IGF CultureWatch

The legalization of same-sex marriages in Canada, plus impending legal decisions from Massachusetts and New Jersey regarding same-sex couples seeking to wed, puts marriage front and center on the Culture War front -- even as we await the Supreme Court's ruling on whether state sodomy laws that outlaw mere sexual relations between gay partners are constitutionally permissible.

Peter Steinfels, who covers the religion beat for the New York Times, traces some of the fault lines in the marriage debate (at least among the non-wackos in the religious community) in A Too-Hot Topic. Among others, he quotes David Blankenhorn, director of the Institute for American Values, who remarks: "People who haven't had much positive to say about marriage are suddenly enthusiastic, as long
you put the words 'same sex' in front of it."

True, to some extent. But "Gay marriage isn't a repudiation of the values conservatives prize. It's an affirmation," writes syndicated columnist Steve Chapman in Embracing Age-Old Monogamy, via the Chicago Tribune.

Over at the libertarian-minded Reason magazine, Cathy Young opines in Gay Rights Go To Court that:

Until attitudes change, gays have a difficult road to travel. There will be clear-cut victories for human dignity, freedom, and privacy, such as the likely demise of sodomy laws. And there will be complicated and frustrating compromises on issues like marriage.

Well, no one ever said life was meant to be easy.

Equal Time.

Having noted a column over at Tech Central Station that defended the none-too gay friendly views of Sen. Rick Santorum, the Tech Central folks point out they've also run several pieces critical of Santorum, including Democratic Plant
("The only explanation") by James Pinkerton, and
Information Sexternalities ("It's not like incest at all") by James D. Miller. Plus lots of other interesting views on politics and culture with a pro-liberty streak make this site worth checking out.

Internally Conflicted

I missed this, but andrewsullivan.com pointed out a Washington Times op-ed by conservative commentator Jonah Golberg that offered this observation:

Earlier this month, Attorney General John Ashcroft reportedly tried to cancel a scheduled Gay Pride Month celebration at the Department of Justice for lesbian and gay employees. He failed. Despite pressure from social conservative activists, DOJ reversed course in the face of protests from gay groups and a sympathetic media (and, probably, pressure from the White House).

When the most famous and powerful member of the Religious Right in the U.S. government can't stop a gay pride event in his own office building, held by his own employees, you know that social conservatives are losing this fight.

It's too soon to declare victory and the looming marriage battle is sure to be tumultuous -- but that the trend of history is toward greater freedom can't be denied.
--Stephen H. Miller

Recent Postings

06/15/03 - 06/21/03

The legalization of same-sex marriages in Canada, plus impending legal decisions from Massachusetts and New Jersey regarding same-sex couples seeking to wed, puts marriage front and center on the Culture War front -- even as we await the Supreme Court's ruling on whether state sodomy laws that outlaw mere sexual relations between gay partners are constitutionally permissible.

Peter Steinfels, who covers the religion beat for the New York Times, traces some of the fault lines in the marriage debate (at least among the non-wackos in the religious community) in A Too-Hot Topic. Among others, he quotes David Blankenhorn, director of the Institute for American Values, who remarks: "People who haven't had much positive to say about marriage are suddenly enthusiastic, as long
you put the words 'same sex' in front of it."

True, to some extent. But "Gay marriage isn't a repudiation of the values conservatives prize. It's an affirmation," writes syndicated columnist Steve Chapman in Embracing Age-Old Monogamy, via the Chicago Tribune.

Over at the libertarian-minded Reason magazine, Cathy Young opines in Gay Rights Go To Court that:

Until attitudes change, gays have a difficult road to travel. There will be clear-cut victories for human dignity, freedom, and privacy, such as the likely demise of sodomy laws. And there will be complicated and frustrating compromises on issues like marriage.

Well, no one ever said life was meant to be easy.

Equal Time.

Having noted a column over at Tech Central Station that defended the none-too gay friendly views of Sen. Rick Santorum, the Tech Central folks point out they've also run several pieces critical of Santorum, including Democratic Plant
("The only explanation") by James Pinkerton, and
Information Sexternalities ("It's not like incest at all") by James D. Miller. Plus lots of other interesting views on politics and culture with a pro-liberty streak make this site worth checking out.

