IGF CultureWatch

The en banc blog
makes mincemeat out of the New York Times's claim of "strong support" for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. In fact, the reported figure of 55 percent favoring an amendment shows a country pretty evenly divided. And by any measure, it's less than the overwhelming majority needed to push an amendment through Congress and three-fourths of the state legislatures.

This, coupled with the Times's mangling of the Bush quote (see below) to purport that the president is now supporting such an amendment (he's not, but says he might "if necessary"), begs the question of why the NYT wants its readers to think the news is much worse than it is. Recall that the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force also is telling its followers that Bush supports the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment now before Congress (wrong again - while Bush "if necessary" might endorse some amendment, he also indicated he favors the rights of states to offer civil unions and domestic partnerships, which the proposed FMA would ban).

One explanation: the liberal-left would rather (a) demonize Bush and (b) luxuriate in victimhood than deal with the practical politics of lobbying an administration they despise -- even to the point of declaring defeat while others choose to engage the battle.

In its Sunday, Dec. 21 story on gay marriage, the New York Times reports, in referring to President Bush's comments during an interview with ABC's Diane Sawyer:

But last week Mr. Bush for the first time voiced his support, saying, "I will support a constitutional amendment which would honor marriage between a man and a woman, codify that."

Well, not exactly. The Times chopped two words out of Bush's quote: "If necessary, I will support..." Bush also said during his interview with ABC's Sawyer, "We may need a constitutional amendment."

Nuance is important when parsing a politician's emerging stance on a contentious, politically charged issue, and the New York Times surely knows this. Bush may, in fact, come out in support of a constitutional amendment, but he has not yet done so, and that's important.

If it looks like he'll cruise to an easy re-election, Bush won't want to risk seeming "intolerant" to swing voters (and, in truth, he has never shown any desire to play this card). But if the race tightens and he needs to firm up his right-wing base, who knows. But misreporting the facts, as the Times did -- along with many gay activists -- doesn't help those who are actually working to keep Bush from doing what the Times has reported he already did. [Hat tip to Andrew Sullivan.com]

More Recent Postings

12/14/03 - 12/20/03

The always shrill National Gay & Lesbian Task Force responded to President Bush's triangulating comments on gay marriage (see yesterday's posting) with this bit of off-the-wall hyperbole:

Bush's Support of the Federal Marriage Amendment Deemed a Declaration of War on Gay America. Crossing this line in the sand will provoke civil disobedience across country, says National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

If NGLTF's leadership wants to personify infantile leftism, that's their business, but when they misreport to their members on matters of fact, it's serious. Bush did say it might become necessary, in his view, to pass an amendment that would "honor" or codify marriage as between one man and one woman. For that, he should be criticized. But Bush did not support the current wording of the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) now before Congress. In fact, as I noted yesterday, he pointedly left the door open for state-recognized civil unions and domestic partnerships, which the FMA would also ban, thus angering the religious right.

Think about that -- a conservative GOP president who has no problem with states recognizing civil unions for gay couples. Then ask yourself if this amounts to declaring "war" on gays.

It's worth remembering that just a few months ago NGLTF's Matt Foreman stood with black ministers who are leaders of the anti-gay Alliance for Marriage, at the 40th anniversary civil rights rally in Washington, and in his remarks failed to even mention gay marriage -- as Dale Carpenter noted in his syndicated column.

The Washington Post gets the story right:

President Bush said for the first time yesterday that he could support a constitutional amendment opposing gay marriage, but he drew criticism from some conservatives for leaving the door open to state recognition of civil unions. "

He appeared to leave open the possibility of supporting the right of states to confer some form of legal recognition on same-sex couples, such as civil unions, which are opposed by many Christian conservatives.

But for the Bush-haters at NGLTF, the facts don't matter as long as you have a chance to incite the passions of your donors. Just like over at the religious right groups that are their mirror opposites.

Hinged.

Andrew Sullivan writes:

"hitching the Constitution to a position that is fast losing popular support [banning gay marriage] seems to me to be an abuse of that document. It should be amended only when there's an overwhelming consensus on a strictly Constitutional matter -- not when the country is deeply split on a social and cultural issue. "

The gay issue does strange things to presidents. Clinton said all the right things -- and then enacted and supported some of the most anti-gay measures ever (DOMA, "Don't ask, Don't Tell"). Bush still cannot even say the words 'gay' or 'lesbian' but hasn't done anything that damaging to gay men and women; and, by his ambivalence, might help kill an anti-gay Constitutional amendment. Go figure.

President Bush is the target of critical missives by both gay and anti-gay activists over his comments to ABC's Diane Sawyer Tuesday night, when he was asked about his position on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. The president said he supports an amendment "which would honor marriage between a man and a woman." But he added, "The position of this administration is that whatever legal arrangements people want to make, they're allowed to make, so long as it's embraced by the state or at the state level."

Just what this means is not entirely clear (surprise, surprise). Sadly, the president has gone on record in support of amending the Constitution to prevent gay marriage in some fashion, although the fact that he said he favors an amendment to "honor" marriage between a man and a woman, rather than an amendment that stipulates marriage as between a man and a woman, could provide some wiggle room.

And he fell far short of endorsing the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment now before Congress, whose language is widely interpreted as barring states from recognizing not only same-sex marriages, but also civil unions and domestic partnerships. This reticence on Bush's part was recognized by the anti-gays. In the words of the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins:

"I'm very concerned about his additional comments which seem to suggest the definition of marriage, which pre-dates western civilization and the United States Constitution, can be redefined at the state level. This sounds as though the administration would support civil unions which are counterfeits of the institution of marriage. The President's remarks also undermine state legislators who are fighting to protect the institution of marriage in states like Massachusetts."

