IGF CultureWatch

No less a conservative than Attorney General John Ashcroft appears to be leaving open the prospect of a system of civil unions for same-sex couples as an alternative to same-sex marriage. As the right-leaning Washington Times reports:

Mr. Ashcroft said in an interview on "Fox News Sunday" that he supported President Bush's call to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. But he declined to comment on the Bush administration's stance on civil unions, which would grant same-sex couples many of the same rights enjoyed by married couples.

"That's a very complex question that I'm not going to make a recommendation on. We're doing research on that now," Mr. Ashcroft told the television program.

This is an interesting development, as a clear distinction could emerge between conservatives who oppose any legal recognition of same-sex relationships and those who would accept civil unions in which states grant couples the same (state) benefits as under marriage, though other states needn't recognize such arrangements, and no federal benefits are conferred.

The public also seems more open to a "marriage lite" approach:

A poll released Friday by the Human Rights Campaign conducted by the Democratic polling firm of Peter D. Hart Research Associates and Republican firm American Viewpoint showed that 63% of respondents who are registered voters support or would accept gay and lesbians receiving the same rights and protections as heterosexual Americans.

The Hart/American Viewpoint poll also showed that 50% of respondents support or accept granting civil marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples with the same rights, responsibilities and protections given to other married couples, as long as religious institutions do not have to recognize or perform these marriages. 47% of respondents opposed.

Other polls, however, find much higher numbers opposing "gay marriage." Lesbigay activists will have to weigh whether they should settle for anything less than full marriage -- and the risk that such a strategy could trigger passage of the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which would obliterate any hope for gay marriage in our lifetimes.

Personally, I"m becoming more inclined to go for civil unions. As Americans become more familiar with legally recognized gay relationships, I think their resistance will weaken. The go-slow state by state approach also would mitigate the worst reactions from the most conservative regions, which fear being forced to recognize gay marriages performed in Massachusetts or Canada.

Others argue that if we demand marriage, we will be more likely to at least get civil unions in the near term as a compromise. They may be right; or we could find ourselves trapped by a Federal Marriage Amendment juggernaut. It's a tough call, but I increasing hope the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court goes with the Vermont civil union approach in its upcoming ruling.

Let the Schism Begin.

The AP reports that Election of Gay Bishop Prompts Walkout. And here's the British take, from The Guardian.

And, from the NY Times, Anglican Leaders Warn of Global Schism Over Gay Bishop, which reveals the depth of homo-hatred by the good Anglican Church leaders of Africa, as well as Asia and South America. But why would giving in to their bigotry by good for Christianity?

addendum: As to Bishop-elect Robinson's alleged ties to porn links on a youth website -- allegations publicized by conservative pundit Fred Barnes on the Weekly Standard website -- here's the lowdown from Tony Adragna's blog "Shouting 'Cross the Potomac."

By the way, wasn't Barnes among those conservatives who criticized the last-minute sex charges leveled at then Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas? What hypocrites these ideologues of the right (and left) can be!

Here's the Washington Post"s lead:

On the verge of a historic vote, a convention of Episcopalian leaders was thrown into sudden disarray today when opponents raised allegations involving inappropriate touching and pornography against the Rev. V. Gene Robinson, who is awaiting confirmation as the first openly gay bishop in the worldwide Anglican Communion.

Well, it certainly sounds like an 11th hour smear. In any event, it reinforces my view that a schism among Episcopalians wouldn't be such a bad idea. You may recall that in the mid-1800s many American protestant denominations split into anti- and pro-slavery bodies (the genesis of today's Northern and Southern Baptists, for instance). Given the tactics of the anti-gay Episcopal faction, let them follow the example of the pro-slavery churches -- and let history stand in judgment.

Update: Robinson is confirmed. And yes, it was a last-ditch smear:

David Lewis of Vermont accused Robinson of touching him inappropriately at a convocation. -- Investigators questioned Lewis and determined Robinson touched his arm and back momentarily during conversation in a public room with more than 300 people present.

