HRC’s Party Line.

by on

The Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest lesbigay lobby, has endorsed the Democratic opponent of Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), one of the most pro-gay senators in the GOP. Specter did vote to bring the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment to the floor of the Senate -- which turned out to be the vote on the amendment's fate, since opponents blocked the amendment then and there. (Specter indicated that if a subsequent Senate floor vote on the measure had taken place, he would have then voted against the FMA.) Nevertheless, six fair-minded Republicans did manage to vote against allowing the amendment to go forward, including New Hampshire's John Sununu, and Specter fell short in comparison.

But if voting correctly on the FMA were a litmus test for the HRC, why are they still enthusiastically endorsing John Kerry and John Edwards, who chose not to vote against the amendment when they failed to vote at all?

0 Comments

Four Better Ways to Defend Marriage

by on

First published by Scripps Howard News Service, August 5, 2004. Reprinted by permission of the author courtesy of Scripps Howard News Service.

Missouri voters last Tuesday decided, 70 percent to 30, to ban same-sex marriage in the Show Me state. This, and similar initiatives on 10 state ballots through Nov. 2, will bolster traditional marriage about as effectively as a landlord who battles termites by refusing to rent apartments to gay tenants.

Traditional marriage is being gnawed on by a culture that too often regards "I do" as a punchline. While divorce nibbles away at nuptials, Fox-TV airs "Trading Spouses: Meet Your New Mommy," a show that swaps husbands and wives like baseball cards. The 205,000-member AshleyMadison.com - whose slogan is "When Monogamy Becomes Monotony" - helps people cheat on their spouses. Philanderers.com, one of many more Internet adultery sites, helpfully advises that toothpaste removes lipstick stains.

Padlocking every gay bar from Provincetown to West Hollywood would not slow such outrages, nor would restricting each marriage to one man and one woman make heterosexuals stop behaving badly.

Something as vital as marriage should be out of public hands. Government should exit the marriage business and quit issuing marriage licenses. If you want to get married, get married. Why beg City Hall's permission?

That said, if America must license marriage, there are methods beyond discriminatory constitutional amendments that would preserve traditional marriage and protect children. After all, these are what gay-marriage opponents claim as their real objectives. If so, social conservatives should embrace any of the following reforms to advance their goals:

  • Ban divorce. Yes, this would be a drastic measure, but with roughly half of first marriages ending in divorce, it may be time for drastic action. This is the most powerful weapon to defend marriage: Simply make it illegal to break marital bonds. What part of "Till death do us part" do divorcees find unclear?
  • Limit marriage licenses to one per person. Everybody gets one chance to get it right. No trial matrimonies, Britney Spears stunts, or Elizabeth Taylor serial husbandry. People might be more careful about pairing for life if they knew they had only one shot at marriage. A common-sense exception could be made to let widows and widowers re-marry.
  • Introduce probationary marriage licenses for heterosexuals. Gay-marriage foes say their efforts are "all about the children," as seems to be the case with everything these days. (Homer Simpson last season crisply summarized my opinion of kids: "Children are our future - unless we stop them now!") Each couple would have five years to bear at least one baby of its own or adopt at least one child. This would advance the species, give lots of new kids moms and dads, and also move boys and girls from orphanages into homes.

    The marriage license of each childless couple would lapse on their fifth anniversary. This would limit the number of child-free husbands and wives, such as Mr. and Mrs. Patrick Buchanan, who, presumably, remain married to share their love with each other as adults, not to rear children. Straight marriage advocates argue that the institution does not exist to keep adults emotionally satisfied and mutually devoted. Instead, as National Review Online's Stanley Kurtz has written, "the core purpose of marriage is to bind children to their mothers and fathers." The Buchanans and couples like them are entitled to find that sentiment breathtakingly presumptuous.
  • The flip side of this notion: provisional marriage licenses for gay couples. They could stay married as long as they remained childless. The moment a gay couple either adopted a child or managed to deliver one naturally through surrogate parenting, artificial insemination, etc., their marriage license would become null and void, and they simply would become two people living together under one roof. This would provide the socially desirable benefits of curbing gay promiscuity while promoting gay monogamy. And who can argue with that? This simultaneously would reduce the odds that gay people would raise children, what with all the challenges this presents. If social conservatives are sincere, they should applaud this compromise.

Any or all of these modest proposals should satisfy socio-cons and the religious right. Why not defend marriage through one or more of these concepts, rather than the irrelevant misstep Missouri voters just showed us?

0 Comments

In Boston, the Democrats Ducked

by on

"There is very much a stifling effect here at the convention," observed Carole Migden, an openly gay California Board of Equalization member and 2004 Democratic National Convention delegate. "But there is an implicit feeling that there is widespread support for our issues that goes unspoken."

