IGF CultureWatch

Some GOP strategists are urging the party to take up the religious right's banner and make opposition to gay marriage -- and support for a constitutional amendment banning government recognition of gay relationships -- into a major campaign issue, the Washington Post reports. I think the article overstates the likelihood of this, as Bush is well aware that the social right's "culture war" help undo his father's re-election. But if "activating the base" comes to be seen as crucial, it could happen. As they say, those who do not learn from history...

Social Security Reform: Good for Gays.

The Cato Institute's Social Security Project website explains how incorporating personal retirement accounts into Social Security would "create clear property rights for individuals in which they can bequeath contributions to their family members, regardless of state or federal legality of their union." Currently, only legal spouses can inherit your accumulated benefits, regardless of any civil union or domestic partnership relationship. Kudos to Cato for recognizing how reforming the system, which is fiercely opposed by most Democrats and liberal-left activists, would be a boon for gays.

Openly gay Detroit News columnist Deb Price explains why Schwarzenegger is good for Republicans, and good for gays. She writes:

The numbers are indeed telling. With little known about his views except that he is a fiscal conservative who supports abortion and gay rights, Schwarzenegger captured 50 percent of the votes of self-identified moderates, compared with 31 percent for Democratic Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante. "

A ballot box smash hit in California, Schwarzenegger is now a leading actor on the national political stage. If he follows his best instincts, he'll force both parties to rewrite their scripts.

Price, whose column is also syndicated, often hews close to the typical liberal-left gay advocate's worldview. But occasionally, as in this piece, she shows some welcome independence of mind.

For more views on the impact of the California election, take a look at our newly posted columns by Dale Carpenter and Paul Varnell!

If You Build It (High Ratings), They (Advertisers) Will Come.

Corporate America is now clamoring to secure product placements and endorsement deals with the producers of "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy," the NY Daily News reports. NBC and its Bravo cable network are now considering spinoffs as well. Quite a change from just a few years back when gay content routinely caused advertiser flight. But ratings speak louder than the religious right's ubiquitous, but toothless, product boycott threats. Yes, capitalist consumerism really is our ally!

A few weeks ago, IGF contributing author Andrew Sullivan wrote this piece
for the Wall Street Journal, taking conservatives to task for opposing gay participation in our society's "integrating" institutions, such as marriage, the military, etc. Among other questions, he asked:

On what grounds do conservatives believe that discouraging responsibility is a good thing for one group in society? What other legal minority do they or would they treat this way?

Last week, conservative David Frum responded, also in the Wall Street Journal.
You can read Frum's arguments for yourself but basically, as Sullivan and others have accurately noted, it is a nonresponse - conservatives of Frum's sort are fundamentally opposed not just to gay marriage, but to any form of domestic partnership recognition. They have nothing positive to say about integrating gay people more fully into society, because they would rather keep us permanently beyond the pale.

But you can't whistle down the wind, and the more the social right digs in its heels against changes that expand individual liberty (rather than focusing constructively on the many left-wing nostrums that expand intrusive government and constrict individual liberty), the more marginalized the social right will become.

Sullivan, by the way, also has an excellent op-ed in Sunday's New York Times about the Catholic Church's ongoing attacks against gay Catholics.

More Recent Postings

10/12/03 - 10/18/03

With much hoopla, Elizabeth Birch's 9-year tenure as head of the Washington-based Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest - and wealthiest - lesbigay lobby, is coming to an end. But all the accolades leave me uneasy. True, under Birch HRC grew substantially. But too many of the group's efforts seem to have been on behalf of itself: growing HRC's staff, improving HRC's employee benefits, and - most impressively - buying and renovating a big (and expensive) HRC headquarters building in D.C.

Despite all the cash raked in through swanky fund-raising dinners, what of the group's actual accomplishments? Their beloved Bill Clinton signed the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act, believing (correctly) that his gay supporters would swallow it without a murmur, and also signed legislation making "don't ask, don't tell" the military's policy, after raising too early - and then quickly dropping - support for ending the gay ban.

OK, there were symbolic gestures, such as Clinton's recognizing gay pride month and making a number of lower-level gay federal appointees as payback for gay support. But what of the Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), HRC's long-ballyhooed big goal? Even with a Democratic House and Senate during his first two years, Clinton and House-leader Dick Gephardt didn't move on it.

Before Birch, HRC had only made endorsements in congressional races. Under Birch, presidential politics became key, not only providing big support for Clinton, but endorsing Al Gore early in the primary season, well before the GOP had even settled on a candidate (which explains Al and Tipper's appearance at Birch's big farewell dinner). These moves made HRC seem more partisan, an adjunct of the Democratic National Committee, as it were. Moreover, in some years during Birch's tenure HRC's well-publicized candidates' "scorecards" took into account votes in favor of the federal government's racial-preference mandates and unrestricted government funding for abortions, among other not-so-gay issues.

