IGF CultureWatch

Just released: the report of the Anglican Church's commission appointed by the archbishop of Canterbury to try to make peace in the worldwide communion (which includes U.S. Episcopalians) after the New Hampshire diocese elected a gay man to be its bishop and the Canadian church starting blessing same-sex unions. From the BBC's account:

The report called for a moratorium on the consecration of gay candidates. It demanded an explanation from the Anglican Church in the U.S., known as Episcopalian, about "how a person living in a same gender union may be considered eligible to lead the flock of Christ". ...

The report also urged the 50 bishops who attended the ordination of Gene Robinson last November as Bishop of New Hampshire to apologize for their actions, but adds that they should not be expelled.

The BBC also relates that "Conservatives, particularly in the African sections of the church, were outraged over the ordination and several broke ties with the U.S. [church]. Many are still demanding the suspension of the U.S. church." It appears that multiculturalism may mean bowing to African homophobia.

It should be noted that in his response Frank Griswold, presiding bishop and primate of the Episcopal Church, USA, appears to be standing firm. He writes:

I am obliged to affirm the presence and positive contribution of gay and lesbian persons to every aspect of the life of our church and in all orders of ministry. Other Provinces are also blessed by the lives and ministry of homosexual persons. I regret that there are places within our Communion where it is unsafe for them to speak out of the truth of who they are.

Which doesn't quite sound like the apology the homophobes are demanding. Then again, perhaps schism is preferable to "communion" with righteous bigotry.

Via the New York Observer. For a hearty laugh, check it out.

New York Times columnist William Safire, a libertarian-leaning conservative who opposed the marriage amendment, says reiterating Mary Cheney's homosexuality was a sleazy attempt by the Kerry camp to dismay Bush supporters who are against same-sex marriage. He writes in The Lowest Blow:

The memoir about the Kerry-Edwards campaign that will be the best seller will reveal the debate rehearsal aimed at focusing national attention on the fact that Vice President Cheney has a daughter who is a lesbian.

A "political memo" piece in the Times observes, "It is not clear whether this is a passing dust-up, as Mr. Kerry's advisers said in dismissing these latest polls, or the kind of event that could prove consequential in a race in which voters' allegiance to Mr. Kerry is anything but deep." And conservative columnist Robert Novak argues in Mistake Could Be Costly for Kerry that "It's hard to believe that in the closing weeks of a campaign where great issues are debated, the sexuality of the vice president's daughter could be determinant."

I doubt it, and I still see the election as Kerry's. But what a surprisingly turn of events it would be if "Marygate" did turn the election!

William Rubenstein, former head of the ACLU's lesbian and gay rights project, doesn't think the Democrats were gay baiting by telling voters Mary Cheney is a lesbian. Still, he finds the tactic disquieting. In a New York Times op-ed he writes, "The best spin for the Democrats is that they're using Mary Cheney to paint their opponents as hypocrites.... This is a valid point - but neither Mr. Kerry nor Mr. Edwards made it." And, "By simply mentioning her name without explaining her relevance, however, the Democrats are also treating Mary Cheney unfairly, reducing her to a non sequitur."

Is Sen. Specter Anti-Gay?

That's the charge leveled by one letter now posted in our mailbag, along with my response.

More Recent Postings
10/10/04 - 10/16/04

Washington Blade editor Chris Crain has penned an indictment of gay Democratic activists, charging "The partisan gay groups really ought to switch names. Log Cabin Republicans have acted like Stonewall rioters, and Stonewall Dems are living in Uncle Tom's Cabin."

How so? "From the day the president announced his support for an amendment, Log Cabin's leaders have thrown almost all their energy into thwarting the leader of their own party...." LCR head Patrick Guerriero "accepted dozens of invitations to appear on national television criticizing the president and the GOP leadership in Congress." Meanwhile:

When John Kerry came out in support of an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution that would overturn marriage equality in the one state where it exists, the Stonewall Dems were stone cold silent. When 20% of the Democrats in the U.S. House voted in favor of the federal marriage amendment, the Stonewall Dems were stone cold silent.

