IGF CultureWatch

The Washington Post reports (scroll down) on the bashing of Washington Blade editor Chris Crain in Amsterdam, mentioning the "ongoing culture wars between Moroccan immigrants and Dutch natives" (a bit of information, I've noted, absent from the printed version of the account in Crain's own paper).

An interesting story in the L.A. Times about the outing of closeted (as of last week), homophobic Spokane mayor James West. While I'm in no way condoning West, who is at best deeply disturbed and at worst just plain evil, the tactics of the mayor's antagonists at the Spokane Spokesman-Review are also disturbing, and none too gay friendly.

The Spokane paper claims it wanted to investigate charges - made by two men with criminal drug records - that West molested them years ago when he was a Boy Scout leader. So the paper created a fictional 17-year-old to entice West on a gay chat site. [Note: other stories have said the phony flirt was 18 years old.] Well, excuse me, but if they wanted to investigate alleged pedophilia, shouldn't the paper have created a fictional 10-year-old? Do the editors care about the distinction between homosexuality and pedophilia?

The reason this matters is because the story is being played not as "closeted mayor persecuted gays" but "gay mayor could be pedophile." In this respect, it's like those who outed Jeff Gannon (a conservative who, unlike West, did not engage in anti-gay polemics) by demonizing his consensual, adult sex life and claiming it made him unworthy of the refined company of White House reporters. Our straight liberal friends seem quick to repeatedly play on anti-gay (and, specifically, anti-gay sex) prejudices to destroy their target, as gay liberals cheer them on - and then wonder why so many Americans view gay marriage equality as beyond the pale.

John Kerry, failed Democratic presidential nominee who still harbors White House aspirations, has declared it would be a mistake to include a statement of support for gay marriage in the platform of the Massachusetts Democratic Party.

Now, I'm on record advocating civil unions as a progressive step toward spousal equality that's less likely to be overturned near-term by a voter backlash, but unlike Kerry I don't encourage Democrats to vote in favor of state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. And, unlike Kerry, I didn't take millions of dollars from gay and lesbian Democrats in return for an implicit pledge to represent their interests.

Many of those millions were produced through the efforts of the Human Rights Campaign, which the Washington Blade now reports has been wildly inflating its membership numbers:

Today, under new director Joe Solmonese, HRC claims 650,000 members. In fact, those totals were guaranteed always to escalate impressively, and never to decline. That's because HRC counts "members" in a way that will strike many as curious. HRC membership numbers include the name of every person who has ever once given at least the minimum amount - currently $1 - and provided an address.

I think HRC is foolish to go to so much effort to create a big, bogus figure. What matters is how much cash you can convince your donor base to part with, and HRC can justly claim credit for raising several millions - for Democratic politicians who urge voters to pass gay marriage amendments.

I'm not the first to note it would have been of far more value to the cause of gay equality if those funds had been spent, with far less partisanship, working to defeat the state amendments instead of on behalf of politicians who supported (and continue to support) them.

More Recent Postings
5/1/05 - 5/7/05

Did the Montgomery County, Maryland, public school district err in promoting tolerance towards gays by presenting a liberal view of biblical scripture? Eugene Volokh argues a line was crossed, and a Clinton-appointed federal judge has issued an injunction against distributing the materials (part of the schools' sex-education curriculum), finding they make theological judgments in violation of the 1st Amendment establishment clause.

Worse, the homophobes will be having a field day attacking the curriculum, which (among other things) suggests homosexuality is not a top-notch sin because Jesus never discussed it.

Update: Washington Post columnist Marc Fisher also takes aim at Montgomery County:

The curriculum lists precisely what teachers may say about homosexuality, then adds, "No additional information, interpretation or examples are to be provided by the teacher." Ah, so that's how to stretch minds and instill a love of discovery.

(Hat tip to IGF author Rick Rosendall for noting this.)

I prefer to add updates immediately below the existing posts, for the sake of continuity. So scroll down to see recently added updates to items on gay-bashing Arabs in Amsterdam (shhh, you have to say "Dutchmen"); banning military recuritment on elite campuses, and Microsoft's ever-changing finger in the wind.
-- Stepehen H. Miller

The FDA is preparing to launch a rule recommending that any man who has had sex with another man in the previous five years be barred from serving as an anonymous sperm donor. North Dallas Thirty argues that the media has made this sound much more foreboding than it is. Still, if during airport security searchers you're not allowed to treat young Arab men any differently than Midwestern grandmas, does the public health really demand such a broad brush when it comes to singling out gay men?

Many will claim this is yet another attack by the Bush administration against gays, so let's keep in mind that the same exclusionary policy now proposed for sperm bank donations has long applied to blood bank deposits - and the former Democratic administration thought that was just fine.

