IGF CultureWatch

By all accounts, supporters of the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) lack the required two-thirds majorities in either house of Congress. That's why, suddenly, we're seeing conservatives scrambling for some sort of "compromise" language. The typically gay-unfriendly editorial page of the Wall Street Journal on Friday opined that "Now, even some who support a constitutional remedy wonder about the language. There is debate about whether the amendment's language would bar states from endorsing civil unions, which Mr. Bush says they should be free to do."

Another example: An interesting column by Michael Horowitz of the conservative Hudson Institute, published at Tech Central Station, says the proposed anti-gay marriage/civil union wipeout under the FMA "will please some conservatives and evangelicals, but will go nowhere." Horowitz suggests an alternative saying civil marriages will be determined by voters or legislatures of the states, with no state requried to recognize any other's marriages. It's less draconian, certainly, than what's before Congress now, but still unnecessary and a slap -- in what other civil rights matter are state courts barred from ruling? Still, it's a good sign that the present amendment is already hemorrhaging support on the right.

More Evidence the Wind Will Not Subside.

The Green Party mayor of New Paltz, NY, is performing gay marriages, and hundreds have flocked upstate to be wed. Reports the NY Times:

Coming with little warning, the wedding ceremonies here left many lawyers and politicians struggling to respond, while independent observers and advocates for gay rights said the move may signal a shift in the scope of the cultural struggles -- from big cities to small towns.

"politicians, advocates, and outside observers said the events of Friday demonstrated how quickly the issue is moving and how unpredictable it has become.

Indeed it has.

And here's a good wrap up from the Washington Post on what's happening in California.

Enough 'Free Passes'.

An editorial in this week's Washington Blade takes aim at John Kerry's support for a state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. "We give gay-friendly politicians a 'free pass' almost anytime they tell us that supporting our equality would require actual courage on their part," writes editor Chris Crain.

Equal Time: Academic and author Tibor Machan, who is "neither left nor right," zeroes in on Bush's confused logic. He writes:

Mr. Bush is, in fact, trying to have it both ways, a limited government dedicated primarily to protecting our individual rights to liberty, and an intrusive federal government that is dictating to all what they ought to call their romantic unions.

Machan also has this aside:

...among [those faithful to] the Reverend Moon, people get married en masse, without even knowing to whom they are to be married; talk about a bizarre idea for American culture, yet nothing the law should prevent it.

Worth Noting.

This is from the Blade's "On the Record" compilation. It was sent to the S.C. legislature by James and Irene Smith:

The institution of marriage doesn't need protection from loving, caring gay South Carolinians like our son and his partner; it needs protection from demagogues and hypocrites like John Graham Altmann III who spew bigotry and who have more ex-spouses than they have clean underwear."

Rep. Altman, a leading gay-marriage opponent, is now on wife no. 3.

History Lesson

Theodore Roosevelt wanted a constitutional amendment limiting divorce and barring polygamy. It went nowhere, too.

Lest we forgot: "Kerry Backs State Ban on Marriage" was a headline Thursday in the Boston Globe.

Presidential candidate John F. Kerry said yesterday that he supports amending the Massachusetts Constitution to ban gay marriage and provide for civil unions for gay couples. In his most explicit remarks on the subject yet, Kerry told the Globe that he would support a proposed amendment to the state Constitution that would prohibit gay marrriage so long as, while outlawing gay marriage, it also ensured that same-sex couples have access to all legal rights that married couples receive.

Slightly better than Bush, but only slightly. While Bush doesn't support civil unions, he hasn't condemned them. So we're left with Bush wanting to amend the federal Constitution, and Kerry wanting states to amend their own individual constitutions. No, I'm not, and will not, support Bush. But the Democrats had better get their own house in order before pontificating about the evils of gays who work within the GOP.

A side observation: if more gays had worked within the GOP, Bush would have had reason to fear alienating us. Abandoning the GOP to the religious right simply ensures that only the religious right's concerns will be taken into consideration. Leaving aside Bush, who is now unsupportable, there is a greater need than ever for moderate, conservative, and libertarian-minded gays to work to reform the Republican party, at all levels.

Fair-Minded Conservatives Oppose Anti-Marriage Amendment.

From the NY Daily News:

Senate sources said Bush will have an even tougher time winning votes there, where maverick Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is an opponent. McCain believes states should handle the issue and that it isn't appropriate to change the Constitution.

From the NY Post:

Gov. Pataki, normally a loyal ally of President Bush, yesterday broke with him over gay marriage, saying he opposes a constitutional amendment to ban it. -- [Republican] Mayor Bloomberg came out against a constitutional amendment a day earlier.

Not Surrendering.

"Gay Conservatives Fight Bush on Wedding Vow" is an LA Times headline. It may be a long, hard fight, but it's one that must be made.

