IGF CultureWatch

In the nation's capital, the D.C. attorney general issued an advisory opinion saying same-sex couples married in Massachusetts can file a joint D.C. tax return. Unfortunately, as the Washington Blade reports, Sen Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), a staunch opponent of gay marriage, chairs the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on the District, which must approve the D.C. budget and which has the power to attach anti-gay amendments to D.C. appropriations bills.

Some local activists are urging D.C. to pursue marriage recognition nonetheless (as one puts it, "If Brownback is going to do something bad, then we should come back and do something stronger. At some point D.C. residents have to stand up for their rights"). But the local Gay & Lesbian Activist Alliance - whose leadership includes IGF contributing author Rick Rosendall - is urging Mayor Anthony Williams to resist releasing an opinion stating whether D.C. has legal authority to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.

As I've argued before, spousal rights are best achieved by working in the various states through popularly elected representatives (see, for example, Dale Carpenter's latest, Winning the Right Way in Connecticut).

But in the case of D.C., which is only a "semi-democracy," I don't much see the point in poking the congressional lion and risking the rollback of gains that have already been made. Right now, this battle is better fought in the states.

Update: Rick Rosendall has more on D.C. developments, in the comments zone.

More Recent Postings
4/24/05 - 4/30/05

This report from Maggie Gallagher's anti-gay marriage website analyzes data from the latest Gallup polls, which show a drop in support for same-sex marriage:

After eighteen months of intense public scrutiny, polls show strong and increasing opposition to same-sex marriage. Between June 2003 and March 2005, opposition to gay marriage rose from 55 percent to 68 percent in Gallup polling. In the last 18 months, the proportion of Americans who support a constitutional amendment defining marriage has also risen seven points from 50 to 57 percent.

I know, the website is not exactly unbiased, but I've seen reference to these Gallup numbers elsewhere and no counter-explanation on any of the gay sites. A knowledgeable poll-watcher tells me Gallagher, unfortunately, seems to have it right. If that is in fact the case, then the silence from gay groups in the face of bad news is just as worrisome as their to-date less than successful efforts to garner public support for the cause of marriage equality.

Update: The numbers get debated, as does the wording of the poll questions, in the comments zone. Also noted: GLAAD did weigh in on Gallup's findings.

It turns out the anti-gay Seattle minister who met twice with Microsoft officials and threatened the company over its support for a gay rights bill is black, as presumably are at least some members of his congregation/Microsoft employees whom the company cited as lobbying against its pro-gay stance. Why does this matter (and why was the press amiss in leaving it out of earlier reports)? Because it could help explain Microsoft's decision to shift into "neutral" on the legislative issue - with executives feeling pulled between two minorities, both with "diversity" claims.

Update 1: In the comments area, "Remy" writes:

While Gates and Ballmer would have had no truck whatsoever with a white anti-gay bigot, they let Microsoft have two meetings with this guy. Why? Because they are very sensitive to being perceived as a group of privileged whites who don't pay enough respect to blacks. The far right has become very shrewd about using the race card against gays, and MS fell right into the trap.

As for the media not reporting the preacher was black, that's certainly true of the gay media reports. I understand they don't want to be seen as inflaming prejudice, but they missed the story on the role that "the race card" played. How can we respond to the race card if we're not allowed to be informed that's it part of the game?

I agree.

Update 2: Microsoft now backs the gay rights bill. Notes the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

some say Microsoft's recent indecisiveness could hurt the company's image or - worse yet - make it susceptible to future attacks from special interest groups.

Angry gays, in this case, trump angry anti-gays. For now...

IGF contributing author David Boaz, who wrote the book on libertarianism, provides an astute and provocative look at how anti-libertarian the government of Virginia was, is and likely will remain, in a new article posted at Reason Online.

As evidence of the state's century-long heritage of interfering with love and marriage, Boaz cites - among other examples - Virginia's former law barring mixed-race couples from marrying (only struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1967) and its current fixation on nixing even private contractual relationships that might smack of gay unions. All of which adds up to, in Boaz's words, "an arrogant desire by the state to control private relationships." Old habits, apparently, die hard in the Old Dominion.

Microsoft is drawing fire for withdrawing support for proposed Washington state legislation that would ban discrimination against gays and lesbians in employment, housing and insurance. The company, which supported the bill last year, has changed is stance to neutral, citing conflicting views among its employees and shareholders. Others cite a boycott threat by a local religious rightist minister, whose Seattle congregation includes many company employees.

Microsoft was one of the first to provide domestic partner benefits, and has long included sexual orientation in its own anti-discrimination policy. Those internal policies will not change, and both chief executive Steve Ballmer and chairman Bill Gates say they personally support the bill. Nevertheless, the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center called on the company to return a prize it received from the group in 2001.

