IGF CultureWatch

EMILY's List, the powerful women's PAC with an abortion rights agenda, is backing a senatorial candidate who supports a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, reports the Washington Blade. The Democratic candidate is Inez Tenenbaum, running for the U.S. Senate in South Carolina, and EMILY's List has reportedly given her $350,000.

The Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest lesbigay political fundraiser, has long considered support for abortion a key factor in making endorsements (pro-choice voting is also an important category on HRC's congressional scorecards). Likewise, the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund requires candidates it endorses to be pro-choice. In both cases, the abortion litmus test has served to deny these groups' funds to GOP candidates who are gay-supportive but favor some abortion restrictions, such as parental notification.

In another development reported in the Blade, Unity, the umbrella group of minority journalists associations (with a decidedly "progressive" tilt) has again denied a membership request by the National Gay & Lesbian Journalists Association, stating that Unity is intended only for racial/ethnic minorities. Instead, NLGJA has been offered an "unofficial" role.

Says the Blade story, Unity "has decided not to extend the parameters of its big tent past its founding mission," and leaders of NLGJA "have gradually come to accept their second-tier status."

Do I begrudge EMILY's List and Unity the right to limit their agendas and constrain their "parameters"? Not at all. But it does highlight the absurdity foisted on us by LGBT activists who insist that every leftwing cause is part of their mission, so that gay groups involve themselves in everything from supporting race-based preferences (as HRC does) to opposing welfare reform (as the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force does). And that's leaving aside the whole issue of transgenderism, which extends to the cause of heterosexual cross-dressers.

At Least Bush Lowered Our Taxes.

Senator John Edwards said he and running mate John Kerry have "no objection" to this week's vote in Missouri to amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage, according to media reports. "We're both opposed to gay marriage," said Edwards.

I'm waiting for gay activists to deliver another of their increasingly absurdist rationales for their support of these two snake-oil salesmen.

If our movement "leaders" would just hint that gay voters might stay home on election day (no one expects them to support Bush), it might be enough to trigger some fealty from the Democrats.

The Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest lesbigay lobby, has endorsed the Democratic opponent of Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), one of the most pro-gay senators in the GOP. Specter did vote to bring the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment to the floor of the Senate -- which turned out to be the vote on the amendment's fate, since opponents blocked the amendment then and there. (Specter indicated that if a subsequent Senate floor vote on the measure had taken place, he would have then voted against the FMA.) Nevertheless, six fair-minded Republicans did manage to vote against allowing the amendment to go forward, including New Hampshire's John Sununu, and Specter fell short in comparison.

But if voting correctly on the FMA were a litmus test for the HRC, why are they still enthusiastically endorsing John Kerry and John Edwards, who chose not to vote against the amendment when they failed to vote at all?

On Tuesday, Missouri voters overwhelmingly approved a state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage -- the first such test of the issue since a Massachusetts court legalized gay and lesbian weddings last fall. The amendment was approved by 71% of those voting. Next up, voters in some 10 other states will face similar ballot measures in coming months. The prospects aren't good. It may take another generation before voting majorities conclude gay marriage strengthens rather then rips the social fabric.

Meanwhile, in Washington state a King County Superior Court judge ruled that gay couples were entitled to marry. But no marriage licenses can be issued until the state Supreme Court reviews the case. Expect conservatives to charge that an activist judiciary is again overriding the will of the people -- which it may well be, but that's what guaranteeing minorities legal equality is often about.

Nevertheless, if court rulings favoring gay marriage trigger passage of state constitutional amendments that permanently bar same-sex nuptials, we may regret not taking the path of civil unions -- at least as an interim step. But then again, the Massachusetts court's ruling may have made that decision for us.
--Stephen H. Miller

A new letter argues that in Europe, "It isn't gay marriage that destroys heterosexual marriage, it's socialism."

Fighting for Evangelical Votes.

From a recent issue of U.S. New & World Report:

While it comes as no surprise that white evangelicals are overwhelmingly Republican and back President Bush by a wide margin, nearly a quarter say they might vote for Democrat John Kerry.

Since "white evangelical Christians today make up roughly a fourth of the U.S. population," that quarter of a quarter is a pretty steep number.

Perhaps this slice of religiously conservative but economically liberal evangelicals is what a lot of the political hullabaloo is about -- Bush supporting a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, and Kerry not voting against the same, and not publicly mentioning any gay-supportive position at the convention or on the campaign trail.

