IGF CultureWatch

The New York Times reports that under Pope Ratzinger the Vatican is planning a purge of gay seminarians:

the American archbishop who is supervising the seminary review said last week that "anyone who has engaged in homosexual activity or has strong homosexual inclinations," should not be admitted to a seminary [and that] the restriction should apply even to those who have not been sexually active for a decade or more.

I don't have much to say; my views on the Roman church and what it's done to the gospel message would make what some of my commenters think of Republicans seem tame.

(And more views in our mailbag.)

Judge John Roberts, blasted by gay abortion leftwing activists as a dangerous threat to our basic liberties, during his testimony on Tuesday spoke eloquently about the equal protection clause, saying that while the context was clearly about slavery, the intent of the framers was broader than just racial inequality:

They [the founders] didn't write the equal protection clause in such narrow terms. They wrote more generally. That may have been a particular problem motivating them, but they chose to use broader terms, and we should take them at their word, so that is perfectly appropriate to apply the equal protection clause to issues of gender and other types of discrimination beyond the racial discrimination that was obviously the driving force behind it. (emphasis added)

Of the right to privacy (the basis for overturning "sodomy" laws), he remarked:

the court has...recognized that personal privacy is a component of the liberty protected by the due process clause. The court has explained that the liberty protected is not limited to freedom from physical restraint and that it's protected not simply procedurally, but as a substantive matter as well. And those decisions have sketched out, over a period of 80 years, certain aspects of privacy that are protected as part of the liberty in the due process clause under the Constitution.

Finally, on his pro bono work on behalf of the gay attorneys arguing Romer v. Evans, the landmark gay rights case in which the Supreme Court ruled that states couldn't single out gays for discrimination, Roberts said (and here, he has to worry about inflaming the anti-gay right as well):

I was asked frequently by other partners to help out....And I never turned down a request. I think it's right that if there had been something morally objectionable, I suppose I would have.

Of course, in the view of the Human Rights Campaign, expressed before they bothered to hear his testimony, "Judge Roberts has such as a narrow view of what the courts can and should do, it's a wonder he wants the job at all." And the newly partisan-ized Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) fulminated, "We cannot sit back and allow a man with a demonstrated record of hostility towards privacy and minority rights to make decisions on our nation's highest court...."

Oh, what a beast.

Further, HRC and others also have expressed their concern that Roberts will not show sufficient "adherence to precedent" as regards prior court decisions - necessary to uphold Roe v. Wade from future challenges. But of course if "adherence to precedent" was as binding as they (now) insist, Bowers v. Hardwick would not have been overturned and we'd still have sodomy laws. And let's hope a future court won't feel bond by precedent when it comes to revisiting the awful Kelo decision that stuck at the heart of property rights!

Got to love the politics of the culture war! Take this blog, which is pretty bizarre, to say the least. It was "established to support a Blog Community of right-of-center conservative and libertarian leaning Blogs that support Judge Roberts." It does so by mocking the innuendo of some leftwingers and, especially, the Bush-hating Daily Kos, that Roberts could be gay (as a ploy to undermine his conservative support). You'll either find it a hoot - or deeply offensive.

Update: Gay Patriot West blogs on the latest from the HRC (the large abortion-rights lobby that targets lesbian and gay donors). He references a column by the group's leader, Joe Solmonese, that proclaims "the Human Rights Campaign joined the growing chorus of those speaking out in opposition to the Supreme Court nomination of John Roberts."

Comments Gay Patriot West: "He neglects to mention that this 'growing chorus' of opposition largely includes only voices from the far left (with an a handful of extreme right-wingers thrown in). And his piece merely rehashes the standard left-wing arguments against the good judge's confirmation," which deal, primarily, with abortion.

Here's a bit of a break from bad news. This is a nice story from Liverpool, where the city's council "has backed plans to create more of a gay scene in the city, with some councillors calling for a selection of gay restaurants, clothes shops and hair salons to be built in the city centre."

And even in China, things may be loosening up a bit.

Further: Some readers have rightly noted that it is not the proper role of Liverpool's government to favor one sort of business over another via preferential treatment and that the market is better at allocating resources than any economic planner. I do agree, and had considered that critique. But while I share those qualms about the economics, I thought the item represented a positive cultural change worth noting (i.e., the attitude of "if we could only get gays to come here, how much better things would be!")