As for Robinson's opponents, thus by their actions shall you know them.

The Vatican last week labeled support for gay marriage (and even lesser types of same-sex unions) as "gravely immoral":

"There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law," the Vatican declared.

Conservatives embraced the Vatican statement, somehow ignoring the complicating fact that the Vatican also considers divorce to be highly immoral, and Catholics who divorce and remarry to have entered a permanent state of adultery (i.e., hello hellfire). But we don't see headlines about that. And let's not even get into the grave sin of artificial birth control!

Meanwhile, there's the impending schism in the Episcopal Church over the election of an openly gay bishop in New Hampshire. Rev. V. Gene Robinson told delegates to a church convention this weekend that his relationship with another man is "sacramental," just like marriage.

I'm not an Episcopalian, but as on outsider it does appear that the opposing views of the gay-affirming and gay-hostile wings of their church, and the same but larger conflict within the worldwide Anglican Communion, means an unavoidable split. And maybe that's not a bad thing. If conservatives are going to block equality for gay people within their respective denominations, then let them have their own churches of prejudice, while other congregations joint together and show that confirming gay pastors and blessing gay unions is spiritually affirming, rather than spiritually destructive.

This is, of course, aside from the issue of civil marriage, which concerns the state's treating all citizens as equal under the law. The fight for equal civil marriage takes place in the public polity, but the fight within each denomination against homophobic policies should not involve the government.

It's important to keep this distinction in mind, as anti-gays try to suggest that legal civil marriage for gays would somehow force churches to change their dogma. Thus is fear and ignorance spread.

Recent Postings

07/27/03 - 08/03/03

It's fair enough to criticize the president for, like Bill Clinton before him, supporting efforts to outlaw government recognition of gay marriage. But the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force missed the boat with their latest press release. "It is unbecoming of the President of the United States to characterize same-sex couples as 'sinners,' -- said Matt Foreman, Task Force executive director. But what Bush actually said was this:

"I am mindful that we're all sinners. And I caution those who may try to take a speck out of their neighbor's eye when they've got a log in their own. I think it's important for our society to respect each individual, to welcome those with good hearts, to be a welcoming country. On the other hand, that does not mean that somebody like me needs to compromise on the issue of marriage."

So Bush says we're ALL sinners, and then castigates critics of gays for not focusing on their own sinfulness and for their lack of respect toward others.

Foreman's conclusion that Bush is "obviously desperate to keep the country's focus off the war in Iraq and the dismal state of the economy, and he's willing to do it on the backs of gay men and lesbians, even if it means proposing legislation that already exists as law" is overwrought. NGLTF hates Bush so much they just couldn't hear the criticism of the religious right in Bush's remarks!

Meanwhile, says the GOP's lone openly gay congressman, Jim Kolbe, "The vast majority of the Republican Party is going to try very hard not to get into this [gay marriage]
debate." I hope he's right.

Some interesting demographic findings were reported by the New York Times in "Opposition to Gay Marriage Is Declining, Study Finds" by Robin Toner. According to the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press:

53% of respondents said they opposed gay marriages, while 38% said they backed them. In 1996 65% said they opposed such marriages, while 27% favored the idea.

That reveals surprisingly rapid progress. But the research also showed "a growing gap in opinion -- along racial and religious lines." Specifically:

White evangelical Protestants were the most firmly opposed to the idea of gay marriage: 83% said they opposed it; 84% opposed it in 1996. Opposition among blacks also remained essentially unchanged, with 64% opposing gay marriages today, and 65% opposing the idea in 1996.

In contrast, white Roman Catholics and white mainline Protestants have become increasingly open to the idea, according to the poll" .

The evangelical finding isn't surprising. But the unchanged opposition among blacks suggest that the efforts of gay progressive activists to build a united coalition of the left, fighting homophobia and racism and promoting big government social programs, hasn't quite moved the masses. Gay activists may be obsessed with "building an anti-racist GLBT movement" (as the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force puts it) and lamenting that "The GLBT movement is"disproportionately led by white people and lacks a consciousness of the intersections of racism and homophobia"", but there has been no corresponding commitment within the African-American community to combat homophobia.