What to make of the Boston Democrats? They really like gay people, but they'd really rather the American public didn't know that. And what of gay Democrats? They're high-minded idealists when they criticize gay Republicans for working within a party that doesn't much like gays; but they're sober-minded pragmatists when assessing their own party's treatment of gays. Yes, they acknowledge, the Boston convention was a retreat from gay visibility at past conventions. But, they quickly add, that's necessary to defeat the evil Republicans.

The contrast to the three previous Democratic conventions was remarkable. In 1992 and 1996, Bill Clinton actually used the word "gay" in his convention speeches. In his 2000 acceptance speech, Al Gore specifically endorsed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and hate crimes legislation. In 1996 and 2000, rainbow flags were clearly visible in the convention hall, waving in front of the TV cameras during prime-time speeches.

This year, no rainbow flags on the convention floor in prime time. There were six openly gay speakers, which is good and certainly better than what we'll get at the Republican convention. But none of them appeared during the hours when Americans would actually see them. If you're not heard in prime time, do you make a sound?

I heard "gay" mentioned exactly once in four nights of prime-time coverage. If you didn't know better, and confined your convention-watching to the 8-11 p.m. time slot, you wouldn't have known gays even exist.

Most striking was the complete omission of anything gay in the acceptance speeches of John Edwards and John Kerry. Neither man mentioned gay Americans or gay-related legislation. There was no promise to do anything about lifting the ban on gays in the military, no pledge to work for legislation to protect gay people from employment discrimination or from hate crimes, not a word about lifting the ban on HIV-positive immigrants (a ban Kerry voted for), not one syllable devoted to the recognition of civil unions.

Kerry announced his obligatory respect for diversity in language so general President Bush himself could have used it. He also tried to undermine Republican moralism by claiming to support "family values," which for Democrats means raising taxes to pay for social programs and government-controlled health care.

Then there was Kerry's promise not to "misuse for political purposes the most precious document in American history, the Constitution of the United States." This passage caused much mirth among gay Democrats, who clung to it as possibly a reference to the Bush-supported Federal Marriage Amendment. That's certainly a reasonable interpretation, and no doubt it's what Kerry wanted gay Americans to understand it to mean.

But, in context, it was oblique. To the casual listener, who heard Kerry denounce Attorney General John Ashcroft, it could have been understood as a critique of the Bush administration's overall record on civil liberties. And, since neither Kerry nor Edwards could be bothered to show up to actually vote against the FMA, why give them the benefit of the interpretive doubt?

It's true the 2004 Democratic platform mentions a few of these things, and that's nice. It's also true that Kerry and Edwards announced gay-supportive positions on these matters during the Democratic primaries, and that's even nicer. But in the months since he secured the Democratic nomination, Kerry has hardly mentioned gay Americans or his supportive stands on gay issues.

To many gay Democrats, none of this matters. Typical was the reaction of D.C. delegate and longtime gay activist Phil Pannell, as quoted in the Washington Blade: "The times are different now from what they were when Clinton and Gore gave their speeches. People who typically would be mad about certain policies or certain omissions in speeches are so determined to defeat Bush that they are willing to not let that bother them."

But it does matter. If Kerry shies away from gay issues now, Republicans will justifiably argue that he has no mandate on them once he's elected.

And if fear of political consequences is enough to silence Kerry and the Democrats now, the same reasons will be used to justify their silence later. Before he's elected, we are told, candidate Kerry must do nothing substantive on gay rights so he can get elected. In 2005 and 2006, we will be told, President Kerry must do nothing substantive on gay issues so the Democrats can win the 2006 congressional election. In 2007 and 2008, we will hear, Kerry must do nothing substantive on gay issues so he can be re-elected. And so on.

What I see developing with the Kerry/Edwards no-show at the FMA vote, with the failure of Kerry and Edwards to discuss any gay-related issue since the primaries, with the relative invisibility of "gay" at the Democratic convention, and now with the gearing up of the old excuse factory for them, is a replay of those halcyon years that gave us "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the Defense of Marriage Act.

But, bless his heart, Kerry does have an implicit feeling for us that goes unspoken. He is promising us nothing and it's starting to look like that's just what he'll deliver.

0 Comments

Not a Winning Position.

by on

From a review of Showtime's reality show "The American Candidate," which started out with 10 contestants facing off against each other in a mock presidential race. One player/candidate is/was Chrissy Gephardt, the lesbian daughter of Rep. Dick Gephardt and a darling of gay activists and the gay media. But Chrissy G. was quickly eliminated. A story in Washigton's Express subway paper (published by the Washington Post, but not online) reports:

Gephardt's most depressing move, however, came in her final "debate." Asked to speak on a pet issue, Gephardt practically announced that she was vigorously in favor of late term abortions. The "front-runner," silver haired smoothie Park Gillespie, quietly tore [into] her -- he's the father of a five-week premature daughter.

