IGF CultureWatch

Reading his op-ed published in the Philadelphia Gay News and elsewhere, you'd think that National Gay & Lesbian Task Force head Matt Foreman was serious when he says:

First and foremost, everyone in the community, no matter where he or she is on marriage -- for, against, don't know or don't care -- must unite to fight the backlash. If we do not, we will lose. Period.

Second, because we cannot win this by ourselves, each of us must speak openly and directly to our families, friends, neighbors and co-workers.

Which raises, again, Foreman's decision to remain utterly silent on the marriage question last month when he took the podium at the 40th anniversary civil rights rally in front of the Lincoln Memorial, presumably out of deference to anti-gay black church leaders whose support he covets for NGLTF's broader left-liberal, big-government, income-redistributing agenda. (For more, see Rick Rosendall's column, "A March in the Wrong Direction," on this site.)

Throwing Stones at Arnold.

The San Francisco Chronicle's
story about Arnold Schwarzenegger's 25-year old interview with the long-defunct "Oui" magazine shows gay activists of the left once again joined at the hip with their opposites in the religious right, who are also making hay over the interview. The Chronicle buries Schwarzenegger's full comments, which included a strong statement against stereotyping gays, while repeating the business over his long-ago sexcapades.

The paper quotes the big guy and provides responses as follows:

he referred to gay people as "fags," saying, "I have absolutely no hang-ups about the fag business; though it may bother some bodybuilders, it doesn't affect me at all." "

"I think he's got a problem, bordering on a fixation" about gays, said Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco.

Michael Andraychak, president of Los Angeles' Stonewall Democratic Club, which opposes the recall, called on the actor to apologize, saying gays react to "fag" much as African Americans react to "the n-- word." "

Toni Broaddus, program director for Equality California, the statewide gay-rights group, said she was troubled by Schwarzenegger's description of group sex in the gym. "

Who knew that "queer" would become politically acceptable (at least among "progressives") but that "fags" would remain verboten? Or that gym sex would become a target of the lesbigay left?

What the young Schwarzenegger actually said, speaking in a language not his own, was this:

Asked whether he was "freaked out" by being in such close contact with guys at the gym, Schwarzenegger said, "Men shouldn't feel like fags just because they want to have nice-looking bodies...Gay people are fighting the same kind of stereotyping that bodybuilders are: People have certain misconceptions about them just as they do about us. Well, I have absolutely no hang-ups about the fag business..."

We report, you decide.

More Recent Postings

08/24/03 - 08/30/03

An openly gay bishop is "The Last Straw," causing true believers to leave the liberal, secularized Episcopal church in disgust, declares Rev. Peter Mullen, the Anglican chaplain to the London Stock Exchange, writing in the Aug. 26th Wall Street Journal (online to WSJ subscribers only). He sermonizes:

Homosexual bishops? How long before we see pedophile bishops, necrophile Deans of Cathedrals and cannibalistic Archdeacons?

Nice, huh. The sooner these bigots splinter off, the better.

Not the Marrying Kind.

Gay historian James T. Sears has a column in the Washington Blade asking why gays would want to get married. His viewpoint is sexual liberationist, which is somewhat different from the feminist, anti-patriarchy/anti-marriage camp (and a bit more fun to read). He writes:

In our post-Stonewall struggle, we (particularly many gay leaders) have entered a Faustian bargain trading equal rights with heterosexuals in lieu of sexual liberation for all".[D]id those of us in the Stonewall generation riot to appear in the New York Times "Weddings/Celebrations"?

And he approvingly quotes from an early gay activist:

Harold Call, a prominent leader in the Mattachine Society, observed near the end of his life, "We are still operating under the anti-sexual taboo," he said. "The Puritan idea is Thou Shalt Not Feel Good. Unless you are miserable, overworked and under-f***ed you"re not really a productive member of the society."

But the vision of the endless orgasm will forever remain elusive (cf. Dr. Freud's "Civilization and Its Discontents"). Overwhelming, gays and lesbians want the right to marry and lead bourgeois lives, even if they don't choose to exercise that right -- at least while they're young and randy. And society benefits from the stability that spousal relationships tend to provide (which is the seed of truth that gives force to the pro-family camp's otherwise noxious propaganda about sexual anarchy). Sorry, but it's time to grow up, Peter Pan.

I'm not criticizing those who reject coupling up for themselves; it's certainly not best for everyone. But I'm critical of those who think it's not best for anyone.