Not Helpful.

"Critics of gay marriage say we"ll destroy the entire institution. Maybe they"re right, and maybe it wouldn't be such a bad thing," is the subhead the Washington Blade gave to an op-ed by lesbian law professor Nancy D. Polikoff. To be fair, Polikoff herself never uses those exact words, but she does argue
that "Gay marriage will move us in the wrong direction if it limits legal recognition to married couples only."

Polikoff wants state benefits for a variety of unmarried partners, including siblings or friends that care for each other, or even a son who takes care of his mother. But that misses the point. Marriage is much more than just a domestic partnership, which is why the anti-gays want to keep us out. The lesbigay left just doesn't get that marriage is important.

School Days

New York City is opening a full-fledged high school for gay and lesbian (and bisexual and transgender) students.
Which, of course, has the anti-gays hopping mad.

I'm for school choice and support a safe environment for those gay kids who might need it. But I suppose I'd prefer a privately run school, with the state using its education taxes to provide students with tuition vouchers. I just don't trust the state educrats.

Recent Postings

07/20/03 - 07/26/03

IGF contributing author Dale Carpenter's op-ed in the Houston Chronicle thanks, with tongue firmly planted in cheek, the leaders of the Texas Republican Party for remaining steadfast in their support of criminalzing gay sex. Writes Dale:

all their fundamentalist fervor has yielded the most far-reaching decision affirming the basic dignity of gay people ever issued by the Supreme Court, with more to come. We couldn't have done it without them.

Dale also recounts:

I had my own run-in with the Texas GOP on the subject of the state sodomy law. In 1996, I was president of the Log Cabin Republicans of Texas. We applied to run an information booth at the state GOP convention that year. Our application was denied because, the party's executive director told me, "Sodomy is illegal in Texas." When I offered to forbid our members to sodomize each other in the booth, state party leaders were unmoved.

Gee, you offer a fair compromise and it gets you nowhere!

During the congressional brouhaha last week, Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) let loose with this tirade:

"You little fruitcake, you little fruitcake, I said you are a fruitcake."

According to Fox News, which is always sensitive to any hint of anti-gay prejudice (yes, that's a joke), "Stark directed the word -- considered by some to be a gay slur -- at Republican Rep. Scott McInnis, who is married and by all accounts not gay."

Moreover:

Republican sources also claim that during the chaotic scene in the committee, Stark fired another gay slur in the direction of Chairman [Bill] Thomas. The word is too vulgar to print in full, but the last half of it is "sucker." -- Now, one Republican wants to know where is the outrage at the Democrat for his seemingly intolerant remarks. "This isn't the first time. That's the problem here. The Democrats fail to recognize this is an ongoing problem," said Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla.

Foley, of course, who would like to be Florida's GOP senate candidate next year, has been the center of much unwelcome speculation about his own alleged closeted homosexuality. Which colors the following just a bit:

Foley questioned whether Democrats get a pass when it comes to casting aspersions, and whether there is indeed a double standard. "I trust that you would understand that if a Republican said that, there would be a public lynching," Foley said.

Well, it is a good point. Especially in light of the following:

A spokesman from the gay activists group [the Human Rights Campaign], usually quick to condemn hints of slight or slur against the gay community, defended the hot-headed lawmaker [Stark], saying he probably used the word to mean McInnis was nutty.

Give me a break, as they say.

A follow-up story reports that "five sources have confirmed...that they heard Stark call Thomas that "sucker" word at Friday's meeting..." Any guesses as to how HRC's gonna spin that one?

One Sort of Inclusion.

In New Hampshire, the State Supreme Court heard arguments about whether a woman who is married to a man, but has sex with another woman, has committed adultery.

Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders filed a brief calling for equal treatment, saying:

"Gay and lesbian relationships are as significant as non-gay ones and therefore pose the same threat to the marital union. . . . New Hampshire courts should treat gay adultery the same no matter the gender of the person with whom a spouse engages in an extramarital relationship."