From a review of Showtime's reality show "The American Candidate," which started out with 10 contestants facing off against each other in a mock presidential race. One player/candidate is/was Chrissy Gephardt, the lesbian daughter of Rep. Dick Gephardt and a darling of gay activists and the gay media. But Chrissy G. was quickly eliminated. A story in Washigton's Express subway paper (published by the Washington Post, but not online) reports:

Gephardt's most depressing move, however, came in her final "debate." Asked to speak on a pet issue, Gephardt practically announced that she was vigorously in favor of late term abortions. The "front-runner," silver haired smoothie Park Gillespie, quietly tore [into] her -- he's the father of a five-week premature daughter.

Actually, Gephardt was well-spoken and in many ways attractive and appealing, but her position remained that a woman has a right to end her pregnancy at any point she so chooses regardless of the late-term viability of the child she's carrying. She also argued we shouldn't be debating gay marriage because "We have prisoners being abused in Iraq; we should talk about that."

What better example of how the LGBT left lives in its own, hermetically sealed universe.

I recently commented on fears that gay marriage will be an effective mass mobilization issue for rank-and-file conservatives, noting that such a threat seemed overblown. As a reader e-mailed to point out, Michael Greve, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, made the same point back in March when he wrote:

I disagree with the widely held notion that judicial overreach [courts requiring states to recognize gay marriage] would spark a backlash and a lasting social rift akin to the division generated by Roe v. Wade. There is no such thing as a "charming" abortion, and nobody celebrates an abortion with friends and family. The certainty that each abortion (40 million and counting) is an act of brutal aggression sustains the Right to Life movement.

In contrast, even adamant opponents of same-sex marriage as an institution can think of a charming same-sex couple and of a union worth celebrating. And who precisely are the victims that command our compassion and protection? Movement-sustaining fervor at this front is hard to come by, and easily lost amid messy details and conflicting emotions. (emphasis added)

That's not to say that achieving gay marriage, or even civil unions, won't require a long, drawn out fight throughout the length and breadth of the nation, especially to defeat or overturn statewide constitutional amendments and DOMA laws. But what we learned from the recent Senate vote is that the grass-roots troops aren't calling, writing, and pestering their elected officials with the vehemence they express over abortion. That's a positive worth bearing in mind.

More Recent Postings
7/25/04 - 7/31/04

A Washington Blade headline: "Gay delegates hail Kerry speech: Omission of 'G' word 'not an issue.'" And I take it that Kerry's opposition to gay marriage (and decision not to vote against the Federal Marriage Amendment) is "not an issue." And his failure to mention gays in the military or anti-discrimination legislation (which I have strong reservations about, but which gay activists support) is "not an issue." Is there anything their nominee could do or not do regarding gays that would be an issue to these partisans?

What apparently sent the "not an issue" crowd to party heaven was an appearance by Teresa Heinz Kerry at the GLBT delegates' caucus (a non-smoke-filled back room, I suppose).

The Washington Blade reports that in her remarks before the caucus:

Heinz Kerry appeared to mix policy issues with motherly love, drawing repeated shouts of appreciation from both lesbians and gay male delegates. She told of how she was moved at a campaign appearance a few months ago in Washington state, when a man told her in a question and answer session that his relationship with his mother was strained and told her, "I want you to be my mother."

"It was clear that he had not made that peace with his mother and he wanted someone who loved him," Heinz Kerry said. "And so, at least, if nothing else, you'll have a mom in the White House," she told the crowd. Added Heinz Kerry, "You can call me Mama T."

That remark prompted the gay delegates to jump to their feet while chanting, "Mama T!"

And they didn't find any of this even the least bit infantilizing, nor take offense at the suggestion that "nothing else" may be all they're likely to get from her husband. Or if they did, it was "not an issue."

Some quick takes on matters gay. I'll restrain myself from delving into other issues, such as the economy, healthcare and national security, although these are actually (believe it or not) more crucial than gay rights for the country as a whole.

The absence of rainbow flags and gay rights placards has been frequently mentioned; apparently, this year only official signage was allowed onto the floor.

Neither Kerry nor Edwards mentioned gays, unlike Clinton/Gore in years past. The closest Kerry came was to say: "We believe that what matters most is not narrow appeals masquerading as values, but the shared values that show the true face of America. Not narrow appeals that divide us, but shared values that unite us. Family and faith...."