IGF contributing author Richard J. Rosendall watched last weekend's rally at the Lincoln Memorial marking the 40th anniversary Dr. King's 1963 March on Washington for civil rights. He reports that neither of the gay activists who spoke -- Matt Foreman of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, and Mandy Carter of Southerners on New Ground -- mentioned the fight to gain equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians, or efforts to build a coalition to oppose the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment. Their silence was presumably in deference to the rally organizers, who also chose to say nothing on the marriage rights question so as not to give offense to anti-gay black religious leaders.

Says Rick:

"Our relationships" was the closest Foreman came to mentioning marriage. It would have been comical if he had been explicit about how those awful Republicans are attacking gay marriage rights, as he stood a few feet from Walter Fauntroy, the favorite front man for the anti-gay Alliance for Marriage. How convenient for Foreman that it's all a simple partisan matter, and how pathetic that this would be seen by anyone as a serious voice of gay activism.

We'll be posting Rick's upcoming column on the rally shortly.

More Recent Postings

08/17/03 - 08/23/03

Monday morning NPR reported (in roughly these words): "After the Lawrence decision, gay marriage has become a hot issue. Jerry Falwell has started a website to gather 1 million signatures against gay marriage. His site is www.onemanonewoman.org."

What's the point of making taxpayers pay for a left-wing radio network if it's going to shill for Jerry Falwell? Maybe it's budget time on Capitol Hill, and they have to show some balance.

Winning the Culture Wars.

From theagitator.com:

More Evidence that Conservatives have Well and Truly Lost the Culture War.

So I was channel-surfing last night and ran across the TBS Superstation Family Movie Night.

The movie? Victor/Victoria. I rest my case.

In response to this, someone else commented that they had recently seen the gay-themed movie "The Object of My Affection" run on another "family" channel. That, as they say, is progress.

Jesus Would Weep.

Sometimes it's revealing to see just how extreme anti-gay bigots in respectable places can be. A case in point is a sermon by the Rev. Steven R. Randall at St. Timothy's Episcopal Church in Catonsville, MD. As reprinted in the conservative Washington Times, the good reverend compares his fellow Episcopalians who support gay inclusion with the terrorists who destroyed the World Trade Center and took thousands of lives. From the pulpit, he intoned:

Like many of you, I feel like our church has been hijacked by misguided and in some cases evil terrorists. And like those planes of [September 11], our church is being used to destroy not only those inside in the name of some false god, but to destroy the lives of others, outside the church"

We've all seen the headlines of papers everywhere stating that the Episcopal Church voted to ordain an openly homosexual man... After that, the Episcopal Church actively supports the blessings of same-sex "marriages" as if they were holy and good and something from God. "

The current Episcopal Church will carry more people to hell than it will save. Our church is like a flying coffin.

Clearly, there is a Church of Love and a Church of Hate. It's pretty clear which church anti-gay Episcopalians like this jackbooted cleric belong to.

Recent Postings

08/10/03 - 08/16/03

There's an important op-ed in Thursday's Washington Post by former Congressman Bob Barr of Georgia -- the author of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. It's titled Leave Marriage To the States. In the battle against efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution to deny same-sex couples any and all the civil benefits of marriage, Bob Barr has turned out to be an unexpected ally.

Barr, in fact, was something of a conservative libertarian suspicious of federal overreaching. He writes in his op-ed:

Make no mistake, I do not support same-sex marriages. But I also am a firm believer that the Constitution is no place for forcing social policies on states, especially in this case, where states must have the latitude to do as their citizens see fit.

However Barr's Defense of Marriage Act -- barring (as it were) the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages even if legally valid at the state level (as none were, or are, to date) -- was rightly seen among gays as an unfair denial of federal benefits such as a deceased spouse's Social Security, or tax-free inheritance of a spouse's estate. The overall effect was to treat our relationships as permanently "second class."

But the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) is far worse, wiping out even state-level civil benefits for gay couples. You take your allies where you find them, and Barr's public opposition to the FMA should be welcomed and used.

Washington Post columnist Colbert I. King notes that some of the African Anglicans so vehemently opposed to blessing committed gay couples and ordaining openly gay bishops (and with whom anti-gay Episcopalians are now aligned) have defended polygamy in their own neck of the woods, arguing the need to show respect for African culture. Moreover, the Church of England mother church has an heir apparent to the pivotal role of "Defender of the Faith" who is an avowed adulterer (Prince Charles, of course). But gay couples and gay bishops are somehow beyond the pale.