True, but perhaps the state should also let us marry (or at least be civil unionized) before allowing us equal opportunity to be parties to adultery.

July 20, 2003

Defending Gay Marriage (and the Constitution).

Out congressmembers Barney Frank, Tammy Baldwin, and Jim Kolbe are circulating a letter urging their congressional colleagues not to support the proposed anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment. Their letter, reports the Boston Globe, quotes Vice President Dick Cheney from his VP debate in 2000 against Joe Lieberman, when Cheney said that ''people should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into,'' and added:

''That matter [marriage] is regulated by the states. -- I think different states are likely to come to different conclusions, and that's appropriate. I don't think there should necessarily be a federal policy in this area.''

The letter signed by Frank, Baldwin, and Kolbe argues that lawmakers should reject the constitutional amendment as an intrusion on states' rights: The Globe reports:

''While we acknowledge that we do not find ourselves in complete agreement with the Vice President on all public policy issues,'' the letter said, ''we believe that [Cheney's statement], given one month before the presidential election, makes a very strong case against a Constitutional amendment which would establish precisely 'a federal policy' of the sort that the Vice President opposed."

Of course, one could question the last time Barney Frank had a kind word for federalism, but that would be churlish.

Interestingly, the anti-gay group Focus on the Family, when denouncing the letter on its website under "Gay Lawmakers Assail Marriage Amendment," weakly asserts "Cheney's words during the debate don't lead everyone to the same conclusion."
Guess they decided it would be too much of a political hot potato to take on the VP directly.

In other marriage developments, Virginia's Richmond Times-Dispatch reports that Senator George Allen, who is reliably conservative and a member of the Senate Republican leadership, "has taken a separate tack from Majority Leader Bill Frist and has declined to endorse a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage," at least for now. A good sign.

Oh, Politics!

In other congressional news, during the brouhaha between House Democrats and Republicans over whether a) the Demos were being obstructionists over a pension reform bill by demanding a line by line reading and then leaving the room, or b) the GOPers went bonkers by calling the Capitol police to force the Demos back to the chamber, the Washington Post noted that:

one Democratic member of the panel called a Republican colleague "you little fruitcake" in the midst of the standoff.

Finally, ABC News correspondent Jeffrey Kofman's story claiming low morale among U.S. soldiers in Iraq led, it seems,
to someone in the Bush White House (think gung-ho West Winger) to have conservative webmeister Matt Drudge link to a story about Kofman in the Advocate -- a story that reveals the ABC reporter is both openly gay and a Canadian. Drudge's link to the Advocate piece was headlined: "ABC News Reporter Who Filed Troop Complaint Story is Canadian."

Recent Postings

07/13/03 - 07/19/03

Out congressmembers Barney Frank, Tammy Baldwin, and Jim Kolbe are circulating a letter urging their congressional colleagues not to support the proposed anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment. Their letter, reports the Boston Globe, quotes Vice President Dick Cheney from his VP debate in 2000 against Joe Lieberman, when Cheney said that ''people should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into,'' and added:

''That matter [marriage] is regulated by the states. -- I think different states are likely to come to different conclusions, and that's appropriate. I don't think there should necessarily be a federal policy in this area.''

The letter signed by Frank, Baldwin, and Kolbe argues that lawmakers should reject the constitutional amendment as an intrusion on states' rights: The Globe reports:

''While we acknowledge that we do not find ourselves in complete agreement with the Vice President on all public policy issues,'' the letter said, ''we believe that [Cheney's statement], given one month before the presidential election, makes a very strong case against a Constitutional amendment which would establish precisely `a federal policy' of the sort that the Vice President opposed.'

Of course, one could question the last time Barney Frank had a kind word for federalism, but that would be churlish.

Interestingly, the anti-gay group Focus on the Family, when denouncing the letter on its website under "Gay Lawmakers Assail Marriage Amendment," weakly asserts "Cheney's words during the debate don't lead everyone to the same conclusion."
Guess they decided it would be too much of a political hot potato to take on the VP directly.

