IGF CultureWatch

A follow-up on responses from left and right to the controversial "gay Lincoln" theory. Columnist Doug Ireland, gay and of the left, writes that a grotesque Lincoln cartoon in The Nation, the leading leftwing political magazine, "showing Lincoln's head on a woman's body with an ample, protruding bosom and dressed scantily in 19th century women's lingerie," is much worse than even the rightwing Weekly Standard's gay-stereotype Lincoln cover. And it is. Scroll down Ireland's blog and take a look.

More Recent Postings
1/16/05 - 1/22/05

No, not polygamy. But a bill granting some marriage-like rights passed Utah's state senate, reports the Salt Lake Tribune. The bill, for example, would

...allow two adults - be it a same-sex couple or a grandmother and granddaughter - to register with the state Health Department and check which benefits they want, including hospital visitation privileges and inheritance....

In addition to granting hospital-visitation rights and inheritance benefits to those who register for reciprocal rights, the bill would allow them to make organ-donation decisions, make funeral arrangements and also make emergency medical choices for the other person.

The bill comes less than three months after voters overwhelmingly passed a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage and restrict benefits in any "domestic union" outside marriage.

Now, one could argue that allowing a man to "reciprocal partner" with his grandmother is far more likely to weaken traditional marriage than letting two unrelated gay adults wed. But being optimistic, maybe if people get used to same-sex couples "reciprocal partnering," it would make them less fearful of same-sex marriage (or at least civil unons!) - even in Utah.

Update: Well, so much for that, as Utah lawmakers kill partners bill.

An e-mailed press release from the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force hypes "Why Welfare Reform Is a Queer Issue," a panel and "speak out" to be held at NYC's LGBT Community Center on Jan. 26. On the agenda, NGLTF's Jason Cianciotto will explain the "overt homophobia in welfare - abstinence promotion, marriage promotion, fatherhood initiatives." Also according to the press release:

Policy experts will address the harmful impact of the 1996 welfare reform laws on the LGBT community and what's in store for the LGBT community with reauthorization.... Discussion will include how new welfare proposals increase funding for homophobic policies like marriage promotion and fatherhood initiatives.

I remember how when Clinton signed the GOP welfare reform bill requiring able-bodied, long-term welfare recipients to take available jobs, left-liberals predicted our nation would again be filled with Hoovervilles (i.e., homeless tent cities). Instead, a record number of long-term welfare recipients actually (gasp) took jobs.

As for welfare reform being anti-LGBT because it promotes marriage and fatherhood, one could certainly argue that not allowing gays to marry increases the liklihood that poor gays would need welfare, since studies show married couples are better able to lift themselves out of poverty. But I suspect we're actually seeing a hint of what the activists at NGLTF actually feel - marriage itself is an oppressive institution, so encouraging folks to marry (and, especially, encouraging single mothers to marry one of their children's fathers) simply reinforces the evils of patriarchy.

Update: If you haven't done so, click below and read the comments posted on this item. We don't always get intelligent debate; this time we did.

I've been out of town with limited computer access these past few days, which explains the lack of postings. I hope to get caught up next week. But I did want to check in and note a few passing thoughts.

On Bush's inaugural theme of freedom and liberty: It's easy to point out the obvious - he wants to deny gay couples the freedom to marry. True enough, but endorsing individual freedom as the foundation for social advancement is still worth celebrating, and Bush's rhetoric can be used to hold the GOP accountable when it attempts to use the power of the state to elevate the prejudices of the majority over the rights of all to equal treatment under the law (including the right to equal participation in the institutions created or regulated by the state). Remember, Thomas Jefferson was a slaveholder but his proclamation that "all men are created equal" nevertheless provided the inspiration to abolish slavery.

But by the same token, freedom also means free individuals may choose with whom they wish to affiliate and associate in the private sphere, and the state should not intervene even if private country clubs choose to discriminate against gays and not recognize gay families. That is simply one of the tradeoffs of freedom.

On Martin Luther King Day, "The Oprah Winfrey Show" focused on Nate Berkus, a regular guest who talks about interior design, and who just survived the tsunami disaster in Sri Lanka. Sadly, his partner, photographer Fernando Bengoechea, was lost in the waves. Berkus told a very moving story of fighting to stay together and cling to one another as they were both swept into the ocean, and then being pulled apart by the water's force. Many in the audience wept. It was Oprah's highest rated show of the season, and another example of how Americans from all walks are getting to know gay people and our lives.

Update: Writing in Salon, Jennifer Buckendorff's "The Oprah Way" explains why "to change people's minds on issues like gay marriage, liberals [I'd say supporters of gay equality] need to learn to tug at their heartstrings."

Rich Tafel's blog reports on a local GOP event where Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie was asked, by Republican Unity Coalition founder Charles Francis, about the place of gays in an inclusive GOP. Rich writes:

Gillespie went on to explain that the GOP needed to reach out to all groups if the party is to become a majority party....My impression is that the Republican leaders are looking for opportunities to mend fences with gays in the party....For gays to move forward they'll need to educate those who don't understand us in the same way the Gillespie's father educated him about the immigration issue. It looks like there are opportunities now to build bridges between gay Republicans and the GOP.

