IGF CultureWatch

In a welcome development, the Human Rights Campaign is reevaluating its failed strategies. Reports the New York Times, HRC's board has:

concluded that the group must bow to political reality and moderate its message and its goals. One official said the group would consider supporting President Bush's efforts to privatize Social Security partly in exchange for the right of gay partners to receive benefits under the program.

A sensible idea, but of course one that immediate elicited howls of protest from gay lefties.

If the Log Cabin Republican's leadership had been savvy, they would long ago have embraced social security personal accounts as a GOP-initiative that was good for gays, and perhaps even made some strategic alliances within the party. But, of course, they didn't. Gay Patriot West has more to say about LCR's identity crisis.

Abner Mason, an openly gay Bush appointee, argues in the Advocate that Bush's support for an anti-gay marriage consitutional amendment shouldn't overshadow his:

preelection statement on ABC's Good Morning America that he supports civil unions for gay couples....While making clear his opposition to same-sex marriage, Bush said he disagreed with the Republican platform, which opposes civil unions. ...

At a minimum, the president merited praise for his public recognition that gay relationships deserve respect and support. There was none. His announcement was met with deafening silence and, from some gay leaders, sharp criticism that condemned Bush's decision to back civil unions....

I guess it could be said that gay activists (including, in this case, the Log Cabin Republicans) never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. (Hat tip: Gay Patriot).

Also in the Advocate, Dr. Gary R. Cohan observes of gay activists:

These ambitious, well-intentioned, but dangerously naive baby boomer leaders grew up in a fast-food culture of instant gratification. They acted on impulse -- "Let's go for the gold!" -- and in the process have torpedoed 20 years of forward movement in a single election. We need to express our disappointment with some serious introspection, more judicious philanthropy, and a major reorganization of our civil rights strategy.

And, he adds:

We presumed we could skip the usual prerequisites of winning the "hearts and minds" of the American public. So swept-up in the moment were we that we ignored an important fact: Even decent-minded straight people were having difficulty grasping the concept of "gay marriage."

This is the type of reevaluation that we most need right now.

The Devil's Advocacy blog notes the Human Rights Campaign's plummeting clout on Capitol Hill under it's "only Democrats matter" strategy of late:

While HRC supporters characterize their shift to the left in the past years as a natural shift in strategy, the numbers tell a different story. In the 107th Congress, the HRC asked Members of Congress to sign a pledge that they wouldn't discriminate in their offices on the basis of sexual orientation; 68 out of 100 Senators signed.

In the 108th, however, the HRC broadened their pledge to include gender identity ... [T]he concept of a protected class for transgendered folks isn't as bipartisanly supported; this year, the HRC lost 46 of its previous pledges.

Many say this is progress, but in a town where politics is perception, the perception of progress is slipping.

It certinaly is.

Lambda Legal has emailed a press release ballyhooing that a New Jersey appeals court has heard its case "seeking marriage equality for same-sex couples." Says the release:

the judges asked us whether we're seeking to change the definition of marriage in New Jersey. We explained that there will be changes ahead and that judges haven't shied away from change when it brings the state in line with its constitution. We've seen similar change in Massachusetts recently, when same-sex couples began legally marrying there. The sky didn't fall and the world didn't crumble, and that's what we'll be seeing in New Jersey, as well.

Which brings to mind the question, What planet do these people live on? If 13 states passing state constitutional gay-marriage bans this year in the wake of Massachusetts wasn't enough (11 did so on Nov. 2), it's likely that a decision by a liberal NJ court ordering same-sex marriage could be just the extra impetus that backers of the Federal Marriage Amendment need to write their ban into the U.S. Constitution. Will Lambda be celebrating then?

Arguing for the rights of marriage through civil unions or domestic partnerships as an first step - and one that actually has the electorate's support - would have been the saner course.

I finally caught up with "Alexander," in which director Oliver Stone makes amends, somewhat, for his virulently homophobic conspiracy-theory flick "JFK." Alexander the Great is portrayed as bisexual, but clearly he feels real intimacy is what men physically share at night in bed, while women are for making heirs.

Still, the love between men is something that's talked of, save for one kiss and a few hugs, while the one heterosexual bedroom scene is quite explicit. A cop out? Well, in the Washington, D.C. theater where I saw the film with a mixed-race audience, the mere discussion of manly love elicited derisive cat-calls. So I guess Stone and his producers know their audience and how much (or rather, how little) of same-sex physicality they're willing to watch in a big-budget epic.

At the same time, nonsexual gays keeping popping up all over the small screen. The latest: On TBS's new reality show, "The Real Gilligan's Island" (in which two teams of castaways compete "Survivor" style), one of the "professors" turned out to be openly gay. Of course, didn't the original sitcom professor always seem gay (having shown little interest in Ginger or Mary Ann)?

Just as Americans, save for the hard religious-right flank, seem OK with domestic partnerships but not marriage, they seem OK with gays in the media but only if they're de-sexed ("Will & Grace" being the ultimate example). Over time, the comfort level with both gay marriage and physical displays of affection should increase, but it won't happen soon.

More Recent Postings
11/28/04 - 12/04/04

It's been a busy week, so I've ignored a lot of news. But belatedly, last Monday's Supreme Court decision not to review a challenge to Massachusetts' gay marriage ruling is of some significance.

I have come to believe the original, split decision by the Bay State's highest court requiring state recognition of same-sex marriages was an invitation to backlash with terrible consequences. Example: this week, Michigan was forced to end domestic partner benefits for state workers because of their state's anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment, passed Nov. 2. Even so, it would be supremely wrong for the U.S. Supreme Court to have invalidated Massachusetts' decree. Ultimately, this is a state matter and must be left to the interplay of state legislatures, governors and courts. That's why the Bush administration is wrong to try to federalize marriage laws with an anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment that would bar any state from recognizing same-sex unions.

