shouldn't fire employees for away-from-work activities that don't break any laws unless the activity is truly egregious. Like being a Ku Klux Klan "Grand Kleagle," as was Robert Byrd, the still-intensely homophobic West Virginia senator. And while I'd argue private employers should have the legal right to fire employees if they feel they're just not working out, as a general principle discriminating on the basis of off-site political activities sets a bad precedent.

Liberals like to raise the "scandal" of the Hollywood blacklist, when in fact most (some argue all) of those blacklisted were active members of the Communist Party defending Stalin's party line - speaking of which, Cathy Young has a nice review, here, of the new book "Red Star Over Hollywood." I'd agree that blacklisting communists, dupes that they were (and many still are), only serves to make totalitarians appear as martyrs. Let's not do the same for homophobes.

Rowe, by the way, goes on to look at the larger issue of conservatives who claim that being gay should not be a protected class under anti-discrimination law but that religion should be, when in fact sexual orientation is far less of a "choice" than religious affiliation. He quotes an article of mine, which quotes, in turn, IGF contributing author David Boaz, on that matter.

More Recent Postings
6/19/05 - 6/25/05

It All Belongs to the State.

The liberal bloc on the Supreme Court (joined, regrettably, by swing vote Kennedy), ruled the government is entitled to seize and bulldoze your home or business without your consent, in exchange for whatever it feels is a reasonable price, if well-connected private interests who covet your property can convince the government to issue the order (can you say "ka-ching").

Commented dissenter Sandra Day O'Connor: "Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner."

There are plenty of nightmare cases of homes and businesses being seized for ill-thought out corporate-welfare boondoggles. But as in the recent medical marijuana case, the liberal justices (joined then by big-government conservatives) would rather see consequences they disapprove of than risk suggesting that government power is subject to limits (because, hey, eventually they'll be back in power and calling the shots).

For some time now, Justice O'Connor (who was right on limiting the government's overreach and violation of personal rights when it came to prohibiting sodomy, overriding state medical use of marijuana laws, and now on property seizures) is the only High Court member who consistently recognizes that the constitution puts limits on how far government can go.

As Americans, we should be concerned about protecting all of our rights, in addition to "gay rights."

Update: As columnist George Will notes:

Liberalism triumphed yesterday. Government became radically unlimited in seizing the very kinds of private property that should guarantee individuals a sphere of autonomy against government.... Those on the receiving end of the life-shattering power that the court has validated will almost always be individuals of modest means. So this liberal decision...favors muscular economic battalions at the expense of society's little platoons, such as homeowners and the neighborhoods they comprise.

And in the comments zone, IGF contributing author Rick Rosendall reminds us that in Washington, D.C., this very type of government seizure is being used to wipe out the one area zoned for gay adult-entertainment clubs, which will now be bulldozed for a new taxpayer-subsidized stadium.

Heart of Darkness

We've made so much progress over the past four decades that it's easy to forget how far we still have to go. You can see that in the marriage fight, where gay relationships are routinely equated with the destruction of civilization. But you can see it more clearly, I think, in day-to-day life.

I live in Minneapolis, one of the most politically liberal places in the country. Minnesota has a statewide law protecting gays from discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations. Minneapolis has three openly gay city council members, the largest proportion of any major city in the country. A Republican couldn't get elected dog catcher in this town. My employer, the University of Minnesota, offers same-sex domestic partners' benefits to employees.

Not long ago I briefly dated a guy living in San Francisco. He came to visit me in Minneapolis for a long weekend, during which we did the kinds of things that dating couples do in order to get to know one another better. We went out to eat. We went to the movies. We walked together down the street and in the mall.

He lives in the Castro and when he dates people he's used to holding hands, kissing, hugging, showing affection in dozens of little ways. And he gives no thought to doing these things in public places. Yet when we did these things in public in liberal Minneapolis, the reception we got ranged from cold disapproval to open hostility.

In one of my favorite neighborhood restaurants, while we were waiting in line to order, he hugged me from behind and lingered there a few moments. The wait-staff shot us nervous looks, like they feared we might start sodomizing each other right next to the lamb kebobs. Some guy walked by us singing to his portable CD player, and spelled aloud the word "G-A-Y" as if it were part of the song.

Driving back from a movie, I put my arm around my date's shoulders. Several other drivers slowed down beside us to take a closer look at my car, a 1959 Chrysler Windsor. When they noticed my arm around my date their appreciative attitudes changed. The nice ones pointed us out to their friends and laughed, then sped ahead. A couple of carloads of young men were more menacing, throwing paper cups and even empty bottles of beer at my car.

At the zoo, walking down the street, and in the mall, we held hands at several points (always at my date's initiative). Each time we got nasty looks. We would pass someone, then I'd turn my head and see that they were looking back at us and whispering to each other. A few parents turned their children away from us, as if we were contagious, harmful on sight.

All in all, in the space of a few days, things like this happened more times than I can count. At the end of the weekend, I apologized to him. I was embarrassed. I felt terrible that I brought him out of a place where he could be himself to a place where being himself meant living with a constant sense of low-level danger. There was no way I could ever ask him to leave San Francisco to come to this place. There being no future, we stopped dating.

Sad as I was about that, I was mostly stunned. Though I knew things weren't perfect here, I had not experienced anything like it in the five years I'd lived in Minneapolis. Had all this really happened in my cocoon of tolerance and acceptance, my liberal bastion? Had it been a fluke, an unlucky weekend of chance encounters with the only ignoramuses around?

Then it dawned on me why it had happened that weekend in Minneapolis, but not before. In previous dating relationships, all with men from the area, my dates and I had censored our public conduct in ways to avoid these problems. We'd engaged in little or no hugging, or hand-holding, or other obvious signs of affection in public. We had held back without even realizing it. It was second nature to us.

My San Francisco date, however, hadn't been properly trained in this way. He had initiated each of these shameless, heedless displays and I had somewhat nervously gone along with them. He felt free in a way I never really have.

What does this atmosphere do to gay people who live outside a few square blocks of freedom in a few big cities? What effect does it have on our chances of forming lasting relationships? When straight couples need a touch of reassurance, they hold hands without a thought. A husband will casually lean over and plant a kiss on his wife. These gestures, mild and routine as they are, help sustain a relationship. Yet for gay couples they are social faux pas, perhaps an invitation to abuse.

The truth is, there's a deep aversion to gay people that will not be eliminated by enlightened laws. It's a gut-level disgust that defies rationalization, that resists education, that fears without thinking. The laws that rule our lives are not written on statute books; they are written on hearts. And the heart of this country, in the heart of this country, is still darker than many of us had hoped it would be by now.

A Better Nazi Parallel.

Islamic militants ("Your Terrorists Are Our Heroes") show up at NYC-area gay pride parades where they call for the castration of gay men, reports the New York Observer. Comments lesbian conservative Kristine Withers, "To me, it's synonymous with the Nazis recruiting on 42nd Street during World War II."

The paper quotes IGF contributing author Bruce Bawer, who comments on the European scene, "For liberals, the violent anti-gay hostility of their fundamentalist Muslim allies may be the first thing that really makes them realize they're not on the same page."

But if standing by gays means abandoning their blame the West, blame America, and blame the U.S. military mentality, I think you'll hear European lefties and American left-liberals saying, "Gays who...?"