IGF CultureWatch

Bravo to the Lambda Legal Defense Fund, the ACLU, and the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network for petitioning the military's highest court to strike down a law from the Uniform Code of Military Justice that makes private, consensual sodomy a crime -- and one subject to stricter penalties than many violent assaults.

Congress could, of course, revise the military sodomy prohibition, known as Article 125, but has refused to do so. According to Lambda Legal's website:

In 2001, a blue ribbon panel chaired by Judge Walter T. Cox III was tasked to review the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on its fiftieth anniversary. Calling military sodomy prosecutions "arbitrary, even vindictive," the Cox Commission recommended that Congress repeal Article 125 and replace it with a statute governing sexual abuse similar to laws adopted by many states and in Title 18 of the United States Code. Congress has not acted on the Commission's recommendations and the law remains in effect.

Overturning Article 125 won't end the military's "don't ask, don't tell" (or "lie and hide") policy and the risk of discharge if the military learns you're gay. But it would lessen the real danger of prosecution that closeted gays in the military still face while serving their country.

Dualing Marriage Weeks Planned.

The anti-gay Family Research Council and its cohorts (the Traditional Values Coalition, Concerned Women for America, etc.) are planning to make opposition to gay marriage "the issue of 2004," according to the FRC's website.
The groups have declared October 12-18 to be "Marriage Protection Week," dedicated to mobilizing their grassroots to lobby Congress.

In response, the Metropolitan Community Church is trying to organize a "Marriage Equality Week" campaign during the same week. But in terms of coordination and mobilization, the anti-gays seem to be way ahead of the game.

It's now crystal clear that opposition to gay marriage will be the animating issues for the religious right during the decade ahead, replacing even opposition to abortion.

The Locker Room Closet.

If you haven't read Boston Hearld sports writer Ed Gray's coming out column, you should. The locker rooms of professional sports will likely be one of the last bastions of homophobia to fall.

The Sept. 25 Harvard Crimson reports that the university's very inclusive Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian Transgender and Supporters Alliance (BGLTSA) is being challenged by an upstart Queer Resistance Front, which criticizes the BGLTSA not for being a ridiculously unpronounceable collection of mostly consonants, but for selling out to the mainstream. According to the Crimson's story, the QRF "plans to protest events promoting conservative anti-queer politics, as well as BGLTSA events promoting what QRF organizers describe as mainstream gay politics." The group's organizers desire "not to be included within social categories, but rather to work to disrupt those categories through which social power operates." Ah, America's privileged youth at play.

Whose Loyalty Is Worth Rewarding?

Log Cabin California has endorsed Arnold Schwarzenegger for governor, which is appropriate, since the Terminator is not only supportive on gay issues but also the only GOP candidate with any chance of winning. Meanwhile, the anti-gay Traditional Values Coalition has gone all out with a million dollar ad campaign attacking Schwarzennegger, preferring once again to lose the election to the Democrats rather than see a centrist Republican win. Maybe its time that the national GOP rethink its view that religious rightists are a constituency they need to placate at all costs.

More Recent Postings

09/21/03 - 09/27/03

Here's a lesson from the Netherlands about incrementalism. Frida Ghitis writes in the Chicago Tribune that the Dutch first established registered same-sex partnerships as a separate institution conferring some spousal rights. Then, after folks became comfortable with the concept, they took the logical step and integrated gays into mainstream marriage. She writes:

Arriving at gay marriage required a long and arduous 16-year trek through the jungles of public opinion, parliamentary politics, the Dutch courts and, surprisingly, a reluctant gay community. "

[Activists] gradually persuaded municipalities to allow registries of committed gay couples, and enlisted the agreement of corporations, such as the Dutch airline KLM, to recognize the registries for the purpose of employee benefits. After 1998, gay couples were allowed to make their relationships official through a national system of registered partnerships that assigned rights and responsibilities almost identical to those of marriage. At last, in 2001, the law was changed so gays had identical marriage rights as straight couples.

Specifically, on April 1, 2001, Amsterdam's Mayor Job Cohen performed

the first fully government-sanctioned same-sex marriages in the world. They were not registered partnerships, civil unions or any other political concoction cooked up to resemble a normal marriage. These marriages were 100 percent identical to the ones joining married heterosexual couples in the Netherlands.

Could it be that rather than a "separate but unequal" copout, civil unions are a smart, pragmatic step that brings us closer to where we want to be, without fostering a hugely reactionary backlash?

Biting the Hand that Feeds Them.