Actually, Gephardt was well-spoken and in many ways attractive and appealing, but her position remained that a woman has a right to end her pregnancy at any point she so chooses regardless of the late-term viability of the child she's carrying. She also argued we shouldn't be debating gay marriage because "We have prisoners being abused in Iraq; we should talk about that."

What better example of how the LGBT left lives in its own, hermetically sealed universe.

0 Comments

Is the Welfare State to Blame?

by on

A new letter argues that in Europe, "It isn't gay marriage that destroys heterosexual marriage, it's socialism."

Fighting for Evangelical Votes.

From a recent issue of U.S. New & World Report:

While it comes as no surprise that white evangelicals are overwhelmingly Republican and back President Bush by a wide margin, nearly a quarter say they might vote for Democrat John Kerry.

Since "white evangelical Christians today make up roughly a fourth of the U.S. population," that quarter of a quarter is a pretty steep number.

Perhaps this slice of religiously conservative but economically liberal evangelicals is what a lot of the political hullabaloo is about -- Bush supporting a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, and Kerry not voting against the same, and not publicly mentioning any gay-supportive position at the convention or on the campaign trail.

0 Comments

Mama T? Sorry, I Already Have a Mom.

by on

A Washington Blade headline: "Gay delegates hail Kerry speech: Omission of 'G' word 'not an issue.'" And I take it that Kerry's opposition to gay marriage (and decision not to vote against the Federal Marriage Amendment) is "not an issue." And his failure to mention gays in the military or anti-discrimination legislation (which I have strong reservations about, but which gay activists support) is "not an issue." Is there anything their nominee could do or not do regarding gays that would be an issue to these partisans?

What apparently sent the "not an issue" crowd to party heaven was an appearance by Teresa Heinz Kerry at the GLBT delegates' caucus (a non-smoke-filled back room, I suppose).

The Washington Blade reports that in her remarks before the caucus:

Heinz Kerry appeared to mix policy issues with motherly love, drawing repeated shouts of appreciation from both lesbians and gay male delegates. She told of how she was moved at a campaign appearance a few months ago in Washington state, when a man told her in a question and answer session that his relationship with his mother was strained and told her, "I want you to be my mother."

"It was clear that he had not made that peace with his mother and he wanted someone who loved him," Heinz Kerry said. "And so, at least, if nothing else, you'll have a mom in the White House," she told the crowd. Added Heinz Kerry, "You can call me Mama T."

That remark prompted the gay delegates to jump to their feet while chanting, "Mama T!"

And they didn't find any of this even the least bit infantilizing, nor take offense at the suggestion that "nothing else" may be all they're likely to get from her husband. Or if they did, it was "not an issue."

0 Comments

More on Gay Marriage as the “New Abortion.”

by on

I recently commented on fears that gay marriage will be an effective mass mobilization issue for rank-and-file conservatives, noting that such a threat seemed overblown. As a reader e-mailed to point out, Michael Greve, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, made the same point back in March when he wrote:

I disagree with the widely held notion that judicial overreach [courts requiring states to recognize gay marriage] would spark a backlash and a lasting social rift akin to the division generated by Roe v. Wade. There is no such thing as a "charming" abortion, and nobody celebrates an abortion with friends and family. The certainty that each abortion (40 million and counting) is an act of brutal aggression sustains the Right to Life movement.

In contrast, even adamant opponents of same-sex marriage as an institution can think of a charming same-sex couple and of a union worth celebrating. And who precisely are the victims that command our compassion and protection? Movement-sustaining fervor at this front is hard to come by, and easily lost amid messy details and conflicting emotions. (emphasis added)

That's not to say that achieving gay marriage, or even civil unions, won't require a long, drawn out fight throughout the length and breadth of the nation, especially to defeat or overturn statewide constitutional amendments and DOMA laws. But what we learned from the recent Senate vote is that the grass-roots troops aren't calling, writing, and pestering their elected officials with the vehemence they express over abortion. That's a positive worth bearing in mind.

More Recent Postings
7/25/04 - 7/31/04

0 Comments

Initial Convention Reflections.

by on

Some quick takes on matters gay. I'll restrain myself from delving into other issues, such as the economy, healthcare and national security, although these are actually (believe it or not) more crucial than gay rights for the country as a whole.

The absence of rainbow flags and gay rights placards has been frequently mentioned; apparently, this year only official signage was allowed onto the floor.

