IGF CultureWatch

Bigotry Trumps Security. The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) has taken on the cases of seven Arabic language specialists fired recently from the military's elite Defense Language Institute upon the discovery that the linguists were gay. Yes, despite the dangerous shortage of qualified Arabic linguists in the intelligence and defense fields, the Army places the need to purge gay personnel above all else, including the war against terrorism. As Nathaniel Franks writes in The New Republic, "For national security's sake, let's hope our leaders are finally ready to acknowledge in public what they've admitted privately for quite some time: It is [the] enemy that threatens our nation's freedoms and survival, not the open homosexuality of patriotic Americans standing ready to serve."

A Harbinger? In the U.K., the Conservative party is facing a major internal struggle over, of all things, gay rights. As reported in The Guardian, the party's "moderates and modernisers" in Parliament are facing off against the conservative Tory old guard and party leader Iain Duncan Smith, who are demanding a united front against the Labour government's efforts to overturn the Thatcher-era Section 28 statute (prohibiting public schools from "promoting" homosexuality through gay-inclusive policies), as well as the government's efforts to allow gay and unmarried straight couples to adopt children. The "moderates and modernisers" reject their party's opposition to these measures, and are even threatening to bolt if they are not at least allowed to vote their conscience (as compared with the U.S. Congress, party discipline is far more severe in the U.K.)

Let's hope this is a sign that, before too long, the Republicans in the U.S. face similar pressure from forward-looking GOP senators and representatives, with a positive outcome that favors the tradition of civil liberty and legal equality for all.

Meanwhile, north of our border in Canada, Justice Minister Martin Cauchon is exploring the possibility of federal civil unions for same-sex couples. Currently, Quebec and Nova Scotia have civil union registries, but the unions are not recognized in other provinces. While France, the Netherlands, and several other northern European countries have legalized same-sex civil unions in one form or another, most Americans don't seem aware of this. If Canada follows suit, an example closer to home may help make the case for civil unions in this country as well, and the need to overturn the Clinton-era Defense of Marriage Act which forbids federal recognition of same-sex unions.

Some Things Don't Change. Here's a story out of Kentucky about Boyd County High School, where hundreds of students stayed home to protest the school council's decision to allow a gay-straight student alliance to meet on school grounds. The council cited the federal Equal Access Act as giving them no choice but to do so. Nevertheless, a local ministers' group plans to continue protesting against the alliance, and to keep indoctrinating local youth with their prejudices. Meanwhile, the gay-straight alliance held its first Boyd County meeting, with 19 students in attendance.

The New Reality. I don't intend to go on and on about the election -- others do that far better than I, and there are other issues of interest. But there are a few things still worth noting.

Democrats who engaged in gay-baiting against their GOP opponents tended to lose -- in the Senate race in South Carolina, the gubernatorial race in Hawaii, and a couple of House races (the exception was sleazy Sen. Max Baucus, who won easily in Montana). Welcomed losers included Democratic Rep. David Phelps in Illinois, who had introduced an anti-gay marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution (it went nowhere) and leafleted cars at church services noting that his opponent, John Shimkus, was endorsed by the Log Cabin Republicans and was pro-gay rights! Shimkus won, hurrah!

On the GOP side, the good news is that we won't have Sen. Jesse Helms and Rep. Bob Barr -- the two most vehement homophobes in Congress -- to kick around anymore. Helms retired and Barr was defeated in his primary race.

I see some are warning that if social conservatives were to introduce anti-gay bills, without a Democratic majority we could be in trouble. First, I don't think contentious "red meat" social issues are going to be brought up, given the President's enunciated agenda. But if they should, Republicans still lack the 60 vote "supermajority" necessary to overcome a Democratic filibuster under Senate rules. The Democrats will not be shy about using the filibuster to block or eviscerate pro-business legislation such as tort reform, so if they don't filibuster to block anti-gay measures (if any) it speaks to the extent to which they take their gay support for granted.