A group of law schools, professors and students is suing the Department of Defense over the government's requirement that law schools receiving federal funding allow military recruiters on campus, the Washington Times reports. At issue is not only opposition to the military's ban on openly gay men and women in the armed services, but, I believe, a more general left-liberal hostility toward the armed forces. I'm 100% against the gay ban, which stupidly destroys what would otherwise be many fine military careers. But trying to stop military recruitment while we're fighting a war on terror is even stupider, as is the belief that institutions are somehow entitled to federal funding and, at the same time, to discriminate against the federal government.

NGLFT-gate.

The Washington Blade reports on NGLTF leader Matt Foreman's silence regarding gay marriage during his speech at the 40th anniversary civil rights rally in Washington -- and quotes IGF contributing author Dale Carpenter and, briefly, me.

More Recent Postings

09/07/03 - 09/13/03

Popular lesbian cartoonist Alison "Dykes To Watch Out For" Bechdel shares this bit of reflection in the Sept. issue of Lesbian News:

"Our unelected president is campaigning for Arnold Schwarzenegger and driving the whole planet over a cliff with his insane, extremist policies. That's what motivates me to write the strip now. In fact, if I didn't have this outlet, I would probably implode from horror and disbelief."

What's so depressing about this hyperbole is that her view is shared by so many on the lesbigay left (and the left in general). The need to demonize their opponents -- as if W. were Hitler -- rather than, say, debating the merits of intervening to overthrow foreign mass murderers, is nothing less than shocking. But if you believe that your side is the repository of all that is "progressive," then the fact that America elected a president who doesn't back your politics -- and whose election is an affront to your self-identity as the ordained vanguard -- leads to this sort of lunacy. And yes, we elect our president via the Electoral College to protect the principle of federalism, and not by a simple plurality. And the Supreme Court gets to decide procedures when a race is truly too close to call.

But why let the Constitution stand in the way of the one right, true, and progressive agenda? After all, the purity of sheer political loathing trumps any need for reason, doesn't it? Once again, the gay left mirrors its counterparts on the religious right (one can imagine them debating why "my hatred is morally superior to your hatred!").

Freedom Is Better.

Reuters reports on Palestinian Gay Runaways fleeing to Israel. It's something you'd think would give pause to the anti-America/anti-Israel "queer" activist crowd (yes, Western Civ. actually is better for gay people).

California: Betwixt Left and Right.

It's good that California's liberal legislature passed a bill, which embattled governor Gray Davis has now signed, giving gay and lesbian couples who register as domestic partners many of the rights and responsibilities of married heterosexuals. According to the AP:

It gives same-sex couples control over their community property and funeral arrangements, and requires them to pay child support if the partnership is dissolved. Some Republicans in the state legislature say the measure undermines marriage and is another example of Davis's pandering to liberal Democrats.

It's not marriage; it's not even "civil unions." But it's still a move toward equal treatment under the law. Unfortunatley, the same liberal legislators have bankrupted California with their special interest spending bills, passed onerous over-regulation on just about everything, and kow-towed to the government unions and trial lawyers to such an extent that business is, quite understandably, fleeing the state for greener pastures.

Thus the dilemma facing gay moderates when confronted with a GOP dominated by social conservatives and a Democratic party controlled by proponents of megagovernment, when there's no socially libertarian, fiscally prudent alternative (although, arguably, California now may, thanks to Arnold, have a centrist option).

But choosing between the two parties in these circumstances is not easy, and well-intentioned people will come to different conclusions about how to vote. Life truly isn't all black or white, despite the dogmatic certainty of those on both the left and the right of the spectrum.
--Stephen H. Miller

UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, who blogs "The Volokh Conspiracy," along with several other pro-federalist law scholars submitted this letter to the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, in opposition to the proposed anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment. Among the excellent points the scholars raised:

there is no need to federalize the definition of marriage. If Oregonians, for instance, choose to define marriage more broadly than citizens of other states do, there's no reason for the federal government to step in. (Nor is such a sweeping amendment necessary to satisfy the narrow goal of letting each state choose whether to recognize out-of-state homosexual marriages. There's no need to impose a one-size-fits-all solution on the whole nation, either by banning all homosexual marriages, or requiring them to be recognized throughout the country.)

Moreover, if marriage is federalized, this will set a precedent for additional federal intrusions into state power.

Honest conservatives should take this federalist argument seriously. Of course, many on the liberal-left side of the spectrum like to impose their own "one size fits all" solutions on the country, and have often done so, making it difficult for them to now stand against the Federal Marriage Amendment on federalist grounds. That's why getting authentic conservatives to publicly argue the federalist case is so important.

