IGF CultureWatch

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.

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.

First published June 22, 2005, in the Chicago Free Press.

Although little noted at the time, one of the most interesting aspects of last year's Senate debate on the so-called Federal Marriage Amendment was the relative absence of overt criticism of gays and lesbians and their relationships.

Instead, amendment supporters focused primarily on how the amendment would solidify the association of parenthood with marriage and would benefit children by assuring them an optimal family of two opposite sex parents.

As Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) expressed it, however disingenuously, "This amendment is not about prejudice. It is about safeguarding the best environment for our children."

Even some of the most conservative amendment supporters seemed to go out of their way to explicitly disclaim even a jot of anti-gay sentiment. For instance, lead sponsor Sen. Wayne Allard (R-Colo.) averred, "Gays and lesbians have the right to live the way they want."

And arch-conservative Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) emphasized during floor debate, "I do not believe it is appropriate for me to judge someone else's behavior. That is between them and their Lord."

What accounts for this shift in rhetorical emphasis from attacking gays as immoral, sodomical, perverts to a seemingly benign desire merely to help children?

In a fascinating article ("The Federal Marriage Amendment and the Strange Evolution of the Conservative Case against Gay Marriage," in the April issue of the journal PS: Political Science and Politics), former GOP intern Frederick Liu and Princeton University Professor Stephen Macedo suggest that one reason surely is that just a year earlier the Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas had struck down all state anti-sodomy laws, removing any judicial legitimacy for conservative efforts to legislate anti-gay animus.

Perhaps more importantly, there was virtually no public outcry following the decision. One need only contrast that reaction with the uproar that followed the court's Brown v. Board of Education anti-segregation decision, or the Roe v. Wade abortion rights decision, still controversial after more than three decades.

A third reason would have to be that public opinion polls have shown a gradual decline in the number of Americans who view homosexuality as "always wrong" from nearly two-thirds (73 percent) some 30 years ago to barely half (53 percent) today.

And certainly a contributing factor would have to be the widespread criticism of Pennsylvania's gift to statesmanship Sen. Rick Santorum (R) as bigoted and intolerant after he harshly criticized the Lawrence decision, lumping homosexuality in the "everything is permitted" category with polygamy, incest, adultery, and bestiality.

Those might or might not induce a thoughtful conservative to rein in his vituperative attacks on gays but it turns out there was more to it than that.

In interviews with a number of aides to Republicans senators, co-author Frederick Liu found that there was a deliberate and concerted effort by Senate Republicans to avoid explicitly moralistic and religious arguments associated with the Religious Right.

One GOP legislative aide described her senator as "a religious man" whose opposition to gay marriage came first but who then "put words to it" afterwards that completely avoided any religious arguments.

Another legislative aide said his senator decided not to include in his floor statement references to "the Judeo-Christian tradition" that were in his original draft.

Yet another staff member acknowledged that her senator felt he could not reveal his religious reasons for opposing gay marriage for fear his constituents would view him as homophobic.

And what of Sen. Rick "Man-on-Dog" Santorum? Liu and Macedo report that even though Santorum was a fervent supporter of the amendment, the Senate GOP leadership decided not to have him be a lead sponsor, hoping thereby to evade the kind of criticism Santorum himself experienced.

In a way it is good news if nationally prominent politicians feel that they cannot with impunity directly attack gays and lesbians or even gay and lesbian relationships.

But there is a downside as well. If legislators - and voters - reach their positions about gay issues on the basis of a religious commitment but offer only what we might call "social policy" arguments for their positions, then any counter-arguments we make to refute or disprove those arguments will have no effect on their position.

The legislator, and supportive voters, are immune to counter-evidence because "evidence" was never the reason for their position in the first place. The legislator will simply repeat his argument so long as he thinks it sounds plausible and when that is no longer possible he will simply hunt around for some different "social policy" reason.

You can encounter the same problem in discussions with religious fundamentalists. One woman assured me once that homosexuality was obviously unnatural because even dumb animals didn't do it. When I listed a number of species in which homosexuality has been observed, she shot back, "Well, they're just dumb animals. What do they know?!" Evidence counted only when it supported what she already believed. Counter-evidence had no significance.

How we conduct our legislative lobbying and public discussion in light of this fact is a knotty problem, but being aware of it is a necessary beginning.