Still, compared to the radical poseurs at the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, HRC was a model of moderation - not wacky leftists, just partisan Democrats with an extremely flimsy "nonpartisan" veneer.

Discrimination Against the Unwed.

This week's cover story in Business Week looks at "Unmarried America" and how the new demographics of the non-traditional family ("singletons" living alone, unmarried straight co-habitators, single parents, and gay couples) are changing America. The news peg:

The U.S. Census Bureau's newest numbers show that married-couple households -- the dominant cohort since the country's founding -- have slipped from nearly 80% in the 1950s to just 50.7% today. -- Also fueling the demographic change: More people are coming out of the closet and setting up same-sex households.

The unmarried, however, often find themselves getting the short end of the stick. They:

are often subjected to discrimination in housing and credit applications. They pay more for auto and homeowners' insurance" In the workplace, unmarried people wind up making an average 25% less than married colleagues for the same work because of the marriage-centric structure of health care, retirement, and other benefits".

As the reality of unmarried America sinks in, CEOs, politicians, and judges will be challenged to design benefits, structure taxes, and develop retirement models that more fairly match the changing population.

These include corporate domestic-partner benefits, which, however, are fully taxed under federal and state law (unlike spousal benefits). Business Week concludes: "No matter how the politics play out, the demographic convulsion is certain to cause a collective reexamination of what it means to be full-fledged members of society."

From this week's issue of Time magazine:

It's tempting to think there are two gay Americas, one frightened and one fabulous, a merely gay America and a fully Queer America. An America where the gay bars darken their windows to hide ashamed patrons, and an America where straight people stand in line to get into gay clubs. An America where the June 26 Supreme Court decision legalizing sodomy had more than symbolic consequences, since gay sex was still a crime in 13 states. And an America where instead of arresting gays, the police help clear the streets every June for pride parades, which of course include contingents of gay cops.

The article is "The New Face of Gay Power" by John Cloud, who takes a revealing look at what's happened in the state of Wyoming in the five years since Matthew Shepard's murder.

The Miami Herald takes a look at the so-called ex-gay movement and quotes Randy Thomas, communications director for Orlando-based Exodus International, the nation's leading ex-gay group. He's 35 and single, and says he is still a heterosexual virgin because:

"If I were sleeping with a woman, that would be as much sin as sleeping with a man," he said. "It is possible to live without an orgasm. You won't find a death certificate anywhere that says, 'Died of lack of orgasm.' "

Yes, it's another great success for the ex-gay movement!

An Option for Anti-Gay Episcopalians?

The Russian Orthodox Church has demolished a chapel where a priest conducted an unauthorized marriage ceremony between two men.

Another Republican Against the FMA.

The former head of the Nevada Republican Party speaks out against the proposed anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment.

More Recent Postings

10/05/03 - 10/11/03

Leave it to the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force to brag that "Gay, lesbian and bisexual people"were among the most ardent opponents of recalling Governor Gray Davis," as NGLTF put in a post-election press release. Here's a reality check: 42% of gay voters favored recalling Gray Davis, and some 32% of gays voted for Schwarzenegger (plus 4% for the other Republican, Tom McClintock). In a state that's overwhelmingly Democratic, Schwarzenegger and McClintock between them got 60% of the overall vote, including an unexpectedly high number of women, union members, and Hispanic voters. So what does NGLTF think it gains by claiming we're a steadfastly liberal-left voting bloc that's happy to be out of step with mainstream voters?

Skewed News.

The popular website gay.com delivers its own perspective on the news. The story "Rights Groups Hail Defeat Of Anti-Gay Prop" refers to California's Proposition 54, which would have barred the state from collecting racial data on individuals in most circumstances (it was conceived by Ward Connerly, an African-American business leader opposed to race-based preferences). Gay.com reports, however, that the measure was "anti-gay" since "It would have disproportionately affected lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people of color" ." By that logic, I suppose that tax increases are also "anti-gay" because they confiscate a higher proportion of LGBT taxpayers' income, but you won't see that argument on gay.com!

Also, gay.com's report on "How Gays Voted," which draws heavily on the NGLTF's press release, somehow fails to mention that 32% of the gay vote went to Arnold. Sadly, this type of bias is all too common in much of the gay media.

Arnold Schwarzenegger's capture of California's governorship creates the possibility that the GOP in the nation's most populous state could finally be wrestled free of the religious right's stranglehold. After all, social conservatives such as the Traditional Values Coalition spent big bucks trying to defeat Arnold (one TVC press release was titled "Schwarzenegger Candidacy Would 'Terminate'' Moral Leadership in California"). And Schwarzennegger was endorsed by the California Log Cabin Republicans, who noted the Terminator is on record supporting domestic partnerships and gay adoptions.