The libertarian in me has always felt that the gay movement placed too much emphasis on anti-discrimination laws targeting the private sector, as opposed to fighting discrimination by the government, whose military gay ban creates exponentially more "job discrimination" against gays than the few hidebound private employers who might want to keep gays out. And I'm not sure shareholder-owned companies ought to take positions on social policy issues, thus becoming the targets of social-issue advocates on both sides (as, apparently, has happened to Microsoft).

But for several years now anti-discrimination laws have been the key item on the movement's political scorecards, and nothing is likely to change that. Given this dynamic, the company's flip-flop, even if only to a "neutral" position, can only seem like a loss to "the other side." So Microsoft -- whose exemplary internal policies would otherwise set it apart as a model for others -- has stumbled into a position where its likely to receive only scorn from both sides.

Update: Mr. Gates goes to Washington. I think he wanted to keep his lobbying activities focused on already controversial issues like opposing new immigration limits, and was caught offguard by the brouhaha over his firm's shift into "neutral" on the statewide gay rights bill (which failed in the state senate last week by one vote).

One of the first official acts of the Ratzinger papacy, as reported by the BBC:

The Vatican, under the new leadership of Pope Benedict XVI, has condemned a Spanish government bill allowing marriage between homosexuals.... A senior Vatican official described the bill - which is likely to become law within a few months - as iniquitous. He said Roman Catholic officials should be prepared to lose their jobs rather than co-operate with the law.

The fact that Spain will shortly not only allow gay couples to wed but also to adopt has particularly enraged the pontiff.

Julian Sanchez weighs in over at Reason's Hit & Run, and also comments on a Texas bill that seeks to ban gays from becoming foster parents (in the words of Texas state rep. Robert Talton, "if it was me I would rather [leave] kids in orphanages as such....At least they have a chance of learning the proper values"). A statement with which the Vatican would no doubt concur.

More Recent Postings
4/17/05 - 4/23/05

Not to be overlooked, Connecticut's Republican Gov. Jodi Rell has signed civil unions legislation for her state. "Today Governor Rell becomes the first governor in history to sign civil union legislation without being forced to do so by the courts," said a news release from the Log Cabin Republicans. Proponents of the broad domestic partnership bills passed in New Jersey and California may debate the point, but nevertheless the significance of a victory achieved through elected representatives sends a powerful message.

Governor Rell had signaled her support for civil unions by stating, "I don't believe in discrimination of any sort, and I want people to have equal rights and equal opportunities." Those are words too rarely heard within her party, at least with regards to gay people.

After a bit of reflection, it may be that worse (Ratzinger) may turn out to be, well, if not "better," at least the best of a lot of bad options. After all, it's not as if any of the leading candidates could have been expected to embrace a role for openly gay people in the Roman church. And a 78-year-old German characterized universally for his rigidity exerts a lot less charisma than a (relatively) younger, third-world, ground-breakingly black or Latino pope would.

According to Ratzinger's biographer John L. Allen Jr. (as quoted in the New York Times), "Having seen fascism in action, Ratzinger today believes that the best antidote to political totalitarianism is ecclesiastical totalitarianism," which won't sit well with the broad swath of American Catholics. Moreover, Ratzinger's frequent condemnations of "relativism" (the belief that other denominations and faiths lead equally to salvation) could eventually create a breach with those on the Protestant religious right, which is now having orgasms over his election (just when did conservative American Protestantism become so enamored of popery?).

Decidedly not part of the religious right, it was fun to see Rev. Frank T. Griswold, presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church USA, offer this "congratulatory" note to Ratzinger:

I offer my prayers for Pope Benedict XVI as he takes up the august responsibility of his office. I pray that the Holy Spirit will guide him in his words and his actions and that he may become a focus of unity and a minister of reconciliation in a church and a world in which faithfulness and truth wear many faces.

Take that, Ratzo.

More Recent Postings
4/17/05 - 4/23/05

A vile, vile selection, but no surprise. The former anti-aircraft gunner for the army of the Third Reich labels gay sexuality a tendency toward "intrinsic moral evil." And that's one of his kinder statements. Here's the Washington Post's capsule profile.

Given the mindless mass media's festival of popery over the last two weeks, let's see if they keep it up for a man who shares JPII's archly reactionary politics, but lacks his charisma.

A not-bad feature in the Times about gay Republicans and conservatives. A couple of interesting points: The number of gays who identify themselves as Republican is growing, "with gays saying that they want to influence a party that is (a) theirs and (b) politically ascendant"; and gay conservatives use a lexicon that conservative politicians understand. As Chris Barron of the Log Cabin Republicans notes, in many places "it's conservative voices - gay conservative voices - who can best lead a fight" against anti-gay discrimination.

Also of note: Martin Duberman, a leading gay academic and author, can't resist cracking that gays who support the administration (presumably speaking here of foreign policy) "are militaristic, they are jingoistic." That's it, Martin, keep broadcasting the message that the gay establishment is united with the Michael Moore/Move On wing of the Democratic left. That's the way to expand support for gay equality among red state Americans!

More Recent Postings
4/10/05 - 4/16/05