IGF CultureWatch

The Human Rights Campaign's brief flirtation with relevancy has come to an end, or rather a screeching halt, with the official announcement that Democratic abortion-rights activist Joe Solmonese will be its new leader. Not a surprise, as the appointment was leaked last week (see HRC to Red States: Drop Dead?).

HRC had been called on the carpet by its "allies" earlier this year for deviating, momentarily, from the leftist line of march when, after putting the hapless Cheryl Jacques out of her misery, then political director Winnie Stachelberg floated the idea that since private Social Security accounts could be bequeathed by gays to our partners (unlike current Social Security, which only spouses inherit), maybe it shouldn't be opposed at all costs, even if (gasp) Republicans were for it.

But never fear, the collective voice of the collectivist left rose up as one and threatened HRC with excommunication. In February, Stachelberg was "promoted" over to HRC's nonprofit foundation. And in further penitence, HRC is now embarked on a course to prove it's more left than the best (er, worst) of them.

In 2004, while taking in millions in donations from gay Americans, HRC virtually ignored state ballot initiatives to ban gay marriage, in order to focus on electing John Kerry - a supporter of state ballot initiatives banning gay marriage. Where is the outrage?

Update: Log Cabin put out a press release. At first, taking the headline at face value, I feared they were in fact sending a congratulatory message. But it's actually pretty snide:

The selection of an experienced Democratic activist will allow HRC to solidify and strengthen Democratic support for equality. As the leading voice for moderate and conservative gay Americans, Log Cabin recognizes our unique responsibility to make new allies in the Republican Party," said Log Cabin Political Director Chris Barron.

"Log Cabin is expanding its commitment to work with people in the Heartland, conservatives in red state America, and with people of faith. In addition, we are pursuing an aggressive legislative agenda that includes Social Security reform...."

Well, it's good that somebody is going to focus on something beyond solidifying MoveOn.org's support for gay equality!

The editorial page of the New York Times praises gay activists in Connecticut for, finally, deciding "not to make the perfect the enemy of the good this year in Hartford," and ending their opposition to a civil unions bill that the legislature seems poised to pass. The Times concludes that if all goes as planned:

Connecticut and California will be the only states to have enacted broad laws of this kind voluntarily.... It's no small thing for a state legislature to take this step on its own. The constitutional rights of every American are safest when they're protected not by the judiciary alone, but also by the strong support of the citizenry as a whole.

Turning to the judiciary should be a last resort, but too often it's taken as the first step. And then we're shocked, shocked when unpopular judicial decrees are sweepingly set aside by the actual citizenry.

Running to teacher may sometimes be necessary, but it never wins you friends.

A Friday Wall Street Journal "Outlook" column titled "Straight Talking" looked at politically correctness run amok (again) at Harvard, where even liberals fall prey to the sensitivity police.

In this latest incident, African-American singer/actress Jada Pinkett Smith, in accepting an award from the Harvard Foundation for Intercultural and Race Relations, spoke about overcoming the disadvantages of being the child of teenage heroin addicts, offering her success as proof that if you follow your dream "and don't let anybody define who you are" you can succeed. She added, "Women, you can have it all - a loving man, devoted husband, loving children, a fabulous career.... To my men, open your mind, open your eyes to new ideas, be open."

This motivational message, however, didn't sit well with Harvard's Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender and Supporters Alliance, or BGLTSA. The group, which in the past brought to Harvard's attention that "bathrooms labeled 'men' and 'women' can create an atmosphere of hostility and fear for some people," complained that Pinkett Smith's speech was "extremely heteronormative, and made BGLTSA members feel uncomfortable." Last week, the BGLTSA announced a victory of sorts, noting that the sponsoring foundation "will make a statement of apology about the incident," acknowledging that it "had not reviewed Pinkett Smith's speech in advance and was not responsible for her words." The BGLTSA also said the foundation "pledges to take responsibility to inform future speakers that they will be speaking to an audience diverse in race, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, gender and class."

Maybe it would have been warm and fuzzy if Pinkett Smith had said, "Women, you can have it all, a loving partner" instead of man, but gays (excuse me, BGLT-ers) are a minority, and the majority discourse isn't always going to construe itself to avoid every possible linguist "exclusion" that hyper-sensitive grievance collectors are on the lookout for. And making an issue of such incidents only furthers the impression that gay activists are all little commissars-in-waiting, red pens in hand, yearning for the day when they can dictate beyond the walls of elite academia what will henceforth be acceptable speech.

Update: On Tuesday, a BGLTSA spokeswoman was grilled on Fox's "The O'Reilly Factor," where she seemed unable to explain why her comrades were so offended. Actually, it was like she had never had her views challenged before, and given her Harvard haven, that's quite possible.

More Recent Postings

From last week's Sunday Times of London: Discrimination Bill Snubs Gays to Save Muslim Vote:

Gay rights campaigners have been snubbed by the [Labour] government for fear of upsetting Muslim voters who are regarded as more important to Labour's election campaign.