That's a hopeful message for inauguration week, but time will tell whether the GOP's leadership is intent on becoming a big tent, or just blowing smoke.

While watching Fox's "The O'Reilly Factor" Tuesday night I was surprised to see an ad from the Human Rights Campaign attacking George Bush. Was this a mistake, left over from the campaign? No, it appears that HRC is proudly blasting Bush during his inaugural week.

But just what is the purpose of buying time on Fox TV, Republican central, to let die-hard conservatives know just how much gays hate President Bush? And this, within a week of Bush's statement that his administration wouldn't be pushing the Federal Marriage Amendment (thus igniting an uproar among social conservatives)?

But HRC would rather attack Bush than in any way, shape or form try to work with the administration in power for the next four years. What a sorry state of affairs.

By the way, I was watching Bill O'Reilly because his guest was Philip Nobile discussing the "gay Lincoln" theory put forth in the new book by the late C.A. Tripp, with whom Nobile worked before a falling out. O'Reilly clearly thought Nobile would blast the theory but instead, while criticizing Tripp's work, Nobile argued that "there's more evidence for the gay-Lincoln than for the completely-straight-Lincoln theory." This did not please O'Reilly, who was clearly miffed.

At one point when Nobile pointed to accounts that Lincoln, on several occasions, had surreptitiously invited Captain David Derickson to share his bed in the White House when Mrs. Lincoln was away, O'Reilly countered that perhaps they were simply having "a pajama party."

I've ragged on the national leadership of the Log Cabin Republicans quite a bit lately. That's because LCR's mission is so critical. We need to be a presence in both major parties, so when LCR last year looked like it was starting to morph into HRC - evidenced, for instance, by the group's silence when Bush made accepting comments about civil unions - then it seemed as if no one was trying to get a seat at the GOP table.

But it may be that LCR is catching on. Last week they noted (if not quite praised) President Bush's statement suggesting that the Federal Marriage Amendment wouldn't be pushed by the administration. LCR has also proclaimed support for GOP Social Security and tax reform initiatives, something that until now has been less than prominent on the group's website.

There are those who say we shouldn't work with the GOP till they come round on our issues. But unless gay conservatives work with the GOP on issues of mutual interest (such as Social Security and tax reform), those bridges will never be built.

Libertarian-minded columnist Steve Chapman looks at the Florida adoption gay ban and rolls his eyes, noting that "The original impulse, it turns out, was not to protect children but to penalize gays." And it still is.

The so-called "unity statement" that the Log Cabin Republicans signed with the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, the Human Rights Campaign and 18 other national gay groups is a mixed bag. The statement endorses the basic agenda of most gay activists, including support for hate crime laws (which add penalties on the basis of anti-gay motivation), and federal and state laws to outlaw job-related anti-gay discrimination.

But while most gays may support these goals, many libertarian and conservative-minded gays don't, believing that equal treatment is all gays should demand from the state; that violent acts, not violent thoughts, should be criminalized; and that private employers have a right to hire and fire whomever they please. But gay libertarians and conservatives are outside the framework of this unity.

The statement also follows the litany of proclaiming we're all part of a "lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community," leading to a call, for instance, to end "the military's discriminatory anti-LGBT ban," meaning that cross-dressers, too, be allowed to enlist. But demanding a transgender-inclusive military (no discharge for Corporal Klinger) will set back efforts to let gays serve openly and honorably.

Also problematic, the statement declares, "We must continue to expose the radical right's efforts to advance a culture of prejudice and intolerance, and we must fight their attempts to enshrine anti-gay bigotry in our state and federal laws and constitutions." The problem here? While many anti-gay activists are bigots, not all are. Many misguidedly fear that same-sex matrimony will destabilize, rather than strengthen, marriage. They're wrong, but labeling them "bigots" who are part of the "radical right," when they are neither, does nothing to bring them around.

There are, however, some pluses. I was glad to see a positive remark from President Bush is used to help advance the cause, rather than eliciting knee-jerk condemnation. From the unity statement:

In December, People magazine asked President and Mrs. Bush about civil unions. "Is a couple joined by that kind of legal arrangement as much of a family as, say, you two are a family?" "Of course," President Bush replied.

Bush's acknowledgement (despite his support for an anti-gay constitutional amendment) has set an important new minimum standard for future dialog surrounding same-sex couples and families..."

That's progress, since during the campaign when Bush criticized his own party's platform for opposing state-recognized civil unions, the Log Cabiners were silent and NGLTF and HRC actually condemned Bush's remarks. So the unity statement shows some headway here.

A final point: Patrick Guerriero, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, said the statement's was intended "to send a message...that we share a common vision." But while LCR is clearly intent on finding unity with liberal gays, it appears less concerned about finding unity with Republicans, or even gays who might support equal treatment but not hate crimes, job laws and the rest of the agenda. That's LCR's prerogative, of course, but it's worth noting that it does leave a block of gays outside the bounds of "unity."

More Recent Postings
1/09/05 - 1/15/05