But an opposite view (though similar tone) was expressed by Winnie Stachelberg of the Human Rights Campaign, the Washington-based lesbigay lobby:

"We are gravely concerned by reports that the president would join in these attacks on American families. -- The amendment pending in Congress would go much further than defining marriage as between a man and a woman. It could strip away any legal protection for millions of hard-working, tax-paying Americans and their children, including the right to Social Security survivor benefits, to the right to inherit a partner's property without heavy tax penalties, even the right to visit a loved one in the hospital."

But Bush clearly has not come out in support of the Federal Marriage Amendment now before Congress, and indicated he'd be against stripping states of their ability to recognize civil unions and domestic partnerships, which is why the anti-gays are so unhappy. In fact, the limited amendment he suggests he'd favor could be a complete non-starter with the religoius right, derailing their whole effort.

On another point: HRC can't seem to get away from the view that marriage is primarily about benefits -- ultimately not a strong argument, as Dale Carpenter explains in his recent column, Bad Arguments for Gay Marriage:

Very few people marry in order to experience the magic of filing a joint income tax return. They marry because, in our tradition and history, marriage is the way couples in a community signal the depth of their commitment to one another. Their family and peers reciprocate by supporting and celebrating that commitment, which in turn reinforces it. Everyone understands the stakes.

But this is something that the "rights" obsessed HRC doesn't, in fact, seem to understand.

More Recent Postings

12/07/03 - 12/13/03

Two generals and an admiral, all retired, are among the most senior uniformed officers to criticize the "don't ask, don't tell" policy for gays serving their country in the military, the New York Times reports. In a joint statement, they called the policy ineffective and charged it "undermines the military's core values: truth, honor, dignity, respect and integrity."

Oh, and by the way, all three are now openly gay.

In terms of politics, Bush clearly won't touch the "gays in the military" issue before the election. But in a second term, he'd have the clout to change the policy if he were of a mind to do so, and Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney have given indications in the past that they'd be supportive (while Colin Powell, who favors the ban, may be gone). However, it's certain that Howard Dean would have even less clout than Clinton had with the military (and not just over capitulation in Iraq, but the whole "how I spent months skiing while enjoying my bad-back draft deferment" thing), and would ignite a firestorm if he tried to alter the ban.

As publicity over Tony Kushner's play peaks with this week's HBO broadcast, readers might want to take a look back at a review, written by IGF contributing author and editor Walter Olson, of the original Broadway production. The cast may be different, but the observations are still pertinent.

Protecting the Constitution - A True 'Conservative' Agenda.

Here's a new website dedicated to the proposition that conservatives ought to oppose the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment now before Congress. It's full of interesting opinion pieces. Check it out.

Andrew Sullivan's Sunday Washington Post op-ed, "The GOP Divide On Gay Marriage," makes some of the points we've been noting (see Discord on the Right) about how the debate over banning gay marriage is dividing conservatives while uniting liberals -- the opposite of what some conservative strategists (and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist) had expected. Warns Sullivan:

If the president were to endorse the [anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment], the Republican splits would widen. It would make the position of gay Republicans essentially untenable, and Bush would lose almost all the million gay votes he won in 2000. The Republican Unity Coalition, founded to make sexual orientation a non-issue in the GOP, would fold. The Log Cabin Republicans would refuse to endorse the president. And such a position would be an enormous gift to the Democrats, as gay money, enthusiasm and anger rallied behind their candidate. The amendment would do to the gay community what Proposition 187 did to Latinos in California: alienate them from the GOP for a generation. And it would send a signal to other minorities: The Republicans, at heart, are the party of exclusion, not inclusion.

The Real Reagan.

Columnist Deroy Murdock provides some needed perspective on Ronald Reagan's real AIDS record and views about gays. One mistruth often repeated, that Reagan didn't even mention AIDS until 1987, is firmly put to rest. Another positive sign -- this piece is from the conservative National Review, which apparently feels it's necessary to defend Reagan against "anti-gay" allegations.

Time Warp.

A 7-year-old boy in rural Lafayette, Louisiana, was disciplined by his public school for telling a friend he has two mothers who are gay. It must have come as a shock to the school that the incident triggered national coverage, as in this frontpage Washington Post article, as well as an ACLU lawsuit. Yes, the times are changing -- even in places that time seems to have forgotten.

More Recent Postings

11/30/03 - 12/03/03

The Jewish World Review reports on an unholy alliance between religious-right supporters of the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment, and an Islamic group that sympathizes with terrorists -- when it's not opposing gay marriage. (This story was originally noted on Andrewsullivan.com)

Gay Marriage Debate Down Under.

A report from Australia, where straight marriage is in decline due to divorce and cohabitiation (not unlike elsewhere), but religious conservatives rail against gays who could actually strengthen the institution if they were allowed to wed.

A Better GOP Strategy.

Former Log Cabin Republican top-guy Rich Tafel provides his take on next year's elections, making the case that the GOP should stay away from social issues and focus on defense and the economy. It seems like a common sense recommendation, but political parties too often seem to act in uncommonly stupid ways!

And speaking of "uncommonly stupid," the Washington Post reports that much-needed Arabic-speaking linguists are still being kicked out of the military's Defense Language Institute because they're gay.

Confronted with a shortage of Arabic interpreters and its policy banning openly gay service members, the Pentagon had a choice to make.

No surprise regarding the outcome of that choice. It's hard to imagine a more self-defeating defense policy than the "lie and hide" gay ban.