What was done wrong in Massachusetts cannot be easily undone without making matters even worse, but there appears little chance that any other state would now follow Massachusetts' lead and decree the "M" word for gay couples. As my colleague Dale Carpenter points out in his new column, the California model is far more likely as an evolutionary scenario, and one that's unlikely to galvanize the forces of reaction in a way that sets back the clock on gay equality for years to come.

There's an Old Testament decree that forbids the wearing of any cloth made from more than one fiber, which has inspired the parody website www.godhatesrags.com. Have fun.

The firing (i.e., forced resignation) of executive director Cheryl Jacques by the board of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest lesbigay lobby, is welcome news. Jacques had made an already too partisan organization a total front for the Democratic National Committee, even opposing the re-election of one of the GOP's most gay-supportive senators, Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter, who was the lead GOP sponsor of HRC's signature Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) bill and is the incoming chair of the Senate's powerful Judiciary Committee.

But the news that Hillary Rosen, partner of past HRC leader Elizabeth Birch, will be taking over (at least on an interim basis) is not good news. The rot at HRC began under Birch, who ended HRC's former policy of focusing on congressional races and not endorsing presidential candidates. Once the decision was made to devote the lion's share of HRC's resources to electing the Democratic presidential candidate (and in 2000, under Birch, that decision was made before it was clear that George Bush, and not John McCain, would be the Republican nominee), HRC effectively closed the door on any meaningful dialog with the national GOP.

And dedicating $28 million to purchase and refurbish a fancy HQ building in Washington, D.C., as opposed to spending those funds on, say, a nationwide communications program, or developing real grassroots networks, was another Birch decision.

Christian Grantham (hat tip to Gay Orbit) has more on Jacques firing, reporting that:

Sources say some board members expressed deep misgivings with how HRC presented itself during the 2004 elections. HRC Board member Bruce Bastian was particularly upset with HRC spending money on bumper stickers, t-shirts, billboards and tattoos that read "George Bush, You're Fired!"

Making Jacques a scapegoat, alas, won't solve the deep-rooted problems plaguing HRC.

Update: The Washington Post reports:

"For the organization that is considered to be responsible for setting the strategy for the [gay] community, the defeat that occurred on November 2 was stunning," one major donor said. "I think every single gay person in this country is trying to figure out what went wrong."

Gee, maybe giving John Kerry a free pass to endorse those anti-gay state amendments wasn't such a good strategy for gay (as opposed to Democratic Party) activists!

Following this month's clean sweep in 11 states, amendments banning gay marriage are likely to be on the ballot in at least 12 to 15 more states next year, reports the Christian Science Monitor.

And as was the case in nine of the 13 state amendments passed since August, most ballot measures are likely to target officially sanctioned civil unions and other nonmarriage forms of domestic partnership as well.

At the federal level, Karl Rove plans to keep pushing to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gay marriage. According to the Monitor:

Advocates of the amendment (which will be reintroduced in the new Congress) picked up support among newly elected senators and representatives - a sure majority in the House and a likely majority of the Senate, although both chambers have considerable distance to go before reaching the two-thirds majority necessary to amend the Constitution.

But at the same time, the Monitor reports:

Most Americans oppose gay marriage. But they're also against a US constitutional amendment. And most approve either legalizing same-sex marriage or officially sanctioning civil unions for such couples, according to exit polls in this month's election. Even Mr. Bush has spoken approvingly of state-established civil unions for gay couples.

And Matt Foreman is quoted saying something that's not crazy:

"Let's not pretend it doesn't hurt," says Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. "We need to step back, reflect, and process why the margins of loss in most of the states were depressingly large, where we should go from here, and how we are going to get there."

For one thing, Mr. Foreman told the group's annual conference in St. Louis just days after the election, gay-rights advocates failed to build sufficient grass-roots support before it began lobbying lawmakers and filing lawsuits....

"If the movement had been thinking clearly, we would have had a political and public education strategy that preceded the legal strategy," he said. "That obviously didn't happen."

No, I guess it didn't.

More Recent Postings
11/21/04 - 11/27/04

The activist mythos holds that all who voted for gay marriage bans did so out of "hate." The idea that folks might be genuinely (if wrongly) concerned about weakening marriage is simply dismissed. Oregon, however, presents a problem - the state voted strongly for Kerry, but also strongly to ban same-sex marriage. That means there were an awful lot of Democrats who also voted "anti-gay." Activists don't really want to think about that, as it produces troubling cognitive dissonance.

Now something else peculiar is happening in Oregon. As the state's Albany Democrat-Herald reports:

Just a few weeks ago, state Sen. Ben Westlund voted "yes" on Measure 36 to ban gay marriages in Oregon. Now, the central Oregon lawmaker is hard at work drafting a civil unions bill for the 2005 Legislature to give gay and lesbian couples some of the rights bestowed on married couples.

"It's just the right thing to do," the Tumalo Republican says. "Nothing in Measure 36 prevents the Legislature from affording equal rights and privileges to same-sex couples."

Of course, there are many social conservatives who oppose granting any kind of legal recognition to gay relationships. But the numbers who support gay marriage plus those who oppose marriage but support (of at least don't oppose) civil unions is the majority we need to advance our rights. Oregon could be showing us the way.
- Stephen H. Miller

More Recent Postings
11/21/04 - 11/27/04