And there's another matter worth pondering. Earlier this year, it appeared that the Senate Democrats were poised to introduce the Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) outlawing anti-gay discrimination in private-sector employment. They didn't do so. Yes, the fact that the House was likely to vote it down was a factor. But that was known all along, and it had seemed that the Democrats" strategy was to bring up ENDA and pass it in the Senate in order to mobilize their gay bloc and liberal supporters. Apparently, however, a lot of Democratic senators decided they didn't want to go on record voting for ENDA, or on record opposing it for that matter, and it was simply dropped.

HRC adapts? Finally, the Washington-based Human Rights Campaign has issued a statement coming to terms with the post-election reality:

"The time has come to consider the myriad federal issues regarding sexual orientation and gender identity and expression to move strategically forward -- not just on protection in employment and hate crimes, but on a whole range of economic benefits issues, such as taxation, pension and retirement benefits, immigration and hospital visitation rights," said [HRC leader Elizabeth] Birch. "While yesterday was a significant defeat for Democrats, our long experience tells us that GLBT issues will continue to move forward for human as well as partisan reasons."

This seems sensible, and perhaps where HRC and others should have been focusing their attention all along -- on possibly achievable measures that would clear away discriminatory aspects of law as regards gays and lesbians. But given the penchant of gay groups to focus on sweepingly broad legislation with little chance of passage, and to give primacy to pursuing the wide left-liberal agenda (and the election of those who support it), we"ll have to wait and see what road the movement actually winds up taking over the coming years.

The Day After. The Republicans have now taken back control of the Senate and expanded their House majority. For those of us who tend to be socially libertarian and fiscally conservative, it's always a mixed bag. But there is no doubt that the movement for gay equality must be pursued through both major parties, and that the arch partisanship of so many gay groups, both local and national, who seem more interested in being part of an increasingly anachronistic Grand Coalition of the Liberal-Left than in securing equal treatment for gays and lesbians, is more suspect than ever.

Here's a "day after" statement from the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force:

Democrats have traditionally been very supportive on GLBT issues -- the projected Republican Senate and House majority leaves GLBT constituents in jeopardy of seeing more anti-GLBT legislation introduced. "The projected outcomes in this election now allows the party of the 'compassionate conservative' to show how truly compassionate they are," said [NGLTF leader Lorri] Jean. "NGLTF calls on both House and Senate Republicans to work toward eliminating discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity."

Well, you can't suddenly call on Republicans to work with you after demonizing them year after year. More to the point, given a conservative majority, the idea that anti-discrimination law should remain the single top priority is short-sighted.

Conservatism in America is very much a mixture of the intolerant religious right (actually very much a minority in comparison to mainstream conservatives), pro-growth forces that oppose excessive taxation and business over-regulation, proponents of a strong national defense, and -- more generally -- those who speak and understand the language of freedom from government interference and who traditionally favor a right to be left alone. That's why the Log Cabin Republicans and the Republican Unity Coalition are correct that working within the GOP, despite its failure to support gay equality, is far wiser than refusing to challenge anti-gay religious conservatives on their own complex political turf.

There are good conservatives and bad conservatives, and building a dialogue with those who understand the goal of "equality before the law" will be key to the continued advancement of our liberty.
--Stephen H. Miller

The Partisan's Quandary. IGF contributor Dale Carpenter has written an ever-so-timely column titled What's a Gay Republican To Do? Rejecting both simplistic rah-rah partisanship and single (gay) issue myopia, he observes that:

As politically progressive gays tirelessly remind us, "gay" issues are not the only issues that matter. Good citizens must be concerned about other things too, like national defense and the economy. A candidate may be terrific on gay issues but terrible on just about everything else important to a responsible voter. Voting is a matter of balancing candidates" overall pluses against their overall minuses".