More Recent Postings

09/07/03 - 09/13/03

As previously noted, the head of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force chose to remain silent about gay marriage when he spoke at the 40th anniversary civil rights rally in Washington. NGLTF was apparently not bothered that the event's official platform, representing the views of leading civil rights organizations, failed to support same-sex marriage -- or even to oppose the proposed anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment.

So, just what is NGLTF busy lobbying for these days? Why, support for every element of the civil rights establishment's agenda, no matter how controversial -- including race-based preferences as government policy.

This week, NGLTF announced it was stepping up its efforts to defeat a California ballot initiative that would prevent the state from classifying any person by race, ethnicity, color, or national origin (with certain exemptions). Specifically, NGLTF is

"intensifying its field efforts in California to assist in the defeat of Proposition 54. The Task Force has identified Ward Connerley's Proposition 54 as dangerous and racist..."

Ward Connerley, by the way, is an African-American business leader who is opposed to preferential treatment based on race (which, in NGLTF's view, makes him a "racist").

Proposition 54 may or may not be good policy, but is it something NGLTF should take a stand on, right after the group refused to confront the civil rights establishment over its lack of support for gay marriage?

A Washington Post story on the beginning of classes at New York's Harvey Milk High School demonstrates why the first public school for gay youth is needed -- despite the criticism that it's a "segregated" approach to protecting gay kids (as voiced in some articles posted on this site). As David Mensah, head of an advocacy group for gay youth, tells the Post: "There could and must be more efforts to ensure the safety and security of all children within the community, but while we are working on that, there have to be solutions for those kids who are being victimized today." The enrolled students represent a tiny fraction of gay students in the New York public school system -- but these are the "nonconforming kids" who are particularly at risk.

The Post also quotes Dino Portalatin, a student who rarely went to classes at his old school, feeling he'd be "better off dead than having to deal with the constant harassment and fights." After transferring to the Harvey Milk program that was a precursor to the new school, he not only graduated on time but was class valedictorian. "If not for Harvey Milk I'm sure I'd either be dead or working some burger-flipping job," he said.

While I prefer privatization and choice in education to government approaches, sometimes we have to deal with the solutions that are presently available. Of course, creating a safe environment for all gay kids trapped in government schools should be the goal. But in the meantime the answer isn't to adhere slavishly to the "separate but equal is not equal" line and thus keep the most at-risk kids stuck in public high-school hell until some massive sensitivity training can be administered by education bureaucrats and the unionized, can't-ever-fire-'em teachers' corps. That, frankly, is pie-in-the-sky idealism. So I'm for a real-politik, modestly government-funded approach that can be put into place here and now for those most in need.

A lesbian couple charges that O'Hara Catholic School in Eugene, Oregon, refused to admit their 4-year-old daughter because of their sexual orientation. According to the AP, the couple has complained to the Eugene Human Rights Commission and the Oregon Child Care Division. One of the women, Lee Inkmann, said O'Hara Principal Dianne Bert told her in mid-August that having a family with two mothers at the school would confuse other children and that gay unions are in conflict with Vatican teachings.

This story is disturbing, but not for the obvious reasons. As much as we may disagree with the Vatican's anti-gay stance, the Church has a right to determine its own policies and to have those views reflected in the private schools it runs. If we want to demand that the wall separating church and state be respected so as to prevent religious doctrine from becoming government policy, then we must recognize that religious institutions also have a right to assert their own teachings free from government interference. Aside from the public (government) school system, there must be many private schools that would have been happy to accept this child. So why not go to the local Montessori school, for instance, rather than turning to the government to force the Church to accept a child from a home that obviously doesn't adhere to Church beliefs?

This is the kind of overreach that fuels the fires of the religious right, where the case is already heating up websites.

More Recent Postings

08/31/03 - 09/6/03

A hearing was held Thursday before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution. The topic: "What is Needed to Defend the Bipartisan Defense of Marriage Act of 1996?" (click to see the testimony transcripts). IGF contributing author and Univ. of Minnesota law professor Dale Carpenter explained why amending the Constitution to forbid states from granting legal recognition to same-sex relationships is not such a good idea. He testified:

The solemn task of amending the nation's fundamental law should be reserved for actual problems.