This week a new bill giving Muslims protection against religious discrimination will be published, but there will be no equivalent right for gays, as had been planned by ministers. Downing Street fears that Muslims, whose votes could be the key to saving the seats of many Labour MPs, might feel offended if they were "lumped together" with homosexuals....

Under the bill, it will become illegal for the provider of any goods or services �?? such as a hotel, shop, pub or restaurant �?? to refuse to serve someone on the grounds of their religion. It is already illegal to do so on the basis of race or gender.

I didn't realize that Britain, which recently passed a civil partnerships bill, lacked (private-sector) anti-discrimination mandates for gays. Of course, the right to government recognition of one's relationship is, I believe, of far greater importance than the dubious merit of telling private employers whom the can or can't hire. Nevertheless, this cave-in by a left-leaning government further demonstrates Miller's theorem: political parties are responsive to those whose votes they most crave. Period. Which is why the rise of Eurabia should be of real concern to European gays. (hat tip: Dainel Pipes)

Update: In our comments area, Craig in Wellington, N.Z. writes: "New Zealand Labour's Muslim MP, Ashraf Choudhary, voted for our Civil Union and Relationship (Statutory Reference) Bills, and abstained when it came to decriminalisation of sex work." Point taken.

George Will writes in his column:

The recent spat about Buster, PBS' cartoon rabbit, visiting two lesbian parents quickly became a second spat about the Education Department's threat to stop financing Buster. But a third spat should have been about why the Education Department (a fourth spat: Is that department necessary?) is paying for any of Buster's adventures. Is there a desperate shortage of television cartoons?

A good point. Using taxpayers' money to promote messages on children's television that are offensive to the religious sensibilities of social conservatives is a sure way to trigger backlash, and works against what should be our political objective: equal treatment under the law. And where in the U.S. Constitution, among the limited powers delegated to the federal government, is the clause authorizing the funding of progressive cartoons, anyway? (hat tip: Gay Patriot)

It's being widely reported around the gay blogosphere that the new executive director of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) will be Joe Solmonese, the current head of EMILY's List, a group dedicated to electing abortion-rights Democratic women to Congress. (Blade Blog has a good item). The HRC board will meet next week to finalize its (reported) decision.

If this is in fact the case, it doesn't surprise me. Selecting an abortion advocate identified exclusively with electing Democrats would ensure that, going forward, HRC continues to have zero clout lobbying the party that actually controls the presidency and Congress - which is fine with HRC, since it has zero interest in engaging Republicans (or, broadly speaking, red-state voters) in any case. HRC is a feel-good fundraising machine for liberal Democrats, which is all it aspires to be.

As for Solmonese, in 2004 his group contributed as much as $350,000 to Democratic abortion-supporter Inez Tenenbaum in her (losing) race for the open U.S. Senate seat in South Carolina, despite Tenenbaum's pledge to vote for the Federal Marriage Amendment (also supported by her opponent). HRC, by the way, in the past has factored into its scorecards (and endorsement decisions) whether a candidate is pro-abortion rights and pro-affirmative action/mandated race-based preferences. [Update: I've revised this last sentence so as not to overstate HRC's policy in this regard.]

Note: It's possible that the Solmonese "leak" is some sort of trial balloon. If that's the case, it would certainly be in the interst of those who have any clout with the HRC board to encourage them think about actually becoming a bipartisan lobby that could influence policy. Yes, I know, when pigs fly.

Steve Chapman, a libertarian-minded columnist for the Chicago Tribune, takes a look at recent converts to the cause of states rights - now that the GOP controls the three branches of the federal government. He writes that "somewhere along the line, the two factions switched sides. The result is like watching a version of 'The Odd Couple' in which Jack Lemmon is the slob and Walter Matthau is the neat freak." Specifically:

People who cheered the expansion of federal power under Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal have suddenly rediscovered that the Constitution assigns many prerogatives to state governments. . . . Conservatives claim the [anti-gay marriage] amendment is needed to prevent gay marriage from being mandated nationwide by the courts. But if that were the true goal, the amendment would simply affirm the sovereignty of the states over the issue, instead of forcing them all to prohibit same-sex unions.

While Chapman suspects that "the left's deployment of federalism is mostly a tactical maneuver, not a principled one," he still holds out that "if liberals keep championing the rightful powers of the states, they may develop a lasting attachment." Especially since:

In these instances [states recognizing gay marriages, medical marijuana in California, and "death with dignity" in Oregon] conservatives want faraway bureaucrats butting into local affairs, while liberals say that maybe Barry Goldwater was right about the dangers of big government. Already, this alignment is beginning to look normal rather than bizarre. We can all be thankful for gravity, because the world seems to be upside down.

And isn't it fun to see Barney Frank defending states rights!

(Note: IGF contributing author Paul Varnell made similar points here.)