But there are circumstances in which the candidates" stands on gay issues should weigh more heavily, and perhaps be decisive, for a gay Republican. First, there are some public policy positions that strike so fundamentally at the core of gays" full citizenship that no politician advocating them should get our votes.

This, I concur, is a sensible approach. Oppose candidates of whichever party if they seek to deny us our fundamental liberties as citizens. On the other hand, don't fall into the zealot's trap of giving primacy to feel-good rhetoric over everything else of critical importance to our well-being as Americans.
--Stephen H. Miller

Fun in the Hawaiian Sun. On Hawaii's gubernatorial election, the Hawaii Reporter website related the following:

Yesterday, Hawaii Reporter talked to a handful of people outside the Republican Party who had direct knowledge of a new secret whispering campaign against Republican Gubernatorial Candidate Linda Lingle. Apparently a woman claiming to be the former lover of Lingle is calling targeted Republicans as a part of a smear campaign against Lingle. Lingle says she is not gay and in fact has been married twice.

Lingle supporters says smear mongers are hoping to distract voters from the real issues like the fact that the state has hit rock bottom in almost every category -- education, business, social problems, importation of drugs, domestic violence, theft -- because of poor political leadership.

Democrats tried this same smear in 1998 against Lingle when she ran for governor against incumbent Benjamin Cayetano and against some of their own candidates in years prior who weren't the "chosen" party candidates, including a Democrat candidate for mayor and a Democrat candidate for governor.

And then there's this, as reported by the Washington Times:

When [Lingle] denied lesbian rumors, Democratic Gov. Benjamin J. Cayetano, who is term-limited, said that her denial suggested she felt that homosexuality is "something to be ashamed of" and therefore she was "denigrating gays."

She says her opponents have falsely accused her of everything from wanting to privatize the whole state government to wanting to cancel Christmas as a state holiday.

She says they have lied about her favoring the legalization of same-sex "marriage" and physician-assisted suicides and making Hawaii a right-to-work state.

So first her opponents spread a gay rumor to hurt her, and when she denies the rumor they call her homophobic. No wonder people hate politics.

(Note: The Hawaii Reporter story was first noted on the blogsphere by David Hogberg's Cornfield Commentary site and andrewsullivan.com)

Destructive Therapy. A sad but interesting piece ran in the San Jose Mercury News about the self-destructive behavior and ultimate brutal murder of transsexual teen Gwen/Eddie Araujo. Of particular interest is the following:

People offered Eddie their help, including Linda Skerbec, a therapist associated with the Focus on the Family ministry who had known the family for years and saw Araujo between the ages of 14 and 16. She said she was on the verge of persuading Araujo to "move beyond the label" of transgender and "claim the sexual identity that matched his anatomy."

We"re also told, however:

This would have been Araujo's senior year at Crossroads High School, but he never showed up".Araujo's behavior grew more self-destructive, and his mother concedes now that she "never understood the magnitude of his pain."" Aaraujo attempted suicide and drank more frequently. He had no job and wasn't studying. Friends told police he traded sex for beer and marijuana. Last month, Araujo was found unconscious"passed out after a night of drinking. But it wasn't unusual. He often wouldn't come home at night.

Sounds like the fundametalist, homophobic "therapy" was of great help, right? Shouldn't this quackery be considered a form of child abuse?

[Update: Read Ms. Skerbec's letter to us, stating that the allegations against her were false.]

Speaking of ex-gay quackery, here's a not-too-bad piece on the re-emergence of ex-gay activist John Paulk, from the conservative Washington Times.
--Stephen H. Miller

Partisan Grave Diggers. Glad I wasn't the only one who found the televised stadium rally, ahem "memorial service," for Paul Wellstone deeply offensive. No wonder the organizers told Vice President Cheney not to come.