By the way, IGF's co-manaing editor Jonathan Rauch (who is neither a Republican nor a conservative) answered questions about gay marriage and politics Thursday in a live chat on the Washington Post's website. Here's the transcript.
Jon says:

My answer: go state by state. Marriage is a community-based institution and works best when communities are ready for it. That helps protect against unintended consequences, while recognizing gay unions. "

Most of the conservative arguments against[same-sex marriage] are really, on unpacking, arguments for it. -- Marriage is indeed a fundamental institution necessary for societal existence and well-being. That's why gay people should be included.

The whole transcript isn't long, and is well worth reading.

Much commentary today about President Bush's formal endorsement of the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment. Here's a sampling of two of the more interesting pieces.

From James Glassman, on the website of the conservative American Enterprise Institute:

"by supporting the FMA, the President is turning his back on conservative principles of federalism and limited government. Gay marriage arouses hot emotions on both sides. But there is a sensible solution, and it's being followed: Let each state decide on its own.

That is the view of Vice President Cheney. "Different states are likely to come to different conclusions," he said during the 2000 campaign, "and that's appropriate." "Many staunch Republicans agree with Cheney's approach. "I hold the Constitution in highest regard and I don't like to see it trifled with," says former Rep. Bob Barr. "I'm a firm believer in federalism. Even though I'm not an advocate for same-sex marriage, I want the states to decide the issue."

If the President is hunting for amendments, he might try one limiting federal spending".

"this divided country needs a compassionate conservative, not a cynic who panders to the meanest instincts.

And, from libertarian-minded, conservative-friendly columnist James Pinkerton, in Newsday:

The gay rush to the altar has been compared to earlier spontaneous political combustion, in which old rules go up in a sudden whoosh of smoke. "

But now George W. Bush is gearing up to support a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, backed by a solid majority of Americans. Well, here's a prediction: Such an amendment will never pass. Why? Because there are too many gays and lesbians living a conservative lifestyle, now aspiring to be even more conservative by getting legally hitched. And in the final analysis, the political establishment will not be hard-hearted enough to crush their legal and human rights.

There is a crying need in America for the leadership of a fiscally conservative, free-trade supporting, excessive-regulation restraining, tax limiting, entitlement reforming, strong-defense minded, internationally engaged, limited-government president. That does not describe George W. Bush, whose domestic spending has been fiscally profligate and who has made a habit of over-reaching into areas where the federal government has no business being.

But it's certainly not John Kerry, whose muddled foreign policy pronouncements sound like warmed over Jimmy Carterism, and who will certainly increase taxes and business regulation, block fiscally prudent entitlement reform, placate the trial lawyer lobby by nixing much needed tort reform (especially if Edwards is veep), and appoint the liberal version of intrusive government meddlers to positions of power throughout his administration. Pick your poisons.

These past few days, I can't help thinking of what the country, now torn apart with the ugliest partisan rancor in memory, might have been like if John McCain had managed to buck the GOP establishment four years ago and win against crazy Al Gore.

George W. Bush has now pushed the religious right's battle to ban and nullify gay marriages into the forefront of the 2004 presidential race. As Andrew Sullivan writes, he may have "succeeded in ensuring that almost no gay people will vote for or support the Republican party for a generation." I'd say that if enough congressional Republicans come to their senses and help derail the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment, there may still be hope for the party -- especially if the Democrats veer as far to the economic left as Bush is steering the GOP to the cultural right.

Nevertheless, the outpouring of emotion unleashed today rivals that felt back in 1986 when the Supreme Court's infamous Bowers v. Hardwick ruling upheld sodomy laws that made gay people a criminal class. It took 17 years to right that wrong. Hopefully, we can keep the FMA from defacing the Constitution and again making second-class citizenship for gays and lesbians the law of the land.

And I do think the odds are in our favor. While Americans don't support gay marriage, a majority think mucking with the U.S. Constitution to enshrine discrimination is beyond the pale. And the more they think about it, I believe, the more Bush's pandering to "the base" is going to seem like an extremist act. Bush II is repeating the "culture war" embrace that helped doom Bush I, and he's too limited a human being to see it.

I think the Log Cabin Republicans have struck the right chord. Their statement says:

As conservative Republicans, we are outraged that any Republican -- particularly the leader of our party and this nation -- would support any effort to use our sacred United States Constitution as a way of scoring political points in an election year.

We are disappointed that some Republicans leaders have abandoned the conservative principles on which this party was built. Liberty, equality and Federalism form the bedrock of Republican values. The President and some other leaders in our party have turned away from these principles to satisfy the radical right in an election year.

I guess it may take another presidential loss before the GOP learns that pandering to extremism is not a winning platform.