New Hampshire Sen. John Sununu was one of only six Republican senators last year to vote against the gay-marriage-banning Federal Marriage Amendment. A genuine free-market conservative, he's also an impassioned advocate of meaningful Social Security reform. Here's an article from Tech Central Station asking Why Not Sununu? in 2008. Here's hoping.

A little late, I've been directed to a column in The Nation, the ultimate Bush-baiting leftwing bible, by David Corn. Surprisingly, he offers a thorough critique of the outing of Jeff Gannon. Corn writes:

Bloggers have made much of his apparent effort to earn a buck as a prostitute for men. This is not gay-baiting, they say, it's hypocrisy. The question is, hypocrisy on whose part? On Gannon/Guckert's? He's been accused of being a gay-baiter. But how true is that?

As part of my investigation, I had my assistant, Alexa Steinberg, search through a collection of Gannon/Guckert's articles for pieces on gay-related themes. She found eight pieces. Most were straightforward accounts of political tussles over gay marriage.... This is pretty tame stuff....

Gannon/Guckert clearly was writing for a conservative audience. But he was hardly a flame-thrower on gay issues. His observation about Kerry was clumsy but not homophobic.

Sure, he worked for an organization that supported an administration and party opposed to gay rights, and he was a Bush-backer. But does that automatically qualify him for outing? Should a lesbian reporter who works at the Wall Street Journal or at any metropolitan daily that editorializes against gay marriage be outed? Reporters are not elected officials. They do not legislate the behavior of others....

[H]e has been hounded for being a gay male hooker. Should we even care if a reporter is moonlighting on the side in this fashion? I don't-let Helen Thomas be a professional dominatrix in her free time-unless that reporter explicitly claims to be a person of family values or publicly decries homosexuality or prostitution. I have not seen evidence that Gannon/Guckert struck such a stance.

The line of attack, supported by outing-advocates in our comments area (and vigorously opposed by other commenters), has been that Gannon deserved to have his sex life publicized because he was anti-gay, but it appear his only "crime" was being a reporter for a Republican-supporting news outlet. It was said he lied to gain entrance to the press briefings, but it now appears he used his real name and driver's license to sign in, and that use of a pen name is hardly unheard of (one anti-outing commenter points to the NY Times's Nick Gage/Nikos Gatzoyiannis). And it's been said he broke the law by being an escort (another commenter asks if Gannon's critics would have made the same case against all gay reporters in jurisdictions that had sodomy laws, and whether outers favor enforcing the anti-escort laws).

Conclusion: Gannon was a victim of the politics of personal destruction. He transgression was being a supporter of the Bush administration. As another commenter puts it, for the Bush-haters that, unfortunately, seems to justify all.

Update: He says he's "bruised, not broken" - Jeff Gannon's blog, and more power to him!

More Recent Postings
2/20/05 - 2/26/05

An interesting editorial in The Oregonian makes the case for civil unions. After noting the failure of gay marriage advocates to listen and respond to the concerns of opponents, the editors call on the state (now saddled by voters with an anti-gay-marriage amendment) to pass a comprehensive civil unions law:

Critics say civil unions exemplify the separate but equal doctrine used to justify segregation in the South, but it's a "facile and deeply wrong" comparison, suggests Yale law professor William Eskridge Jr., an expert on civil unions....

"[S]eparate but equal" was a legal doctrine used to mask inequality. Vermont used the term "civil union" to mask equality....

Some will continue to argue that civil unions are inherently inferior to marriage, but in Vermont, the difference is mainly in name. Those joined in a civil union are even called "spouses."

Certainly, as others have noted, this is the view of many gay-marriage opponents, which is why they, too, are adamant in opposing civil unions. But fortunately, when the issues is CUs and not marriage, a majority of Americans don't share their opposition.

Another editorial of interest ran in the Roanoke (Vir.) Times. It notes that Episcopal priest Deborah Hentz Hunley and other clergy:

hope that the current debate over gay marriages can be expanded to "looking at Christian marriage and what we think it means." For her, that includes the possibility of separating the governmental recognition of a marriage - deciding who is eligible for the legal benefits and obligations that entails - from the religious blessing of the union.

The current system of having clergy act as agents of the state is so taken for granted that we rarely think about the illogic of it in a country that has no established religion. Separating the two functions seems to offer benefits with few, if any, disadvantages.

A couple have to appear before a governmental representative as it is now to receive a marriage license, so there's no good reason why that process couldn't include having them sign on the dotted line to be married. Everyone would then have a civil union - whose rules the state could decide outside of religious considerations. Then, couples who wanted a religious ceremony to solemnize that union could find a willing priest/minister/rabbi/imam/shaman or whoever to bless them.

It seems far-fetched to expect this now, but good ideas have a way of taking off that's sometimes totally unexpected. So even if it's not around the corner, making civil union the new legal norm may eventually be an idea whose time will come.

More Recent Postings
2/27/05 - 2/05/05