More Recent Postings
9/4/05 - 9/10/05

This column from today's Wall Street Journal asks why Jewish community leaders should assert that Jews must be on the left, supporting issues such as gay rights and abortion, and the push back from Jewish Republicans (many of whom are Russian immigrants, who know a thing or two about the left). It's interesting because the assumptions of these civic leaders in the Jewish community parallel those of gay "leaders," and because everyone herein assumes that gay rights is something only leftists support.

But respect for individuality and uniform application of law are arguably just as much in the libertarian and small-government conservative tradition as they are in the left's collectivist, redistributionist tradition. Which is why such a surprising number of gays (over 20%) routinely vote Republican, in hopes of reforming the party rather than abandoning it to the Santorums of the hard right.
.

Not unexpectedly, but still regrettably, Gov. Schwarzenegger has announced he'll veto the California gay marriage bill, saying it conflicted with Prop. 22, passed by voters in 2000, which prevents the state from recognizing same-sex marriages.

Still, that an elected legislature passed the measure, rather than having a court ruling impose it, was a good thing. And putting the best face on it, the veto may deflate somewhat the push to pass a same-sex marriage-banning amendment to the state constitution. But while I think there is some justification to the backlash fears (see previous item), it would have been a monumental thing to enact gay marriage through the democratic process. It will happen, eventually.

California lawmakers on Tuesday became the first in the country to approve a bill allowing full same-sex marriages. Now come the real battles. Gov. Arnold is under big-time conservative pressure to veto the measure. That would be a shame. But even if he does allow it to become law, California voters will likely face two ballot initiatives next year, to ban gay marriage, or to ban both gay marriage and domestic partnerships.

The betting money, unfortunately, is that voters will keep DPs but scrap marriage equality. Nowhere have voters, to date, failed to ban gay marriage when given the chance, and when initiatives have included DPs, they've been banned as well.

The worst case scenario: voters scrap existing domestic partnerships, which in California confer virtually all state rights and benefits associated with marriage.

In 2000, California voters roundly approved Prop. 22, which altered the Family Code to limit marriage to a man and a woman, by a vote of 61.2 to 38.8, and the legality of that measure is now in the state courts. If there's a Schwarzenegger veto, he'll probably cite the voters' expressed opinion. Coming up, we'll see how things go when a full-blown constitutional ban is on the initiative table.

We know that relying on liberal courts to push through marriage equality is a recipe for backlash. But will a liberal state legislature's approval fare better with voters?

Update: Gay Patriot blogs:

I'm torn between the will of the people and the will of the elected representatives. I think this is an important step. But what do the 61% of Californians who voted against same-sex marriage in the year 2000 think about their elected representatives? I don't know. I admit I struggle with it.

And one of his commenters, Joe, writes:

I fear their move is an overreach-one that will be repudiated at the polls (initiative process). It was a purely symbolic, unnecessary move because they already passed strong civil unions last year. Led by Democrats, they did it basically to say "screw you" to conservatives (and California voters) who don't like gay marriage. I would rather they hadn't done it at this time. I say this as a longtime supporter of gay marriage. Most of society (in your state) has to be on board with you, for the new law or institution to work.

If things turn out badly regarding next year's referendum, we'll recognizes these, in hindsight, as valid concerns.

It's disappointing to read that John McCain is supporting a state constitutional amendment in Arizona to bar gay marriage. But could McCain, running for the GOP presidential nomination, be expected to fall to the left of the "progressive" Democratic presidential nominee on gay marriage? Remember, Kerry/Edwards supported anti-gay-marriage amendments in Massachusetts, Missouri and elsewhere. If the party of the left, backed by national gay activist groups and receiving copious amounts of gay dollars, endorses anti-gay amendments, how high a bar is set for moderate Republicans to do the right thing?

Dale Carpenter's newly posted column takes a look at the attacks by certain gay groups against Supreme Court nominee John Roberts-now nominated to be Chief Justice-who helped gay attorneys win a landmark Supreme Court case. He writes:

The unofficial reason for gay groups' opposition has nothing to do with Roberts' record on gay rights and everything to do with the politics of abortion and progressive "coalition building." The left has decided to oppose anyone President Bush names to the Court. . .

I'd add that having surrendered their credibility by going ballistic over Roberts, a nominee moderate senate Democrats are poised to support, what cachet do these groups expect to have if Bush nominates a real, gay-unfriendly social conservative to fill the newly vacant opening?

More "bandwidth attacks" on our server, knocking us out again for a few days. We're back now, and trying to erect adequate defenses. Stay tuned.

More Recent Postings
8/21/05 - 8/27/05