On a lighter note, here's a nice bit of parody of anti-gay marriage paranoia from The Indepundit's website.

Linguist Geoffrey Nunberg, writing in the Sunday NY Times Week in Review:

As more same-sex couples are married in religious or civil ceremonies, sentences like "Jane and June have been married for 15 years" are bound to become part of the linguistic wallpaper of the media in the same way "gay couple" has. "

At that point, we can talk about a genuine change in semantics -- though there certainly won't be anything "mere" about it. And sooner or later, the legal forms will inevitably follow suit.

There will certainly be painful legal and legislative setbacks ahead, but the gay euphoria that's been uncorked won't be so easy to rebottle.

Taking a Stand.

If you haven't yet read Dale Carpenter's newly posted column, it's worth taking a gander. Dale argues that pressure must be brought on both gay Democratic and Republican activists to make it clear to their party's candidates and office holders that a vote to ban gay marriages (and nullify those that have taken place) will mean no future support, ever again, no matter how "good" the politician is on other issues.

On the presidential level, the Log Cabin Republicans have given indications that if Bush formally endorses the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment, they won't back his re-election. Kerry is more problematic; if he supports amending state constitutions to ban gay marriages, and keeps fairly mum on the federal amendment (while having his gay liaison tell gay activists what they want to hear), what will liberal groups like the Human Rights Campaign do?

[Update: yes, of course, couldn't you guess - I wrote last night that it might be significant that Bush hadn't yet endorsed the FMA, and so a few hours later, he does. More later...]

Meanwhile, it's now been a few weeks since the Bush administration started leaking that the president would formally endorse the Federal Marriage Amendment, yet to the chagrin of the religious right he has, to date, failed to do so. He may make a formal announcement, perhaps imminently, but the delay has already caused consternation within the hard right, whose leaders were assured by Karl Rove (they say) that the president would both support and fight for the amendment. So what's going on? Could there be countering voices in the administration urging against the Rove strategy (Cheney? Laura?). One day, perhaps, we'll know.

Younger and moderate straight conservatives are far more ambivalent about gay marriage than you might suspect, writers Nick Schulz, editor of the Tech Central Station website and a former advisor to GOP stalwarts William Bennett and Jack Kemp. Comments Schulz:

While many [younger conservatives] think same-sex marriage is in some ways an incoherent notion, I haven't come across any who think that gay marriage will not at some point be permitted. What's more, many of them are not particularly distraught at the prospect. "

Lots of younger conservatives think of themselves as tolerant, freedom-loving and possessing metropolitan sensibilities; but they also revere tradition and aren't comfortable with needlessly monkeying around with old institutions. The issue of same-sex marriage sits atop the intersection of these values.

And many fair-minded conservatives are suspicious of the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) that would ban same-sex marriages and civil unions. Schulz notes that a possible compromise might be an alternate amendment that says "Nothing in this Constitution requires any state or the federal government to recognize anything other than the union of one man and one woman as a marriage," but which does not ban states or the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages, if they so choose. This, in fact, is a "lesser of possible evils" idea that's been floated by IGF's own Jonathan Rauch.

Of course, not fiddling at all with the Constitution as regards marriage is the optimal solution, but many are giving some thought to a less draconian marriage amendment that could be put forward as a means of derailing the noxious FMA, should it appear to be on track toward passage.

Sometimes It's Better to Keep Your Mouth Shut.

Bishop Thomas L. Dupre resigned last week as bishop of the Catholic Diocese of Springfield, Mass., after he "unwittingly unleashed the forces that led the California man and a Massachusetts man to come forward with [sexual abuse] allegations against him," reports the Boston Globe.

The California man came out as gay in the late 1980s, and was reading an account in a newspaper that circulates in the gay and lesbian community about how Dupre had taken a leading role in denouncing gay marriage, becoming furious at what he saw as Dupre's arrogance and hypocrisy, said [Roderick MacLeish Jr., a lawyer for the alleged victims]. "It is ironic that in his vociferous attack on gay marriage, Bishop Dupre may have in fact opened the door to the events that led to his resignation," MacLeish said.

Dupre could become the first American bishop to be prosecuted on charges of sexually abusing minors. Hoist by his own petard, as it were.

More Recent Postings

2/15/04 - 2/21/04

Yes, the threat of a backlash is real, and what's happening in San Francisco may turn out to be a "Prague Spring," forcibly put down and triggering a round of state repression far worse than what preceded it (i.e., passage of the noxious Federal Marriage Amendment). This is the view held by leading Democratic liberals, including Massachusetts' Congressman Barney Frank and California's two senators, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer.

But the 3,000-plus marriages performed in San Francisco are still awe-inspiring. From now on, when religious conservatives want to promote their marriage ban, they"ll be advocating using state power to nullify actual marriages (even if only recognized by the SF city government), and the thousands more to join them when Massachusetts starts issuing licenses in the spring (which will be recognized by the state government).

