Gay Marriage, Conservative Agendas.

by on

Blogger Eric Siddall writes in Memo to the Right: Gay Marriage Promotes Conservative Agenda:

One would think then that the Christian Right would be jumping up in joy for gay marriage. Bring these guys back to tradition and family. After all, aren't the Christian Right constantly saying hate the sin, love the sinner? Well, if the sin is the behavior surrounding the homosexual lifestyle, then what better way to stop gays from going to circuit parties and having sex outside of marriage than to allow them to get married?

Of course, that's exactly why some on the gay left are against same-sex marriage.

0 Comments

Backtracking on Gays in Military.

by on

Conservative columnist Bob Novak is trying to stir up trouble for John Kerry in his Aug. 7 column when he writes:

John Kerry's official Web site last week deleted his advocacy of homosexuals in the military after the Orlando (Fla.) Sentinel reported on this disclosure of the Democratic presidential candidate's position.

Before the language was eliminated, the Web site said bringing gays into the military was one of Sen. Kerry's "priorities." The page on homosexual issues had gone on to say: "John Kerry opposed the Clinton administration's Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy. He was one of the few senators to testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee and call on the president to rescind the ban on gay and lesbian service members."

Kerry does not mention the issue in his speeches, and the party platform is mute on gays in the military.

Novak is no friend of gays and his motive is to embarrass the Kerry/Edwards campaign. Nevertheless, it's more evidence of Kerry's tendency to buckle under and abandon us at the first sign of opposition. No doubt, he believes he has little to fear by taking the gay vote for granted -- which is largely true, because gay political groups have given him a green light to do just that. But if Kerry doesn't make a case for revoking government discrimination now, he clearly won't be able to claim a mandate to do so once in office.

I'm not suggesting that Bush is "better." But if we want the Democrats to give us something, then gay "leaders" must stop being partisan sycophants
and at least hint that the gay vote could stay home on election day (or vote for Nader or the Libertarian candidate).

Fear of losing customers is what motivates good service. The same is true in politics. The religious right understands this, and its leaders constantly tell Karl Rove they'll stay home if Bush takes them for granted. If only gay leaders would show as much spine.

More Recent Postings
8/01/04 - 8/07/04

0 Comments

Big Tents for We, But Not for Thee.

by on

EMILY's List, the powerful women's PAC with an abortion rights agenda, is backing a senatorial candidate who supports a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, reports the Washington Blade. The Democratic candidate is Inez Tenenbaum, running for the U.S. Senate in South Carolina, and EMILY's List has reportedly given her $350,000.

The Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest lesbigay political fundraiser, has long considered support for abortion a key factor in making endorsements (pro-choice voting is also an important category on HRC's congressional scorecards). Likewise, the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund requires candidates it endorses to be pro-choice. In both cases, the abortion litmus test has served to deny these groups' funds to GOP candidates who are gay-supportive but favor some abortion restrictions, such as parental notification.

In another development reported in the Blade, Unity, the umbrella group of minority journalists associations (with a decidedly "progressive" tilt) has again denied a membership request by the National Gay & Lesbian Journalists Association, stating that Unity is intended only for racial/ethnic minorities. Instead, NLGJA has been offered an "unofficial" role.

Says the Blade story, Unity "has decided not to extend the parameters of its big tent past its founding mission," and leaders of NLGJA "have gradually come to accept their second-tier status."

Do I begrudge EMILY's List and Unity the right to limit their agendas and constrain their "parameters"? Not at all. But it does highlight the absurdity foisted on us by LGBT activists who insist that every leftwing cause is part of their mission, so that gay groups involve themselves in everything from supporting race-based preferences (as HRC does) to opposing welfare reform (as the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force does). And that's leaving aside the whole issue of transgenderism, which extends to the cause of heterosexual cross-dressers.

At Least Bush Lowered Our Taxes.

Senator John Edwards said he and running mate John Kerry have "no objection" to this week's vote in Missouri to amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage, according to media reports. "We're both opposed to gay marriage," said Edwards.

I'm waiting for gay activists to deliver another of their increasingly absurdist rationales for their support of these two snake-oil salesmen.

If our movement "leaders" would just hint that gay voters might stay home on election day (no one expects them to support Bush), it might be enough to trigger some fealty from the Democrats.

0 Comments

It Continues.

by on

On Tuesday, Missouri voters overwhelmingly approved a state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage -- the first such test of the issue since a Massachusetts court legalized gay and lesbian weddings last fall. The amendment was approved by 71% of those voting. Next up, voters in some 10 other states will face similar ballot measures in coming months. The prospects aren't good. It may take another generation before voting majorities conclude gay marriage strengthens rather then rips the social fabric.

Meanwhile, in Washington state a King County Superior Court judge ruled that gay couples were entitled to marry. But no marriage licenses can be issued until the state Supreme Court reviews the case. Expect conservatives to charge that an activist judiciary is again overriding the will of the people -- which it may well be, but that's what guaranteeing minorities legal equality is often about.

Nevertheless, if court rulings favoring gay marriage trigger passage of state constitutional amendments that permanently bar same-sex nuptials, we may regret not taking the path of civil unions -- at least as an interim step. But then again, the Massachusetts court's ruling may have made that decision for us.
--Stephen H. Miller

0 Comments

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