In other marriage developments, Virginia's Richmond Times-Dispatch reports that Senator George Allen, who is reliably conservative and a member of the Senate Republican leadership, "has taken a separate tack from Majority Leader Bill Frist and has declined to endorse a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage," at least for now. A good sign.

Oh, Politics!

In other congressional news, during the brouhaha between House Democrats and Republicans over whether a) the Demos were being obstructionists over a pension reform bill by demanding a line by line reading and then leaving the room, or b) the GOPers went bonkers by calling the Capitol police to force the Demos back to the chamber, the Washington Post noted that:

one Democratic member of the panel called a Republican colleague "you little fruitcake" in the midst of the standoff.

Finally, ABC News correspondent Jeffrey Kofman's story claiming low morale among U.S. soldiers in Iraq led, it seems,
to someone in the Bush White House (think gung-ho West Winger) to have conservative webmeister Matt Drudge link to a story about Kofman in the Advocate -- a story that reveals the ABC reporter is both openly gay and a Canadian. Drudge's link to the Advocate piece was headlined: "ABC News Reporter Who Filed Troop Complaint Story is Canadian."

Recent Postings

07/13/03 - 07/19/03

With the Massachusetts marriage decision on hold for who knows how long, and Pat Robertson urging his flock to pray for God to remove three justices from the U.S. Supreme Court, the culture wars continue unabated. Yes, there's always something to write about here at Culture Watch.

Another look at why conservatives should support gay marriage, by Rondi Adamson in the Christian Science Monitor:

true conservatives ought to support gay marriage, particularly those partial to family values. It's difficult to argue that society doesn't benefit from stable relationships. And what better way to encourage stable relationships than to support gay marriage? It is hard not to snicker at the idea that same-sex marriages would threaten straight ones. We straight people in Canada and the US have done a good job of bringing the divorce rate close to 50 percent all on our own.

Meanwhile, Mark Leibovich at the Washington Post sees the Human Rights Campaign's presidential candidates forum as pander bears on parade. Worse, most of the Democratic candidates' views on gay marriage aren't that much better than Senate leader Bill Frist's, though maybe they don't want to re-write the constitution to make their point.

Frist, by the way, is quoted in the Wash. Post's Reliable Source (scroll down) commenting on the prospects of gay marriage in Massachusetts thusly:

"Marriage is very simple: one man and one woman. Not two men or three men or four men or one man or one woman or two women and three women or three women and three men. It's not that. It's one man, one woman."

The Post says he held up various fingers to illustrate his points. He should have added, "I'm as big a bigot as Trent Lott, yes I am!"

I guess there'll be no free makeover for Frist from the gay guys on Bravo's new "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" show, which appears to be a ratings hit (at least by Bravo's standards), with the network's new "Boy Meets Boy" reality show soon set to launch. But then political change always seems to trail behind popular culture by about a decade.

Chicago Sun-Times columnist/humorist Mark Steyn writes:

Personally, I'm relaxed about sodomy, which isn't the same as being relaxed during sodomy. --

I've hung around the theater most of my adult life, and I love the likes of Cole Porter and the eccentric English composer and painter Lord Berners. These are the fellows who thought homosexuality was one of those things ''Too Good For The Average Man,'' in the words of Lorenz Hart's sly lyric--too special for the masses. These days, the gay movement insists it's as average as any man, if not more so. Watching the two chubby gays being wed by a gay vicar on the steps of the courthouse in Vancouver the other day, Cole Porter would have wondered what on earth was the point of being homosexual.

Steyn's bio reveals he's a straight Canadian who writes books on Broadway musicals. Go figure.

Not So Long Ago.

In a Washington Post op-ed titled Evolution on Gay Marriage, Fred Hiatt asks:

At one time most states banned marriage between races, and courts upheld such laws many times. Does our evolution -- today we read those decisions with horror -- provide a template for where society is heading with respect to homosexual marriage?

I guess we'll know soon enough.