Internally Conflicted

I missed this, but andrewsullivan.com pointed out a Washington Times op-ed by conservative commentator Jonah Golberg that offered this observation:

Earlier this month, Attorney General John Ashcroft reportedly tried to cancel a scheduled Gay Pride Month celebration at the Department of Justice for lesbian and gay employees. He failed. Despite pressure from social conservative activists, DOJ reversed course in the face of protests from gay groups and a sympathetic media (and, probably, pressure from the White House).

When the most famous and powerful member of the Religious Right in the U.S. government can't stop a gay pride event in his own office building, held by his own employees, you know that social conservatives are losing this fight.

It's too soon to declare victory and the looming marriage battle is sure to be tumultuous -- but that the trend of history is toward greater freedom can't be denied.
--Stephen H. Miller

Yet Still More Balancing by Bushies.

This headline from the Missoulian (of Montana) says it all: Racicot takes Bush campaign helm: GOP gays applaud, Christian right boos. As the story reports:

Rumors that [Marc] Racicot would lead the re-election campaign have already provoked much gnashing of teeth among Christian conservatives who oppose Racicot's efforts to bring homosexuals into the Republican family. "

"Marc Racicot is so out-of-touch with George W. Bush's most loyal and committed voters that his qualifications to serve as chairman of the president's re-election campaign must be seriously questioned," Family Research Council president Ken Connor wrote in a May 15 e-mail. "Mr. Racicot appears to be utterly tone deaf -- or openly hostile -- to the concerns of the GOP's pro-family voters."

Give a little to the religious right (by ending official sponsorship of the Dept. of Justice's gay pride), and take a little in the hope of widening your appeal to centrists and independents. That's the Rove (er, Bush) strategy.

Why the Right's Not Right.

The interesting Tech Central Station website has a column by a U of Texas at Arlington prof titled Why Liberals Think Conservatives Are Stoopid. Unfortunately, it's a pretty shallow piece that even seeks to defend Sen. Rick Santorum's pro-sodomy law comments. The column triggered some interesting online comments, though, and I think this fellow's remarks get it just about right:

Sen. Santorum did not merely say that if the Supreme Court held that states lack a right to pass sodomy laws, they would also lack a legal basis to pass laws against incest, bestiality, etc. (and, by the way, Texas abolished its laws against bestiality at the same time it PASSED a same-sex only sodomy law).

What Santorum went on to say was that he personally supported state sodomy laws, that states should have the right to enact them or not, but he favored enacting them. That is, he believes gay people should be treated as a criminal class. THAT's what created much (albeit not all) of the storm of protest. THAT's why you could mock the idea that Sen. Santorum is an 'inclusive' man. THAT's why he was called a bigot.

Right on.

Over at the conservative Frontpagemagazine.com website, my article Gay Activists and Religious Conservatives: Through the Looking Glass has triggered some heated online comments. A defender of my views, who posts under the name "Kansas," has taken on some of the more vehement religious rightists and even encouraged IGF's own John Corvino to enter the fray with this amusing posting that's well worth reading.

Waiting for the Supremes.

IGF contributing author Carolyn Lochhead writes in the San Francisco Chronicle that the upcoming Supreme Court sodomy decision may put Bush in a bind, if the religious right goes bonkers over a ruling that throws out same-sex sodomy laws (as is, in fact, widely anticipated). She quotes Ken Connor, president of the conservative Family Research Council, who says:

"Regardless of their desires to the contrary, Republicans will not be able to duck-and-cover on this issue." -- "The debate will elevate to a white-hot temperature about what the role of marriage is in society."

Yet, writes Lochhead,

Gay Republicans and social conservatives alike predict the Bush administration will try to avoid comment on the high court's ruling, however it comes out. "They are very disciplined in their message and in their priorities, and they would probably rather avoid getting mired in this issue, but I'm not certain they'll be able to avoid it," said a leading gay Republican close to the administration.

Reality check time: I strongly suspect the religious right has wildly overestimated public interest in sodomy laws -- and, in fact, John and Jane Q. Public would for the most part be surprised to learn that these musty old statutes are even still on the books. Anti-gay activists can howl all they want that ruling against sodomy laws is somehow an assault on hetero marriage, but it's clearly a stretch. The fight over marriage rights will be controversial and bruising, but sodomy laws will go out with a whimper, not a bang.