The Empire Strikes Back.

Yes, the religious right is making its top priority passage of an anti-gay constitutional amendment to ban not only same-sex marriage but also same-sex civil unions, the Washington Post reports.The effort is led by "Christian family groups" such as James Dobson's Focus on the Family, which has more than 1,300 employees -- including 150 people who answer more than 15,000 calls and letters daily.

Coalition Politics (1).

New York Democratic State Senator Ruben Diaz Sr. of the Bronx has filed a lawsuit to block funding for New York City's Harvey Milk High School for gay (lesbian, bisexual, transgender ") students, reports the New York Times. Diaz claims the school discriminates against heterosexuals and takes money away from black and Hispanic students at other public schools.

Coalition Politics (2).

The big Aug. 23 rally at the Lincoln Memorial to commemorate the 1963 civil rights march on Washington led by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. has adopted a platform that endorses the federal Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and a federal hate crimes law, but is silent on supporting same-sex marriage rights or opposing the proposed anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment. "This is a coalition march for jobs, peace and freedom," Atlanta gay activist Lynn Cothren told the Washington Blade. "This is not a gay march, although we've had involvement at every level."

But considering that past gay marches on Washington have devoted seemingly unlimited space to endorsing all aspects of the civil rights "social justice" agenda, including such un-gay related issues as support for race-based preferential treatment and opposition to welfare reform, might our national gay lobbies have expected just a wee bit more from the civil rights establishment in return?

Recent Postings

08/10/03 - 08/16/03

Washington Post columnist Colbert I. King notes that some of the African Anglicans so vehemently opposed to blessing committed gay couples and ordaining openly gay bishops (and with whom anti-gay Episcopalians are now aligned) have defended polygamy in their own neck of the woods, arguing the need to show respect for African culture. Moreover, the Church of England mother church has an heir apparent to the pivotal role of "Defender of the Faith" who is an avowed adulterer (Prince Charles, of course). But gay couples and gay bishops are somehow beyond the pale.

The Empire Strikes Back.

Yes, the religious right is making its top priority passage of an anti-gay constitutional amendment to ban not only same-sex marriage but also same-sex civil unions, the Washington Post reports.The effort is led by "Christian family groups" such as James Dobson's Focus on the Family, which has more than 1,300 employees -- including 150 people who answer more than 15,000 calls and letters daily.

Coalition Politics (1).

New York Democratic State Senator Ruben Diaz Sr. of the Bronx has filed a lawsuit to block funding for New York City's Harvey Milk High School for gay (lesbian, bisexual, transgender ") students, reports the New York Times. Diaz claims the school discriminates against heterosexuals and takes money away from black and Hispanic students at other public schools.

Coalition Politics (2).

The big Aug. 23 rally at the Lincoln Memorial to commemorate the 1963 civil rights march on Washington led by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. has adopted a platform that endorses the federal Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and a federal hate crimes law, but is silent on supporting same-sex marriage rights or opposing the proposed anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment. "This is a coalition march for jobs, peace and freedom," Atlanta gay activist Lynn Cothren told the Washington Blade. "This is not a gay march, although we've had involvement at every level."

But considering that past gay marches on Washington have devoted seemingly unlimited space to endorsing all aspects of the civil rights "social justice" agenda, including such un-gay related issues as support for race-based preferential treatment and opposition to welfare reform, might our national gay lobbies have expected just a wee bit more from the civil rights establishment in return?

August 14, 2003

The Marriage Backlash

Why we must tread carefully at this historic juncture. According to a new Washington Post poll:

public acceptance of same-sex civil unions is falling. Fewer than 4 in 10 -- 37% -- of all Americans say they would support a law allowing gay men and lesbians to form civil unions that would provide some of the rights and legal protections of marriage.

That is a precipitous, 12-point drop in support found in a Gallup Organization survey that posed the question in identical terms in May, before the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Texas law against sodomy and Justice Antonin Scalia argued in his dissent that the court was on a slippery slope toward legalizing gay marriage.

The number opposing religious ceremonies blessing same-sex couples is even greater, with three out of four against us. How strongly held is that sentiment: "Among Americans who attend church at least a few times a year, 47% said they would attend services elsewhere if their church blessed same-sex unions," according to the Post poll. There is nothing to calls this but what it is -- a reactionary but widespread backlash. And we'll have to work hard to try to prevent it ending up with passage of an anti-gay constitutional amendment barring any legal recognition of gay couples.

The new (yes, NEW!) articles posted at right are worthy additions to this dialogue.

