IGF CultureWatch

Lambda Legal has posted the brief filed by the City of San Francisco defending its granting of marriage licenses to same-sex couples (right-wing groups are asking a state court to issue an injunction to stop these marriages and invalidate those performed to date). The city's defense of its actions begins:

For centuries, indeed millennia, homosexual persons have been subjected to extreme and humiliating forms of discrimination in all aspects of their lives. The opprobrium directed against gay men and lesbians is a hatred that is based specifically and directly on the identity and gender of the persons they love. At the root of discrimination against homosexuals has always been the distinction between their intimate and personal relationships and the relationships of heterosexuals, which have over the same millennia been celebrated, recognized and supported in thousands of different ways.

As of now, state court judges have turned down the request to halt these marriages, but will hear further arguments next month.

The more weddings that are solemnized in San Francisco and later this year in Massachusetts, the more obvious it will become that the religious right, in demanding that these unions be nullified, is anything but "pro marriage."

In Europe, it seems, both the gay left and the social right are supporting "marriage lite" in the form of civil unions or, in French, pacte civil de solidarit", for heterosexuals -- the left seeing this as an end-run around an oppressive institution, and the right seeing it as a way to avoid specifically sanctioning gay relationships.

As the New York Times reports:

A government proposal still being considered in Britain, for instance, would allow gay couples to register in civil partnerships that would give them inheritance and pension benefits, and next-of-kin rights in hospitals. But when the government announced its plan last summer, gay groups protested, saying that it discriminated against heterosexuals. "

The civil solidarity pacts in France, in fact, began as a way for gays to formalize their partnerships, but were broadened, when religious and conservative groups objected, to include heterosexuals.

Isn't it nice that the gay left and religious right can find something to agree on!

The Needs of the Party Trump Those of the Individual (Again).

From Tuesday's Wall Street Journal article, "Usually Fractious, Democrats Cut Kerry Some Slack" (sorry, no free link):

Gay and lesbian activists are preparing [to swing behind John Kerry] even though Mr. Kerry opposes gay marriage and hasn't taken a stand on a constitutional amendment to prohibit it in his home state. ...

"What the Democrats are saying is, we're not going to sweat the small stuff," explains Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the Black Caucus chairman. ...

Dean backer Elizabeth Birch, former executive director of the Human Rights Campaign Fund, [sic] predicts that Mr. Kerry would "receive tremendous support" from gays and lesbians despite his opposition to gay marriage. ...

Actually, as previously noted herein, Kerry has said he could back a state constitutional amendment if the right language can be found (that is, banning marriage but allowing lesser civil unions or domestic partnerships), while leaving it to his gay liaison to convey his opposition to a federal amendment. But why let such small stuff stand in the way of party unity?

Of course, gay Republicans who support Bush if/when he endorses a constitutional amendment would be in the same boat.

Am I guilty of holding Democrats to a somewhat higher standard than the GOP, in that both Bush and Kerry oppose gay marriage? Yes, in that Democrats campaign as the champions of gay rights. This gets them many, many gay votes that, based on issues such as the economy, social security reform, national security, etc. would otherwise go to the GOP, all things being equal. So I don't apologize for calling Democrats on the carpet for false advertising.

It would be hard to remain unmoved by the raw emotion of what's happened in San Francisco this weekend, as the city issued marriage licenses and conducted weddings for same-sex couples. The SF Chronicle reports:

They came in wedding dresses and tiaras, in suits and ties, in sneakers and baseball caps, with cameras and friends and armsful of flowers. Some had made advance plans, while others left work in a rush when the call came at midday: Get to City Hall. Now.

And, in another Chronicle story:

Gay and lesbian couples from as far as New York, Texas, Florida, Minnesota and Georgia, as well as others from all corners of the state, have heeded Mayor Gavin Newsom's invitation to marry, even if it meant driving all night or hopping on a plane.

The AP/Washington Post tells us:

The numbers have been so overwhelming -- nearly 1,000 couples as of 1:30 p.m. Saturday with the line still around the block -- the city has deputized marriage commissioners. -- Someone carried a sign: "50 Percent of State Marriages End in Divorce. Are You Worried We Can Do Better."

The fundamentalists are seeking a court injunction to block all this, and to put asunder those now joined together. Increasingly, the ugly intolerance beneath their "pro-family" mask is being exposed.

The Needs of the Party Trump Those of the Individual.