Recent Postings

06/08/03 - 06/14/03

Clint Bolick of the libertarian-minded Institute for Justice, in this Washington Post op-ed, provides some sharp-eyed analysis of conservatives who support freedom of association for the Boy Scouts when they want to exclude gay scoutmasters despite anti-discrimination laws, but oppose freedom of association for gay partners who choose to have intimate relations. Likewise, he takes aim at liberals who believe gay partners should have the right to private sexual relations despite anti-sodomy laws, but want the government to force the Boy Scouts to allow gay scoutmasters.

Bolick, of course, would bar the state from intruding into either realm, and writes:

Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty, represented by my organization, the Institute for Justice, submitted a brief disdaining the Boy Scouts' discriminatory policies but defending their right to maintain them. The brief argued that "[w]hile a creeping infringement of [freedom of association] would harm all Americans, it would particularly threaten the welfare of gay and lesbian Americans, who have historically suffered when government has not respected citizens' right to gather together free from government harassment."

Which is exactly what John Lawrence and Tyron Garner discovered when Texas police raided their dwelling on other grounds and arrested them for engaging in homosexual conduct.

Good point. By the way, this New York Times op-ed also urges the Supremes to rule against sodomy statutes, but while law professor Laurence Helfer scores some valid points it's pretty much preaching to the liberal choir. The Washington Post piece at least tries to address conservatives on their own terms.
--Stephen H. Miller

One of the problems with the Democrats' partisan judicial filibusters is that when a federal court nominee comes along who should be stopped, they no longer have any ammunition left. The Senate Democrats, after all, are already pulling out all the stops to derail federal bench nominees Miguel Estrada because he's a conservative Hispanic (with no anti-gay record, by the way) and Priscilla Owens (for, they argue, being too "pro-business" and upholding parental notification for minors who want abortions). Now along comes Alabama Attorney General William Pryor, nominated to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court. Pryor is so bad the Log Cabin Republicans have come out against his confirmation. A advocate for sodomy laws that criminalize homosexual sex, Pryor once rescheduled a family vacation to Disney World in order to avoid Gay Day.

Yes, the Democrats may still filibuster -- but having spent so much of their capital against judicial nominees who, politics aside, should have easily been confirmed, they now have little credibility to make a moral stand when it's needed.

The Storm to Come.

The U.S. media still doesn't get the historic impact of Canada's allowing same-sex marriages. The Washington Post reported North America's first legal same-sex weddings on page A25. Unlike Vermont's civil unions, which are separate and distinct from heterosexual marriages (sort of "marriage lite"), the Canadians have incorporated gays and lesbians fully under their existing marriage laws.

Canada will perform marriages for U.S. citizens, who will then return home and sue to have their unions legally recognized by their states, which means challenging the federal Defense of Marriage Act (and, depending on where they reside, state DOMAs) as unconstitutional. That's when the fun will really begin. Also, if mutual recognition of marriages is the subject of a U.S.-Canadian treaty, that could also be a factor.

IGF contributing author Dale Carpenter warns a backlash could be brewing, and advises that a go-slow, state by state approach might be the best way to avoid a contstitutional amendment banning gay marriage altogether.
--Stephen H. Miller

Toronto is about to start issuing marriage licenses to gay couples after Ontario's highest court set aside the heterosexual-only definition of marriage as unconstitutional. Canada's -- and North America's -- first post-decision legal gay marriage ceremony is scheduled for Tuesday afternoon between two men who had been among those who had brought the legal case, Reuters reports. And retroactively the court decision also recognized two other gay marriage ceremonies that had taken place in Toronto in 2001, declaring those unions valid. Here's a link to the opinion itself.

This is big news, though it seems to be under the radar of most U.S. news operations as of Tuesday evening. Of course here in the U.S., land of the Clinton-signed federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and so many state DOMAs to boot, it's unlikely to have an immediate impact -- except as a galvanizing force for gay marriage advocates.

The big deal here would be if Massachusetts' highest court were to legalize same-sex marriage in a ruling expected this summer. But however that decision comes down, the marriage revolution is underway.

The Show Goes On.