Neither Kerry nor Edwards mentioned gays, unlike Clinton/Gore in years past. The closest Kerry came was to say: "We believe that what matters most is not narrow appeals masquerading as values, but the shared values that show the true face of America. Not narrow appeals that divide us, but shared values that unite us. Family and faith...."

[Addendum 1: He also said this: "Let's honor this nation's diversity; let's respect one another; and let's never misuse for political purposes the most precious document in American history, the Constitution of the United States." Worthy sentiments, but you'd have to already be familiar with the Federal Marriage Amendment debate to connect the dots to gays.]

[Addendum 2: Virginia Postrel argues Kerry wasn't talking about the FMA, but about the Florida recount - or at least that's what the delegates thought he was saying. Guess his code words were even too cryptic for the insiders!]

Barney Frank's remarks early Thursday evening did addressed same sex marriage and the Federal Marriage Amendment, but this was the exception. There were virtually no prime-time mentions of gays, though rising star Barack Obama, the Senate candidate from Illinois, referred fleetingly to "gay friends in the Red states." Tammy Baldwin, the openly lesbian Congressmember from Wisconsin, also had a prime-time spot but did not utter "gay" or "lesbian," though she did, I think, refer to the need for health coverage for domestic partners.

Human Rights Campaign head Cheryl Jacques spoke, I believe, at 5:45 ET on Wednesday for a few minutes, saying "Gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Americans share the dream of a better, stronger, and more united America," and "We're working for marriage equality -- so we can do what families do best -- care for each other in sickness and health...."

Other than that, I'm not sure same-sex marriage (which Kerry/Edwards oppose) was mentioned, and, as far as I know, there were no other criticisms of the Federal Marriage Amendment (which Kerry/Edwards also oppose, but not enough to actually vote against).

So if gay issues were for the most part "invisibilized" by the Democrats in prime time, the question is whether the Republicans will restrain their impulse to explicitly gay bash throughout their shindig. I, for one, would be shocked if Bush doesn't crow about his support for the Federal Marriage Amendment and traditional marriage, in a further "good riddance" (in the words of social conservative Bush insider Paul Weyrich) to gay Republicans.

The Next (Upscale) Generation.

Thursday's Wall Street Journal, in a frontpage article headlined "Democrats Tap a Rich Lode: Young, Well-Off Social Liberals," notes that forty-something entrepreneurial successes, some of whom describe themselves as "centrist, moderate Republicans" and backed Bush in 2000, are contributing to Kerry this time:

This new generation of wealth -- men and women who grew up with working moms, black classmates and gay friends, during the rise of environmentalism -- is defying the traditional notion that as people swim up the income scale, they tend to become more Republican.

Wake up, Karl Rove!

0 Comments

Not About Politics — or Is It?

by on

Instead of the Democrats, my partner and I watched "Drew Carey" Wednesday night. On this episode, Drew's meddling inadvertently broke up a gay couple whose young son plays with Drew's nephew. Drew then drives from Cleveland to Youngstown, where one partner has fled to his parents' house. The 60ish father greets Drew with "you're the guy who broke up my son's marriage over a basketball game." The father then says, "Now that you're inside my house, anything I do to you is self-defense" -- establishing his bona fides as a tough conservative. So we have a conservative white-haired father referring to "my son's marriage" and criticizing the man who broke it up, on a sitcom set in blue-collar Cleveland. Yet another indication of how times have passed the Santorum Republicans by (had to get one jab in there!).

0 Comments

Out in the Cold.

by on

It's a week old, but this Boston Globe article captures the Bush decision to jettison gay votes in the hopes of upping conservative Christian support. A revealing incident:

As Senate Republicans began accelerating the debate over gay marriage last month, President Bush got a warning about the potential for political fallout. Representative Charles Bass of New Hampshire, sharing a ride on Air Force One, told Bush to "back off this gay marriage thing, that it was going to be devastating for him in the Northeast," where voters have a famously libertarian streak

"I don't think they actively support gay marriage, but they have a subliminal distrust for government establishing a moral code for people's lives," Bass, a Republican, recalled telling Bush. In response, Bass said, Bush "looked at me like I was crazy." The president ignored the advice and actively supported a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage....

Turning to the other party, here's Andrew Sullivan's take on Kerry, who supports amending Massachusetts' constitution to ban gay marriage but permit civil unions:

I'm not saying that gay voters should not support Kerry. I just don't want to live through another Clinton ordeal. I don't want a "pro-gay" president getting away with trashing our civil rights just because he's not as hostile as the alternative. ... [Kerry says] that he favors giving gay couples every federal benefit that straight couples have. But he knows this is an easy promise, because it will never be passed. And -- mark my words -- he will not expend any political capital to enact it.

Bush's anti-gay politics makes it easy for Kerry to virtually ignore the wants and needs of his gay supporters -- where they gonna go?

0 Comments