Yet another Chronicle story reports that:

Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank called [San Francisco Mayor] Newsom. The veteran gay representative told the mayor to drop the idea -- the time wasn't right.

No, mustn't embarrass John Kerry, even if it means putting barricades around city hall to keep the gay masses out.

More Recent Postings

2/08/04 - 2/14/04

On this St. Valentine's Day, Massachusetts is on the verge of granting marriage licenses to gay couples and San Francisco has already begun doing so.

Writes columnist Ellen Goodman:

When the gay rights movement focused on marriage, it changed the image of homosexual America. Today the gay poster couples are middle-aged parents with a kid, a golden retriever and a soccer schedule. The "gay agenda" is a wedding.

For better or for worse, I suppose. Meanwhile, more than 100 members of Congress have co-sponsored the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment, and White House aides say President Bush is about to endorse it. John Kerry opposes a federal amendment, but thinks states should amend their own constitutions to ban gay marriages.

The Washington Post has an excellent feature on the debate over what the proposed federal amendment actually says, when it says:

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

Some of its backers claim this would not prohibit states from recognizing Vermont-style civil unions, and much of the media (including the hapless New York Times) have reported this assertion as if it were so. But it's increasinlgy evident the phrase "marital status or the legal incidents thereof" would also prohibit recognition/enforcement of civil unions and domestic partnerships, or else the words would have no purpose.

And, as the Washington Post story notes:

Two of the amendment's principal authors, professors Robert P. George of Princeton and Gerard V. Bradley of Notre Dame Law School, contend that the opening sentence also would forbid some kinds of civil unions. ...

Gay rights groups contend that the phrase about "legal incidents" of marriage would bar civil unions, and that evangelical Christian organizations are trying to sell the amendment to the public as more moderate than it is.

In the cultural wars, it seems, the first casualty is truth.

More Mendacity.

If Bush is flat-out wrong, at least we know where he stands. As the Washington Blade editorializes, John Kerry wants to confuse his views and is succeeding:

In an interview this week on National Public Radio, Kerry expressed support for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. His campaign staff quickly reassured a Blade reporter the next day that Kerry was talking about an amendment to the Massachusetts state Constitution and that he maintains his opposition to the federal amendment.

Of course the national radio audience that heard Kerry didn't learn of that distinction, because the question was not specifically addressed to the Massachusetts state Constitution and neither was Kerry's answer. It was the second time in recent weeks Kerry has fudged the gay marriage issue.

Not exactly a profile in courage, is it?

Gay Activists at Work (Sort Of).

IGF contributing author Paul Varnell takes a sharp-eyed look at the salaries being paid to leaders of gay organizations -- sometimes in excess of what other comparably sized nonprofits pay (GLAAD's Joan Garry, last year's top-paid gay leader at $210,000 according to a Washington Blade survey Paul cites, rakes in "a stunning 5 percent of her organization's total annual revenues").

And what do you get for your money. Often, inanities like the following from the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Assocation (NLGJA). Of all the issues regarding the reporting, and misreporting, of the Federal Marriage Amendment, the PC squad at the NLGJA has decided to unleash its ammunition against the (get this) use of the terms "gay marriage" and "same-sex marriage" by the press. Declares an "Open Letter from the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association to the News Industry on Accurate Reporting About Marriage for Gays and Lesbians" (from Pamela Strother, Executive Director):

The terms "gay marriage" and "same-sex marriage" are inaccurate and misleading. The decision made by the Massachusetts court affects the state's existing marriage law. The court has ordered the state to apply the existing law equally to gay and lesbian couples as early as May 2004. The accurate terminology on-air, in headlines and in body type should be "marriage for gays and lesbians."

Oh, sure, I can just see that phrase making it into headlines. The press, of course, will rightfully ignore such stupidity, but it's a sad statement of just how weak our national organizations are, as we embark on what may be the fight of our lives.

More Recent Postings

2/08/04 - 2/14/04

I can't disagree with Democratic strategist Jim Jordan on this one. As the Washington Post reports, Bush is expected to endorse the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment. Says Jordan:

"When Republicans are in a pinch, they always look for the cultural wedge issue," he said. "Bush's margin of victory in 2000, such as it was, came from moderate suburban voters taking Bush's word that he was a different kind of Republican, a compassionate conservative. Issues like this look mean-spirited."

Hedging His Bets.