Incumbent Democrat Gray Davis came to be viewed as a politician who put liberal special interests groups -- government employee unions, the trial lawyers lobby, eco-extremists, minorities who want the rules everyone else follows bent in their favor (as in drivers licenses for illegal aliens) -- above the common good. As California spent itself into near bankruptcy on megagovernment, Davis kept signing into law burdensome new mandates and regulations on businesses, stalling economic growth and new job creation as the rest of the nation began to recover from the post-bubble recession.

Yet gay liberals gave their enthusiastic support to Davis, who signed pro-gay legislation -- including an expansion of domestic partners rights (probably more encompassing than a bill Schwarzenegger might have backed). Yet in the end, does it benefit gays to be seen as just one more group of special interest pleaders in the liberal-left's coalition? Could it be that a fiscally responsible centrist who is 80 percent behind our issues is ultimately better than an out-of-the-mainstream liberal who supports 95 percent of our agenda? These are long-term strategic questions that ought to be considered.

Here's the breakdown of the gay vote in California, via the Fox News exit poll. When asked, "Are you gay, lesbian, or bisexual?," 4% answered yes. Of these, 52% voted for Bustamante, 32% for Schwarzenegger, and 4% for McClintock.

Also of interest, the Fox News exit poll asked: "How do you feel about California's new law extending domestic partner rights for gays and lesbians?" Of all voters, 21% were enthusiastic; 32% were supportive but not enthusiastic; 29% were opposed but not angry; and 13% were angry (5% didn't answer). Even of those who voted for Schwarzenegger, 34% were either supportive or enthusiastic. These numbers certainly dent the social conservatives' rhetoric about same-sex spousal rights being forced on an unwilling populace!

Andrew Sullivan has penned an excellent column, originally published in the Wall Street Journal, taking American conservatives to task for their un-conservative opposition to gay participation in "integrating social institutions." Sullivan asks:

If two lesbian women want to share financial responsibility for each other for life, why is it a conservative notion to prevent this? If two men who have lived together for decades want the ability to protect their joint possessions in case one of them dies, why is it a conservative notion that such property be denied the spouse in favor of others? ...

In all these cases, you have legal citizens trying to take responsibility for one another. By doing so, by setting up relationships that do the "husbanding" work of family, such couples relieve the state of the job of caring for single people without family support. Such couplings help bring emotional calm to the people involved; they educate people into the mundane tasks of social responsibility and mutual caring. When did it become a socially conservative idea that these constructive, humane instincts remain a threat to society as a whole?

We know that the theocratic "wingnuts" will never be convinced, but mainstream conservatives are going to have to grapple with these issues sooner or later.

Marriage Wars.

Yes, it's disappointing that the Bush administration issued an official declaration proclaiming October 12-18 as "Marriage Protection Week." Right-wing religious groups that oppose gay marriage -- and support the proposed anti-gay Federal Marriage Act (FMA) -- cooked up the idea for Marriage Protection Week in order to mobilize their minions to lobby Congress in support of the FMA. But the text of the White House proclamation never mentions the FMA. It's intent is to once more placate the religious right on the cheap, without doing anything concrete that could seem too intolerant (read "anti-gay"). So while the proclamation declares that

"Marriage Protection Week provides an opportunity to focus our efforts on preserving the sanctity of marriage and on building strong and healthy marriages in America"

and Bush calls on all Americans to "join me in expressing support for the institution of marriage," it also states that

"we must continue our work to create a compassionate, welcoming society, where all people are treated with dignity and respect."

No doubt, the proclamation adds legitimacy to those groups fighting against gay marriage, but it also must be disappointing to them that it fails to directly mention, much less endorse the FMA, and even repeats language Bush has used previously to separate himself from the virulent anti-gay rhetoric of the religious right -- which clearly doesn't "welcome" gay people into society, or believe we should be treated with "dignity and respect."

But, of course, Bush can't have it both ways. And his call to welcome all (read "gays") into society while denying us the right to society's bedrock institution -- marriage -- is an internal contradiction too vast to smooth over.

Nevertheless, the rhetorical response to the proclamation by activist groups such as the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force is way over the top. NGLTF terms Bush's proclamation "shocking and appalling" and Marriage Protection Week a "weapon of mass discrimination and fear-mongering" that aims to "demonize and defame gay people and our families." The President is "catering to wealthy and politically power organizations intent on permanently relating a minority to second class citizenship." NGLTF's statement ends with a call to "stand beside gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender America in this terrible and frightening time."

One thing is clear: both sides in the marriage wars are eagerly engaged in "fear-mongering" aimed at keeping their donors blood pressure up -- and their wallets open.

Split Decision.

American public opinion is now split nearly evenly on gay marriages, according to
a new USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll. It found that 48% say "allowing two people of the same sex to legally marry will change our society for the worse," while 50% say it would either have no effect or be an improvement. These stats aren't encouraging to those who'd like to amend the Constitution to ban gays from marrying or otherwise receiving the legal benefits of marriage.

More Recent Postings

09/28/03 - 10/04/03