Conservative closet case politician accused of molesting boys while a Boy Scout troop leader. Don't know if the accusations are true, but in any case this story should demonstrate why closet cases ought not to be scout leaders, but will no doubt be interpreted to warn against letting openly gay men work with boys.

As for the double-life of Spokane's Mayor James E. West -- homophobic politician by day, online gay-sex cruiser by night, "Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!"

By the way, I don't think this is in any way comparable to the outing of conservative journalist Jeff Gannon. Gannon was not an elected official using his office to push for anti-gay legislation. But outing advocates will, no doubt, cite this case as justification for delving into the personal life of anyone who is politically right of center.

Washington Blade editor Chris Crain was gay-bashed in Amsterdam, the gay-welcoming capital of a country where gays enjoy legal equality. But his attackers weren't Dutch. He was spat on and beaten by men with heavy accents, apparently Moroccan immigrants, upset that he was holding hands with his boyfriend. In the wake of the murder of gay politician Pim Fortuyn (who declared Islamic immigration a threat to Dutch tolerance toward gays) and liberal filmmaker Theo Van Gogh (who was making a movie about the treatment of women under Islam), it's a reminder of why anti-western intellectuals preaching multicultural relativism are so wrong.

Rick Rosendall wrote this column three years ago about the Fortuyn murder, reckoning, "There is nothing progressive about refusing to distinguish cultures that persecute gays from those in which we have thrived."

Update 1: Crain published a near-identical version of his story in the current issue of the Blade, except for one changed detail [in the print version]. His description of his attackers now omits the the fact that they were not Dutch natives but had "Moroccan features." That sop to political correctness distorts the account, misinforms readers, and diverts attention from the real problem (anti-gay Muslim immigrants, not bigoted Dutchmen). If we can't name the problem, how on earth can we confront it?

Further Addendum: Rick Rosendall notes, correctly, that the online version of the editorial does now say the attackers had Moroccan features and heavy accents, as the original Blade Blog item did. However, the printed version, in the May 6 issue distributed last Friday, omits this sentence but otherwise is identical. So, why leave it out of the print edition?

Update 2: Friday, May 6, marked the third anniversary of Pim Fortuyn's assassination, remembered in this posting at PeakTalk.

Cincinnati Reds reliever Joe Valentine recently revealed that he was raised by a lesbian couple who have been together now for 30 years - and the response from the public, the media and his teammates has been a resounding "no big deal":

"I've gotten good feedback [from teammates]," Valentine said. "A lot of guys noticed and read it. They said, 'That's pretty cool. That's a pretty awesome thing.' That's really it."

He adds, "At least people know there are different ways to be raised."

There's still a long way to go, but this is another signal of how things are changing.

The military's ban on openly gay enlisted personnel is odious on many levels, as IGF contributing author Paul Varnell reminds us. But is barring the military from recruiting on elite liberal college campuses a productive way to fight the ban? Only in some bizarro politically correct universe. Instead of educating America that gay people want to serve their country but can't, to the country's detriment, broadcasting images of effete ivy academics and their pampered charges, reeking of contempt for the military and dismissive of the war on terror, only sends the message that gays are part of the Michael Moore-Move On (i.e., Moore-on) cultural left.

The Supreme Court has now agreed to consider whether the government can withhold federal funds from colleges that bar military recruiters. Whatever way the court rules, the media coverage will only reinforce exactly the wrong message about gays, activists and our "supporters."

A few months back, IGF contributing author James Kirchick, writing from the belly of the beast at Yale, shared his thoughts on the campus recruiting ban. He wrote:

In addition to the general anti-military sentiment that is so prevalent on this campus, now one may be labeled a "homophobe" if he merely wants to discuss job opportunities with a military recruiter in a law school classroom. ... If gay advocates ever wish to change the military's unconscionable policy, they would be well advised to encourage, and not hamper, military recruitment at a socially progressive campus such as Yale. ... While claiming to be leading the fight for gay equality by snubbing their noses at the military, sympathizers of the gay cause are actually harming the movement's prospects.

It's worth re-reading.

Update 1: A boisterous debate in the comments zone, where "Remy" opines:

to deny that the academic left isn't reeking of anti-military venom is simply absurd. And that's why the whole "killers off campus" thing is terrible for gays to get wrapped up in.

Here's the headline being broadcast Mr. & Mrs. America, thanks to the campus activists and the gay establishment that's gone along with them: "GAYS OPPOSE MILITARY RECRUITING." Put it in a box and label it "Ways to ensure that the military ban against gays stays in place."

Update 2: Michael M. Rosen writes at TechCentralStation:

in order to cultivate change, infiltrating the culture from within is generally more effective than railing against it from without. Can it really be doubted that the presence of Ivy League hearts and minds in the upper echelons of military rank would have a significant impact? Sadly, the Ivory Tower is effectively reinforcing the very policies it abhors.