As for the Human Rights Campaigns' Cheryl Jacques, she was quick to slam Dick Cheney's debate answers but "what Jacques failed to see, through her partisan-colored glasses, was that John Edwards was every bit as neglectful in his response [to an AIDS question], spending his entire answer talking about unrelated issues and health care in general."

How about the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force? "Matt Foreman, its leader, vowed to the New York Times that gay groups would never back a candidate who supports writing anti-gay discrimination into a constitution -- state or federal." But when John Kerry did exactly that, soon after "the Task Force was lauding the Democratic nominees as 'the most gay-supportive presidential ticket in American history.' "

Concludes Crain:

The gay rights movement is easily the most compliant political lobby in this country. Our opponents readily criticize their own allies when they cross their interests or don't push their agenda. Gay groups smile and say, "We understand. Of course supporting our rights is too unpopular to justify politically." ...

There will always be an excuse why now is not the time to fulfill our promise of equality. It will never be politically expedient. And politicians will never do what they have not been lobbied to do.

--Stephen H. Miller

Friday's Wall Street Journal editorial page (subscription only), which opposed the marriage amendment, probably gets it right about Mary, too:

Our guess is that by throwing a spotlight on Ms. Cheney - and on her father's opposition to a Constitutional amendment on gay marriage - Messrs. Kerry and Edwards were trying to send a cultural message that there's really no difference between the two tickets, so you evangelicals might as well stay home.

If that's true, then the Kerry campaign may be making a profound miscalculation - both about the religious right and the larger religious middle of "tolerant traditionalists"... The gay marriage issue motivates these voters not out of hostility to gay Americans but because of what they believe is its challenge to a vital and venerable cultural institution.

As others have noted, the Democratic tactic appears to be an attempted "two-fer": A message that gay advocates would cheer as "inclusive" while doubling as an appeal to social conservatives' homophobia.

Meanwhile, the Log Cabin Republicans commented even-handedly (unlike the Kerry cheerleading from the gay left):

Log Cabin Republicans have a message for both campaigns. For Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards, you do not need to talk about the Vice President's daughter in order to discuss your positions on gay and lesbian issues. For President Bush and Karl Rove, you have a moral obligation to stop using gay and lesbian families as a political wedge issue. Our country and our party deserve better.

Many Democrats may be total reactionaries when it comes to defending set-in-stone New Deal/Great Society centralized government programs and declaring "No reform yesterday, no reform today, no reform tomorrow" -- just more spending down the bureaucratic rat holes to create even more anti-market, big government "solutions" that will keep the apparachiks fully employed. But too many Republicans are total reactionaries when it comes to social issues and cultural matters, especially "topic G." A brief sample from current U.S. Senate and House campaigns (many via www.politics1.com):

Rep. Tom Coburn (the GOP Senate candidate in Oklahoma): "[L]esbianism is so rampant in some of the schools in southeast Oklahoma that they'll only let one girl go to the bathroom. Now think about it. Think about that issue. How is it that that's happened to us?"

Rep. Jim DeMint (the GOP Senate candidate in South Carolina): "If a person wants to be publicly gay, they should not be teaching in the public schools."

Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kansas): "Marriage is a privilege the State should protect, but it is not a right for same-sex partners, multiple partners, or any configuration of people and animals that express love for one another."

Mel Martinez (the GOP Senate candidate in Florida): Blasted his primary opponent as "anti-family" and "the new darling of the homosexual extremists" because he supported a hate crimes bill that included gays.

And there's much more of the same. Worse, gays are in a Catch-22 when it comes to the GOP -- because so few gays support Republicans, the party feels no need to concern itself about gay opinion, especially at the risk of alienating its social conservative base.

If the GOP loses the White House and even the Senate, that strategy could be bankrupt. Of course, the economy will probably tank as we have four years of Carter/Mondale redux, but that's the choice we face. Hail the two-party duopoly!