[Addendum 1: He also said this: "Let's honor this nation's diversity; let's respect one another; and let's never misuse for political purposes the most precious document in American history, the Constitution of the United States." Worthy sentiments, but you'd have to already be familiar with the Federal Marriage Amendment debate to connect the dots to gays.]

[Addendum 2: Virginia Postrel argues Kerry wasn't talking about the FMA, but about the Florida recount - or at least that's what the delegates thought he was saying. Guess his code words were even too cryptic for the insiders!]

Barney Frank's remarks early Thursday evening did addressed same sex marriage and the Federal Marriage Amendment, but this was the exception. There were virtually no prime-time mentions of gays, though rising star Barack Obama, the Senate candidate from Illinois, referred fleetingly to "gay friends in the Red states." Tammy Baldwin, the openly lesbian Congressmember from Wisconsin, also had a prime-time spot but did not utter "gay" or "lesbian," though she did, I think, refer to the need for health coverage for domestic partners.

Human Rights Campaign head Cheryl Jacques spoke, I believe, at 5:45 ET on Wednesday for a few minutes, saying "Gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Americans share the dream of a better, stronger, and more united America," and "We're working for marriage equality -- so we can do what families do best -- care for each other in sickness and health...."

Other than that, I'm not sure same-sex marriage (which Kerry/Edwards oppose) was mentioned, and, as far as I know, there were no other criticisms of the Federal Marriage Amendment (which Kerry/Edwards also oppose, but not enough to actually vote against).

So if gay issues were for the most part "invisibilized" by the Democrats in prime time, the question is whether the Republicans will restrain their impulse to explicitly gay bash throughout their shindig. I, for one, would be shocked if Bush doesn't crow about his support for the Federal Marriage Amendment and traditional marriage, in a further "good riddance" (in the words of social conservative Bush insider Paul Weyrich) to gay Republicans.

The Next (Upscale) Generation.

Thursday's Wall Street Journal, in a frontpage article headlined "Democrats Tap a Rich Lode: Young, Well-Off Social Liberals," notes that forty-something entrepreneurial successes, some of whom describe themselves as "centrist, moderate Republicans" and backed Bush in 2000, are contributing to Kerry this time:

This new generation of wealth -- men and women who grew up with working moms, black classmates and gay friends, during the rise of environmentalism -- is defying the traditional notion that as people swim up the income scale, they tend to become more Republican.

Wake up, Karl Rove!

It's a week old, but this Boston Globe article captures the Bush decision to jettison gay votes in the hopes of upping conservative Christian support. A revealing incident:

As Senate Republicans began accelerating the debate over gay marriage last month, President Bush got a warning about the potential for political fallout. Representative Charles Bass of New Hampshire, sharing a ride on Air Force One, told Bush to "back off this gay marriage thing, that it was going to be devastating for him in the Northeast," where voters have a famously libertarian streak

"I don't think they actively support gay marriage, but they have a subliminal distrust for government establishing a moral code for people's lives," Bass, a Republican, recalled telling Bush. In response, Bass said, Bush "looked at me like I was crazy." The president ignored the advice and actively supported a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage....

Turning to the other party, here's Andrew Sullivan's take on Kerry, who supports amending Massachusetts' constitution to ban gay marriage but permit civil unions:

I'm not saying that gay voters should not support Kerry. I just don't want to live through another Clinton ordeal. I don't want a "pro-gay" president getting away with trashing our civil rights just because he's not as hostile as the alternative. ... [Kerry says] that he favors giving gay couples every federal benefit that straight couples have. But he knows this is an easy promise, because it will never be passed. And -- mark my words -- he will not expend any political capital to enact it.

Bush's anti-gay politics makes it easy for Kerry to virtually ignore the wants and needs of his gay supporters -- where they gonna go?

Instead of the Democrats, my partner and I watched "Drew Carey" Wednesday night. On this episode, Drew's meddling inadvertently broke up a gay couple whose young son plays with Drew's nephew. Drew then drives from Cleveland to Youngstown, where one partner has fled to his parents' house. The 60ish father greets Drew with "you're the guy who broke up my son's marriage over a basketball game." The father then says, "Now that you're inside my house, anything I do to you is self-defense" -- establishing his bona fides as a tough conservative. So we have a conservative white-haired father referring to "my son's marriage" and criticizing the man who broke it up, on a sitcom set in blue-collar Cleveland. Yet another indication of how times have passed the Santorum Republicans by (had to get one jab in there!).