Democratic frontrunner John Kerry seemed to be telling National Public Radio this week he, too, could support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, saying:

"Well, it depends entirely on the language of whether it permits civil union and partnership or not. I'm for civil union. I'm for partnership rights."

But as for same-sex marriage, his opposition is so strong he'd consider favoring an amendment:

"Marriage is a separate institution. I think marriage is under the church, between a man and a woman, and I think there's a separate meaning to it."

And you don't want to sully something as sacred as marriage with homosexuals, do you?

While the NPR interviewer appeared to be asking about amending the federal Constitution, Kerry's gay liaison quickly protested that Kerry thought he was answering a question about amending the Massachusetts state constitution, and affirmed that Kerry is against the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment. In other words, Kerry can plausibly argue to be on both sides of the gay marriage issue -- shades of his Iraqi position(s). He's only for constitutionally banning same-sex marriage in the one state where it might otherwise happen.

Now let's see what the gay Democratic activists do. Chances are they'll defend Kerry's mixed messages, reiterate that Bush and the GOP are responsible for all evil in the world, and party hardy in Boston.

Meanwhile, Time this week reports:

As Air Force One flew to South Carolina last week, the President made clear his opposition to gay marriage but added, "I'm not against anybody," according to Jim DeMint, a Republican Congressman who was aboard. "If some people want to have a contract, that's O.K., but marriage is the foundation of society." Though it was an offhand comment, the idea that Bush might favor some kind of "contract" for gay couples -- presumably a type of state recognition -- is astonishing when you look back at the brief history of the gay-marriage debate.

No, I'm not defending Bush or excusing his actions -- just noting that even the conservative GOP camp has moved quite far from where it was a few years ago.

A final thought: If the amendment can be stopped, the advancement toward full equality for gay Americans will have jumped forward exponentially. If the amendment succeeds, we'll be frozen in place for a generation. Those who stand up to popular prejudice and defend our Constitution, as written, will be true profiles in courage. We know Bush is on the wrong side of this one; Kerry -- to date -- is trying to have it both ways.

The Alliance for Marriage, a coalition of religious groups backing the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment to ban same-sex marriage, has a slight problem. As this Washington Post story indicates, the anti-gay Christian groups want both anti-gay Islamic groups and anti-gay Jewish groups in the alliance (apparently, they're committed multiculturalists). But the anti-gay Jewish groups and the anti-gay Islamic groups seem actually to hate each other more than they hate gays. So the Islamic groups have now left.

Alas, as the Post reports:

Both supporters and opponents of the alliance said the departures are unlikely to have much political impact, because the Muslim groups still support the alliance's goal".

So gay-bashing may prove to be the ultimate uniter, after all.

Another look at Islamic homophobia is provided by this sad story, also from the Post, about a gay Palestinian living illegally in Tel Aviv with his Israeli lover. He can't stay in Israel, thanks to the Intifada, and he can't go back to the West Bank either, because of Arab homophobia.

The Sanctity of Marriage, Again.

State Sen. Bill Stephens, sponsor of a proposed amendment to Georgia's constitution that would ban gay marriage, is getting some unwelcome publicity. As reported in the Southern Voice, Stephens was married for 15 years and had two sons before he and his wife divorced in 1991, "in part because she heard persistent allegations that he was having an extramarital affair," the paper says.

Moreover, "The Catholic Church granted a religious annulment in 1996, clearing the way for him to remarry." Thus, the church rendered the little Stephenses bastards in its eyes, all in the name of upholding the sanctity of marriage by refusing to recognize divorce so that a homophobe could stay a faithful Catholic while leaving his wife and then campaigning to prevent gays from marrying.

More Recent Postings

2/01/04 - 2/07/04

From the Washington Post, an editorial on the latest Massachusetts marriage ruling, titled Why Not Civil Unions?:

When moral certainty bleeds into judicial arrogance in this fashion, it deprives the legislature of any ability to balance the interests of the different constituencies that care passionately about the question. Given the moral and religious anxiety many people feel on the subject and the absence of clear constitutional mandates for gay marriage, judges ought to be showing more respect for elected officials trying to make this work through a political process.

Note, this is an editorial (not an op-ed column) from a major liberal-leaning newspaper, which indicates the scope of the battle before us.

The 'M' Word.

Dissenting justices in Massachusetts, reports the Boston Globe, said the difference between civil marriages and civil unions was a largely semantic one. From the dissenting opinion:

"[W]e have a pitched battle over who gets to use the 'm' word. ...