Forget backlash: We're just another American family, convincingly argues columnist Craig Wilson in USA Today. But is straight America listening?

Writes Michael Barone in U.S. News & World Report, "As a Republican who supports abortion and gay rights, [Schwarzenegger] might have trouble in a Republican primary." But, of course, there is no Republican primary in California's gubernatorial recall free-for-all, which cramps the power for the "wingnuts" of the right (though that hasn't stopped arch anti-gay Lou Sheldon from claiming that a Schwarzenegger Candidacy Would ''Terminate'' Moral Leadership In California ).

On the contrary, Barone argues that a Schwarzenegger victory could save California's GOP. "Republicans have become a minority in California because of their conservative stands on cultural issues and because they have turned off Latinos," he writes. "Schwarzenegger, who would be eligible to run again in 2006 and 2010, gives them a different image."

Gay syndicated columnist Rex Wockner reports
that:

in an October 1999 interview with Talk magazine Schwarzenegger said that the Republicans have to become a party of inclusion and show they "love the foreigner"as much as the gay person and lesbian person."

But most gay activists are sticking with incumbent Democrat Gray Davis, who never met a special interest spending bill he didn't like. And then there's this bit of ridiculousness being brought up. Back in
1992, Schwarzenegger said: "We don't talk about those Democrats. I watched that debate and they all looked like a bunch of girlie men." Which led the far lefties of Queer Nation to denounce him as a "bigot" and a "blatant homophobe," and charge that his attitude underscored "the anti-gay agenda of the Bush/Quayle campaign."

Actually, you'd have thought The Terminator had called for extermination camps, given QN's charge that "Once again, Bush's henchmen divide the nation by promoting hatred of a minority -- the queer community"It sickens me to see the president of the United States endorse homophobia and advocate anti-gay violence," in the words of the group's then spokesqueer.

Despite the angst of the lesbigay left, then and now, a gay-welcoming GOP governor for California who gives the anti-gay right stomach pains would be a very fine thing indeed.

Here's yet another sordid scandal involving a leader of the Christian right's "ex-gay" movement who, it turns out, wasn't so "ex" after all. This time the culprit/hypocrite is Michael Johnston, the organizer of "Coming Out of Homosexuality Day" who even, allegedly, misled his sex partners about his HIV-positive status. The gay press has been covering the story , but so far the mainstream media hasn't followed suit.

Mike Airhart's Ex-Gay Watch blog, as always, is also on top of things.

School Daze.

The NY Daily News editorializes on why a Harvey Milk High is needed, in School's Gay, That's OK.
More takes on whether the school is a safe environment or self-segregation in our Mail Bag.

Marriage "Jitters."

Writing in today's New York Times, Elizabeth Bumiller looks at "Why America Has Gay Marriage Jitters." In short: It's the "M" word, stupid. Bumiller writes that after the Supreme Court's Lawrence ruling:

President Bush was pressured by his conservative supporters to oppose gay marriage publicly". This declaration put him in agreement with 70% of Republican voters. But most of the Democratic presidential candidates oppose gay marriage, too, as do 50% of Democratic voters.

The concluding quote is given to liberal CNN commentator William Schneider, who puts it bluntly: "Look, if you don't call it marriage, you'll get more support."

Recent Postings

08/03/03 - 08/09/03

Rich Lowry, editor of the conservative National Review, has a Washington Post op-ed titled "The President Keeps His Distance," complaining that George W. is missing in action on the culture war front -- especially in not being more vigilant in opposing gay marriage. As I've written before, liberal Bush haters just don't see the pressure that Bush is facing, and often resisting, from his none-too-happy social conservative base. As Lowry writes:

when Bush was asked about gay marriage, you got the feeling he would have preferred not to be asked at all. His statement against it was an assertion and expression of personal preference, that "somebody like me" believes "a marriage is between a man and a woman." Well, okay. But why? Explaining that requires argument, requires making moral distinctions among sex acts, in ways that are likely to make some people very angry. Requires, in short, everything Bush would rather not do -- because it probably feels too "judgmental" to him, because he (like most conservatives of his generation or younger) has openly gay friends, and because it will inflame voters both pro and con.

This is a loss for those of us who are conservatives. It means that, on important issues, a crucial player isn't fully engaged.

Lowry and his conservative kind wish Bush would be more like anti-gay big-mouth Sen. Rick Santorum. The gay left refuses to see any distinction between the two. Maybe they should start reading the rightwing press.