"Kerry and Edwards are becoming more obsessed with Mary Cheney than Pat Robertson is with bestiality," observes Gay Patriot, while Mickey Kaus speculates "it's a poll-tested attempt to cost Bush and Cheney the votes of demographic groups (like Reagan Dems, or fundamentalists) who are hostile to homosexuality or gay culture." Suspicious, isn't he.

As Lynne Cheney fumes over Kerry's "cheap and tawdry political trick," Elizabeth Edwards accuses her of being ashamed of Mary (who, by the way, if you didn't happen to know out there is undecided blue collar and soccer mom land, is A LESBIAN.

Carolyn Lochhead, an IGF contributing author, has penned a thoughtful piece for the San Francisco Chronicle on the betrayal felt by gay Republicans over President Bush's support of the marriage amendment. She pays particular attention to the Austin 12, a group of gay Republicans who met with then-Gov. Bush in 2000 during his campaign. Below are quotes from four of them, pulled from the article:

David Catania, a District of Columbia Councilmember: "My heart has left the party, my head has left the party. The party as it is now is not one I can support."

Rebecca Maestri, former aide to Sen. Al D'Amato: "I believe in the principles of the Republican Party, and I won't be railroaded out of the party just because of my sexual orientation."

David Daniel Stewart, mayor of Plattsburgh, N.Y.: "I can't support George Bush anymore. I have just had it. He hit my soul, he hit my heart. I'm not going to stand there and violate my own conscience to help get someone elected."

Brian Bennett, who came out while chief of staff to anti-gay former Rep. Bob Dornan: "Why should we abandon Rudy Giuliani, George Pataki, Arnold Schwarzenegger and other leaders who are in the party taking heat for standing up for gays and lesbians? They have the courage to stand up for me in my party. What good would I be for them, who are in some ways jeopardizing their political futures by standing up for me, if I cut and run?"

At least one of the 12 is on record saying he'll still vote for Bush (former AIDS czar Scott Evertz). Others, including Stewart, said they can't support either candidate. But Catania has switched his party affiliation to "independent" and endorsed Kerry/Edwards.

More Recent Postings
10/3/04 - 10/9/04

Responding to the veep debate, Human Rights Campaign head Cheryl Jacques castigates Dick Cheney for his views on AIDS. As an HRC news release puts it:

"Vice President Cheney's ignorance about the HIV/AIDS crisis is inexcusable," said Jacques. "When asked about the effect this epidemic is having on Americans - especially communities of color - he said he was unaware of the problem."

But a new letter posted in our mailbag ("HRC: Beyond Spinning Lies Deceit," Oct. 8) begs to differ:

Cheney's answer did not show ignorance of HIV issues. He didn't know that black women between the ages of 25 and 44 are 13 times more likely to die of AIDS than "their counterparts." I follow issues of HIV and AIDS and although I am aware that HIV infection rates have significantly increased as a percentage among black women, I was unaware of that exact statistic. In fact, I'm still not sure what the moderator meant by "their counterparts"; I don't know if she meant other races, other ages, men, the general population or just what. Neither did Cheney.

Frankly, neither candidate answered the question well with...Edwards being less forthcoming on the answer than Cheney. So [Jacques' statement] goes beyond spinning to outright deceit.

Of course, the "racist, sexist, anti-gay" mantra is the prism through which the left views all things Republican. So instead of building on Cheney's break with Bush over the marriage amendment and celebrating that his daughter, Mary, appeared on stage with her lesbian partner after the debate - and the positive signal this sent - HRC instead attacks Cheney by distorting his response. Along with their decision to oppose the re-election of moderate, pro-gay GOP Sen. Arlen Specter of Penn., Jacques and HRC are telling Republicans no matter what they do, they will be vilified. What a great way to advance the cause of gay legal equality with a Congress that's likely to have a GOP majority even if their beloved Kerry wins the White House.