"Both sides appear to have ignored the fundamental import of the proposed legislation, namely, that same-sex couples who are civilly 'united' will have literally every single right, privilege, benefit, and obligation of every sort that our State law confers on opposite-sex couples who are civilly 'married' ...

"Under this proposed bill, there are no substantive differences left to dispute -- there is only, on both sides, a squabble over the name to be used."

My personal view, not shared by many of our contributing authors, is that if the Massachusetts court had permitted a civil union alternative with the same state benefits given to married couples -- as in Vermont and, arguably, California -- other states would have followed along. This would have afforded the country a "period of adjustment" to legal recognition for gay couples, after which a segue to full marriage rights would not have seemed so radical.

But that is not the path the Massachusetts court took, and full legal marriage will, barring something unforeseen, be a reality. And so we are all called on to do whatever we can to stop the worst outcome of all -- passage of an anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment to enshrine legal discrimination in the U.S. Constitution.

Activist Mania and Bush.

It now appears more likely that President Bush will formally endorse the Federal Marriage Amendment. I do not, however, feel any remorse over calling anti-Bush gay activists to account for falsely telling their supporters that Bush had already endorsed the FMA months ago, when his earlier statements were clearly conditional. In fact, by already denouncing Bush for what he hadn't yet done, these activists removed themselves from the political space in which gay moderates, libertarians and conservatives were actively lobbying against such an endorsement. That it may happen nevertheless does not mean that the activists' early surrender -- so that high-pitched anti-Bush fund raising appeals could be made -- was in any way justifiable.

Kerry Wavering?

From the LA Times:

Asked about endorsing a constitutional ban on gay marriage, Kerry said he "would have to see what language there is."

How the Right Sees It.

On the gay ruling in Massachusetts, conservative Fox Newsman Bill O'Reilly makes this prediction:

the law of unintended consequences will definitely kick in. -- there will be a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman that will override any state court decision. -- So all the happy faces over the gay marriage deal may not be so happy one year from today. The polls say that 66 percent of Americans oppose gay marriage.

Can't help wondering: If all the money gay activists spent on Howard Dean's doomed presidential race (based on the rousing themes of higher taxes, protectionist trade barriers, and capitulation abroad) had instead gone into preparing some kind of massive, professional campaign against amending the federal constitution, wouldn't that have been a better use of funds?

Many gays are celebrating now that Massachusetts' highest court has clarified its earlier ruling and on Wednesday declared we are entitled to nothing less than marriage and that Vermont-style civil unions will not suffice, setting the stage for the nation's first legally sanctioned same-sex weddings by the spring.

Full marriage equality is a goal I whole heartedly support. And I certainly hope this latest judicial action in the Bay State will advance the cause. But it would be extraordinarily na"ve not to anticipate a huge backlash to the court's action.

Already, it appears the ruling is pushing George W. Bush to endorse the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment now before Congress -- something he's been dancing around for months. The AP reports that on Wedesday Bush denounced the ruling as "deeply troubling," and

"conservative activists said they had received a White House pledge that he will push for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex weddings. But Bush, in a written statement, stopped short of endorsing a constitutional amendment, a sensitive election-year issue.

Meanwhile, on the Democratic side, frontrunner John Kerry issued a statement supporting civil unions but adding, "I oppose gay marriage and disagree with the Massachusetts Court's decision."

But more significant is how the rest of the country will respond to what's widely seen as liberal judicial activism (as opposed to legislative action) in what is arguably the nation's most liberal state. A troubling portent:

The Ohio Legislature gave final approval [Tuesday] to one of the most sweeping bans on same-sex unions in the country, galvanized by court rulings in Canada and Massachusetts that have declared gay marriage to be legal. The measure, which also would bar state agencies from giving benefits to both gay and heterosexual domestic partners, would make Ohio the 38th state to prohibit the recognition of same-sex unions.

Gov. Bob Taft, a Republican, planned to sign it within the coming week, his office said.

With reaction brewing in the heartland, Republicans bowing to the religious right and advocating rewriting the U.S. Constitution to permanently make gays second-class citizens, and Democrats hemming and hawing about how an amendment may be a bit much but they, too, are dead set against gay marriage, things could well turn ugly.

That's the pessimistic view. Others, including some of our IGF contributing authors, don't foresee such a disaster. I hope they're right.