Never before in the history of the country have we amended the Constitution in response to a threatened (or actual) state court decision. Never before have we adopted a constitutional amendment to limit the states' ability to control their own family law. Never before have we dictated to states what their own state laws and state constitution mean. Never before have we amended the Constitution to restrict the ability of the democratic process to expand individual rights. This is no time to start"

Also testifying against the proposed amendment was Keith Bradkowski, whose partner of 11 years was a flight attendant on the first plane to be crashed into the World Trade Center on 9/11. His moving testimony put a human face on the issues.

Reports are that the hearing was surprisingly even-handed and not the homophobic circus many had feared. Quite possibly, it was held to placate the anti-gay right rather than to give the amendment a real push. The subcommittee's chairman, Sen. John Cormyn, is a Bush loyalist. Had he not called the hearing, it's very likely someone else, with more demagogic intentions, would have claimed jurisdiction and done so.

But gays on the left can't see the balancing act that the administration is engaged in, and simplistically tell their followers that Bush and the entire GOP are pushing a hardcore anti-gay agenda.

A related item: In this op-ed from Friday's Washington Post, former GOP Senator Alan Simpson takes aim at conservatives who support the proposed anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment. He writes:

That people of goodwill would disagree was something our Founders fully understood when they created our federal system. They saw that contentious social issues would best be handled in the legislatures of the states, where debates could be held closest to home. That's why we should let the states decide how best to define and recognize any legally sanctioned unions -- marriage or otherwise.

As someone who is basically a conservative, I see not an argument about banning marriage or "defending" families but rather a power grab. Conservatives argue vehemently about federal usurpation of other issues best left to the states, such as abortion or gun control. Why would they elevate this one to the federal level?

A good question, indeed!

The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution is scheduled to hold a hearing on Thursday, September 4. The topic: whether the Defense of Marriage Act, passed by Congress in 1996 and signed into law by President Bill Clinton, is sufficient to block gay marriages, or whether amending the Constitution is necessary.

Given the hysteria on the right over this issue, it's nice to see a few more conservatives coming out against the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment. For example, writing in the Washington Times, Bruce Fein argues:

Conservatives should squelch a rash constitutional amendment...to prohibit states from recognizing homosexual marriages and thus place the issue off-limits for popular democratic discourse. The amendment would enervate self-government, confound the cultural sacralization of traditional marriage and child-rearing, and clutter the Constitution with a nonessential.

Readers of this blog will know that many "queer" lefties also lack enthusiasm for marriage equality, while their straight coalition allies have been largely silent. Richard Goldstein, who is certainly no friend of IGF, takes issue with his side's reluctance in a Village Voice piece titled "The Radical Case for Gay Marriage." He observes:

There's been no crush of Hollywood celebs at fundraisers for this cause. The radical cadres that march against globalization and war haven't agitated for marriage rights. "There is virtually no opposition from progressive groups," says Evan Wolfson of the advocacy group Freedom to Marry. "The problem is a failure to speak out and get involved." From a movement noted for its passion about social justice, this lack of ardor demands to be addressed.

But, of course, Goldstein is hoping gay marriage will radicalize the institution and pave the wave for legal recognition for all manner of unions -- which is what the rightwingers fear most. Once again, the gay left mirrors the religious right.

This New York Times article by Clifford Krauss on the ambivalence of some Canadian gays toward their recently achieved ability to wed has been generating comment. Krauss reports:

In Canada, conservative commentators worry aloud that gay marriage will undermine society, but many gays express the fear that it will undermine their notions of who they are. They say they want to maintain the unique aspects of their culture and their place at the edge of social change.

It is a debate that pits those who celebrate a separate and flamboyant way of life as part of a counterculture against those who long for acceptance into the mainstream. So heated is the conversation that some gay Canadians said in interviews that they would not bring up the topic at dinner parties.

You know what, nobody is going to force anyone to get hitched. It's a matter of the legal option to wed, for those who wish to do so. Why is that so threatening to the "anti-assimilationists" of the left and the social conservatives of the right?

The Times article also presents this tempered critque of gays against gay marriage:

"It's the vestiges of a culture of victimization, of a culture that's tied to being in a ghetto," said Enrique Lopez, 38, an investment banker who has been in a steady relationship for two years but says he is not ready to marry. "The vast majority want to live innocuous, boring lives, and the option of marriage is part of that dream."

I'll give the last word to marriage activist Evan Wolfson, who wrote recently in the NY Daily News:

Threat to marriage? How does a loving couple taking on a commitment suddenly become a threat because the couple is gay?

Which is a viewpoint both the religious right and gay left might well ponder.