IGF CultureWatch

Four years of incumbency should have given a sitting president with a relatively robust economy a clear edge; instead, Iraq remained the dominant issue, trumping the economy and everything else - including gay issues. Americans are fiercely split over the war and its continuing casualties, though I believe history will judge Bush right on this, the big one.

Nevertheless, it's clear that his support for the Federal Marriage Amendment wasn't the winner Bush (and Karl Rove) expected it to be. The millions of "missing" evangelicals that Rove believed could be brought into the GOP fold never materialized. Instead, the FMA cost Bush the active support and votes of gay and gay-friendly moderates, libertarians and economic conservatives, as well as all those turned off by what seemed an extremist ploy. And significantly, the anti-gay perception helped drive away young voters, who turned out in higher numbers than ever and voted overwhelmingly for Kerry. The GOP now must decide whether, going forward, it will be the party of Arnold Schwarzeneggerr, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani, or of Bill Frist and Rick Santorum.

[Update: OK, if you've read down this far you know Bush's victory was bigger than it first appeared on Tuesday evening, and that the passage of gay marriage bans in 11 states (by huge margins) showed the issue did play a significant role. That's why this was an initial reflection. Enough of the e-mails! ]

More Recent Postings
10/24/04 - 10/30/04

The European Parliament forced the rejection of the Italian nominee to be the EU's commissioner for Justice, Freedom and Security after he caused an uproar by saying "homosexuality is a sin." OK, he additionally said marriage was designed to give women "the right to have children and the protection of a man," which also didn't sit too well with the liberal parliament.

I never put much stock in claims by Larry Kramer and others that Abe Lincoln was homosexual. But this review of an upcoming posthumous work by psychologist C.A. Tripp does seem to make a case. Still, there have been so many assertions that historical personages are "gay" based on scant proof that even a mountain of circumstantial evidence in Lincoln's case is likely to be scorned.

Here's a moving account of what truly sanctifies a relationship.

Blogger Tim Hulsey's My Stupid Dog site takes a look at a fundraiser for the Charlottesville, Vir., AIDS/HIV Services Group (ASG) that turned into an anti-GOP hate fest. Hulsey notes:

There was one joke claiming that Bush and an al-Qaida terrorist were alike, because each one "takes flying lessons and works to destroy the country." (You see, Bush was a member of the Texas Air National Guard, which makes him practically the same as the folks who flew those planes into the World Trade Center. Get it?)

And he comments:

[W]hen a nonprofit charity with tax-exempt status and a generous share of public money sponsors explicitly partisan political invective, I have a very big problem. ...

Over the past three years, Congress has increased public funds for organizations like ASG by nearly thirty percent. Meanwhile, Virginia's [GOP controlled] legislature retained and expanded drug subsidies during hard economic times, and even expanded its own funding for AIDS prevention efforts. Thanks largely to these massive infusions of public money, ASG has managed to expand over the past two years -- renting larger offices, starting a new family-housing plan, and serving more clients over a larger area than ever before.

In short, Republican legislators helped make AIDS/HIV Services Group the social-service organization it is today. Last night, while their backs were turned, they finally received their reward.

And it's all par for the course. But remind me, which is supposed to be the Party of Hate?

As of Thursday evening, still nothing on the Log Cabin site that I can find acknowledging President Bush's unexpected critique of the GOP platform's opposition to civil unions. Even if Bush's statement is too little, too late, it's nevertheless a step in the right direction that could be leveraged to create dialogue. But LCR is silent. Meanwhile, Bush's statement is being bashed (no surprise) on the Stonewall Democrats' website, and even referenced on their home page.

New York Times' Headline: Bush Says His Party Is Wrong to Oppose Gay Civil Unions:

President Bush said in an interview this past weekend that he disagreed with the Republican Party platform opposing civil unions of same-sex couples and that the matter should be left up to the states.

As instapundit and others point out, this appears to contradict the position of the failed, Bush-backed Federal Marriage Amendment (unless you believe, as Bush does, that the amendment would only prevent judges from imposing civil unions, which is not how some of the FMA's own backers saw it).

A recent letter posted in our mailbag is "appalled by the political fence-riding of certain of your contributors with respect to the deep and important differences between Kerry and Bush on issues of gay equality." Check it out (I penned a short response as well).

More Recent Postings
10/17/04 - 10/23/04

Recent revelations and critiques of the Log Cabin Republicans are coming not from gay lefties, but from gay conservatives. Among the charges, as described by the Washington Blade: Leader Patrick Guerriero has crossed over from a nonendorsement of Bush to actively attacking the president and aiding Kerry; that the national office vindictively expelled the Palm Beach chapter after it voted 15-0 to endorse Bush; and, most damning, that Guerriero's lieutenant, political director and chief media contact Christopher Barron, has been a long-time volunteer operative for John Edwards and submitted a written testimonial praising Edwards on a web site at the time Edwards announced his candidacy for president in 2003.

Gay Patriot broke the Barron story, complete with documentation, and Boi from Troi has posted a response from LCR. (which, if it's on LCR's own web site, I can't find).

Log Cabin counters that the Palm Beach chapter violated club rules against local clubs making national endorsements, and says Guerriero's TV appearances and press interviews have targeted Bush on his support for the marriage amendment. Less convincing is the defense of Barron, which LCR seems not to understand is a Big Deal.

For LCR to succeed, it needs to be seen fully as a Republican player, even if it can't endorse the party's presidential nominee this go round. Barron is a gift to social conservatives who think LCR never belonged in the party and say it ought to be bid good riddance. That Barron's position was filled, apparently, without a public search also calls into question how LCR's board and management are operating.

If Bush does win (about which I'm still doubtful), who will have access to his White House? Certainly not the highly partisan Human Rights Campaign and National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, both Democratic Party fronts that have burned their bridges to even GOP moderates. And, alas, not LCR, unless perhaps Barron makes way for a less-blemished Republican (or a better defense is forthcoming), and Guerriero becomes less concerned about winning Cheryl Jacques' and Matt Foreman's approval.

How about talking about the need for vigilance in Iraq, personal social security accounts and market-based health care reform, Patrick, as well as tort reform and standing up to the trial lawyers' lobby. If these aren't in your vocabulary, and aren't being emphasized in your public appearances and press interviews, then something really is seriously amiss at LCR.

Via the New York Observer. For a hearty laugh, check it out.