And there's already a snowball effect in evidence. As the New York Post reports:

In New Mexico, meanwhile, the Sandoval County clerk married a lesbian couple after announcing that the state had no legal grounds to refuse marriage licenses to gays. Other same-sex couples quickly began lining up to exchange vows.

And this week,
Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley said he would have "no problem" if Cook County allowed gay marriages. Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak has issued a proclamation in favor of treating gay couples the same as heterosexuals. Mayors in Salt Lake City and Plattsburgh, N.Y., also have expressed support for same-sex marriage.

Oh, and support was also expressed by Cambodia's King Norodom Sihanouk.

Awesome.

Lambda Legal has posted the brief filed by the City of San Francisco defending its granting of marriage licenses to same-sex couples (right-wing groups are asking a state court to issue an injunction to stop these marriages and invalidate those performed to date). The city's defense of its actions begins:

For centuries, indeed millennia, homosexual persons have been subjected to extreme and humiliating forms of discrimination in all aspects of their lives. The opprobrium directed against gay men and lesbians is a hatred that is based specifically and directly on the identity and gender of the persons they love. At the root of discrimination against homosexuals has always been the distinction between their intimate and personal relationships and the relationships of heterosexuals, which have over the same millennia been celebrated, recognized and supported in thousands of different ways.

As of now, state court judges have turned down the request to halt these marriages, but will hear further arguments next month.

The more weddings that are solemnized in San Francisco and later this year in Massachusetts, the more obvious it will become that the religious right, in demanding that these unions be nullified, is anything but "pro marriage."

When asked to comment on the hundreds of same-sex marriages being performed in San Francisco, President Bush had the following response, reports the Washington Post:

"I strongly believe that marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman," Bush said. "I am troubled by activist judges who are defining marriage. I have watched carefully what's happened in San Francisco, where licenses were being issued even though the law states otherwise. I have consistently stated that if -- I'll support law to protect marriage between a man and a woman. And obviously, these events are influencing my decision."

But, of course, in San Francisco it's the top elected official, Mayor Gavin Newsom, who ordered that the city begin issuing gender-neutral marriage licenses, not "activist judges." And the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment would, it's believed, nullify state marriage and domestic partner laws passed by legislatures and signed by governors (by prohibiting courts from enforcing these laws). So it's marriage opponents who are seeking to limit both states rights and the democratic process in these circumstances.

In Europe, it seems, both the gay left and the social right are supporting "marriage lite" in the form of civil unions or, in French, pacte civil de solidarit", for heterosexuals -- the left seeing this as an end-run around an oppressive institution, and the right seeing it as a way to avoid specifically sanctioning gay relationships.

As the New York Times reports:

A government proposal still being considered in Britain, for instance, would allow gay couples to register in civil partnerships that would give them inheritance and pension benefits, and next-of-kin rights in hospitals. But when the government announced its plan last summer, gay groups protested, saying that it discriminated against heterosexuals. "

The civil solidarity pacts in France, in fact, began as a way for gays to formalize their partnerships, but were broadened, when religious and conservative groups objected, to include heterosexuals.

Isn't it nice that the gay left and religious right can find something to agree on!

The Needs of the Party Trump Those of the Individual (Again).

From Tuesday's Wall Street Journal article, "Usually Fractious, Democrats Cut Kerry Some Slack" (sorry, no free link):

Gay and lesbian activists are preparing [to swing behind John Kerry] even though Mr. Kerry opposes gay marriage and hasn't taken a stand on a constitutional amendment to prohibit it in his home state. ...

"What the Democrats are saying is, we're not going to sweat the small stuff," explains Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the Black Caucus chairman. ...

Dean backer Elizabeth Birch, former executive director of the Human Rights Campaign Fund, [sic] predicts that Mr. Kerry would "receive tremendous support" from gays and lesbians despite his opposition to gay marriage. ...

Actually, as previously noted herein, Kerry has said he could back a state constitutional amendment if the right language can be found (that is, banning marriage but allowing lesser civil unions or domestic partnerships), while leaving it to his gay liaison to convey his opposition to a federal amendment. But why let such small stuff stand in the way of party unity?

Of course, gay Republicans who support Bush if/when he endorses a constitutional amendment would be in the same boat.

Am I guilty of holding Democrats to a somewhat higher standard than the GOP, in that both Bush and Kerry oppose gay marriage? Yes, in that Democrats campaign as the champions of gay rights. This gets them many, many gay votes that, based on issues such as the economy, social security reform, national security, etc. would otherwise go to the GOP, all things being equal. So I don't apologize for calling Democrats on the carpet for false advertising.