They"ve Surrendered! Not quite, but the recent lament from syndicated columnist Cal Thomas, a Christian conservative who once worked for the Moral Majority, is revealing. Writes Thomas in his column titled The Gay Rights War is Over and We Lost:

Let's be honest. The battle over so-called "gay rights" is over. Politicians, the media, and the medical and psychological professions -- everyone is completely on board. It's simply a matter of time -- weeks, months, but not more than a few years-- before homosexual "marriage" and child adoption are made completely legal.

New York Republican Governor George Pataki has pushed his state senate to pass gay rights legislation in December. -- When Republicans -- the "family values" party -- start signing off on this stuff, you know the war is officially over.

More Democrats Behaving Badly. The Wall Street Journal's opinionjournal.com - Best of the Web column on Monday included the following item, titled "If He Were A Republican, This Would Be Hate Speech," with a link to a story from Columbia, South Carolina's The State newspaper, and this summary:

Alex Sanders, the Democratic nominee for Senate in South Carolina, is blasting his Republican opponent, Rep. Lindsey Graham, for running an ad featuring an endorsement from former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, the Columbia State reports. "He's an ultraliberal," Sanders said of Giuliani during a debate Friday. "His wife kicked him out and he moved in with two gay men and a Shih Tzu. Is that South Carolina values? I don't think so."

Nice, huh. Coming on top of Montana Sen. Max Baucus's sleazy "Not in Our State!" ads, those who argue all we need is a one-party movement have some spinning to do.

Iraq a Gay Issue? This weekend saw another rally in our nation's capital opposing military action to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. On this matter, IGF contributor Rick Rosendall has a timely column in the Washington Blade taking issue with those, such as gay Muslim activist Faisal Alam, who argue gay groups should oppose the war, in Rosendall's words

"without showing the slightest awareness of which side actually treats gays better. (Hint: It's the one that allows gay Muslims to organize and publish op-eds.)"

Also of interest is syndicated columnist Hastings Wyman's recent roundup of where gay movement organizations stand in relation to the question -- and the not surprising fact that many on the LGBT left favor joining the alliance opposing action to free the Iraqi people, and the world, from this monster.

Sen. Wellstone, in Perspective. The tragic death of Sen. Paul Wellstone, perhaps the Senate's most left-leaning lawmaker, is being noted by the Human Rights Campaign, which issued a statement that lauds him as "a hero of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender movement," as well as "a powerfully eloquent and passionate voice for fairness today," whose death represents "a devastating loss to our community." And, indeed, Wellstone was a leading advocate for the proposed Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), a federal bill that would forbid private companies from discriminating against gays and lesbians.

But it's also important to remember this, as reported by the Associated Press:

Labeled by a magazine, Mother Jones, as "the first 1960s radical elected to the U.S. Senate," Wellstone still managed to disappoint liberal followers on occasion. In 1996, he angered gay rights supporters by voting for the "Defense of Marriage" bill, which allowed states to withhold legal recognition of same-sex unions from other states [and bars the federal government from recognizing such unions].

HRC considers ENDA, which the group carefully crafted and which it promotes to contributors as its chief product, as the most important issue on the gay agenda (so to speak). Many of us feel that the denial of gay marriage and government discrimination toward gays in the military -- the nation's single largest employer -- impact more gay lives to a far greater degree than private-sector employment discrimination, given that surprisingly few cases can truly be documented, that a rapidly growing number of companies are formally adding gays to their non-discrimination policies on their own despite the lack of government decree, and that a libertarian case can be made that employers should be entitled to hire the workers they choose, and that ENDA paves the way for both baseless lawsuits (profiting trial lawyers, if no one else) while creating an incentive not to hire open gays (for fear that you could never fire them).

I"m not among those who oppose ENDA; on the whole, it would be a nice symbolic statement. But discrimination sanctioned and practiced by our government, especially denial of the right to marry, should be our main focus, and it's not. And it certainly wasn't for Paul Wellstone, and it isn't for HRC, NGLTF, and many other movement leaders.
--Stephen H. Miller