Some positive domestic news: The Department of Justice (DOJ) is reversing its decision to ban a gay employees group from holding its annual pride event onsite -- although the DOJ Pride get-together won't have the sponsorship of the department as it has in the past, and as other events currently do, says the Human Rights Campaign.

Last year's DOJ Pride event featured a department-sponsored speech by Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson to roughly 150 employees, causing religious conservatives to go ballistic. Fearing the religious right's wrath, it was decided that no gay pride event could be held this year on DOJ premises -- despite prior promises from Attorney General John Ashcroft. But that decision produced an outcry from gay activists and the publicity made the Bush administration appear intolerant, and so now the partial reversal follows as the department relents and the pride event goes forward.

Gays are unhappy about the lack of official sponsorship, while anti-gays are unhappy the event wasn't banned outright. So what's new?

My Latest.

David Horowitz's conservative Frontpagemagazine.com site has published an essay of mine called Gay Activists and Religious Conservatives: Through the Looking Glass, which elaborates on the gay vs. religious right battle WITHIN the GOP. If you have the stomach, you can also peruse the readers' comments, which range from "this is sick" to "this is (almost) coherent."
--Stephen H. Miller

Recent Postings

06/01/03 - 06/07/03

In it's ongoing balancing act, the Bush administration has taken a symbolic move to appease it's Christian right critics who have been caterwauling about Bush "pandering to the homosexual lobby." So now the Department of Justice has decided not to allow its employees to hold gay-pride events on its property.

The Washington Post reports that DOJ Pride, which supports the department's "gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender employees," had planned an after-hours awards ceremony at the agency's main auditorium honoring two lawyers who have defended gay rights. Last year, Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson spoke briefly at the group's event -- outraging the religious right.

During his 2001 confirmation hearings, Attorney General John Ashcroft told the Senate Judiciary Committee he would allow DOJ Pride to use the agency's facilities on the same basis as its other employee groups. This followed then-nominee Ashcroft's meeting with national Log Cabin Republican leaders, who -- to the chagrin of gay anti-Republicans -- thereafter supported Ashcroft's confirmation.

As the Post puts it, "Conservative groups, including the Family Research Council and the Concerned Women for America, have criticized administration efforts to reach out to gay groups," and that's what this is all about. GOP administrations will only make real gestures of support for gays and lesbians when more gays and lesbians support Republicans -- and thus are able as a bloc to counter the threats of religious right activists. But alas, more gays and lesbians will support the GOP only when the party stops kowtowing to its anti-gay constituency -- an unfortunate paradox.
--Stephen H. Miller

Hate Crimes Charges Sought Against Homosexual Protestors reads the headline on the conservative CNSNews.com website. It seems that the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts is seeking state and federal hate crimes charges against gay protestors who "disturbed" Sunday's Mass at Boston's Cathedral of the Holy Cross to protest the Church's opposition to gay marriage. According to C.J. Doyle, executive director of the league:

"A number of them embraced one another, held hands, and at least two male homosexuals kissed each other. -- A number of parishioners had to get up and actually move because either their view of the sanctuary was being blocked or because they felt somehow threatened or menaced by these protestors."

One of the protestors, Mark Snyder of QueerToday.com, is quoted as saying he found it "hurtful and offensive that I'm being accused of a hate crime because I've been a victim of hate crimes before growing up" -- for example, being "verbally and physically harassed on a daily basis" at high school.

I don't want to be flippant about actual cases of gays, and gay kids, being physically threatened -- or worse. But the language of "hate crimes" has become so whiney and malleable that it's a wonder the other side hasn't caught on sooner to how it can be used to silence dissent.

Real crimes of violence and the threat of violence should be prosecuted. But when "hurtful speech" or obnoxious behavior that makes people feel bad is elevated to the level of "hate crimes," then it's not surprising that the right of gay activists to "act up" is also going to come under attack.

The New York Times catches up with the escalating battle within the Republican Party over the Bush administration's overtures toward gays, which has enraged religious rightists. Those of us who regularly read the gay press's attacks on the president for being anti-gay, and then visit "Christian" activist sites that castigate the president for being pro-gay, sometimes feel like we're living in an Alice-in-Wonderland world.

By the way, the Times article -- unless subsequently corrected online -- mistakenly has George Bush appointing James Hormel as ambassador to Romania. The openly gay Bush appointee is career-diplomat Michael Guest, who has been blasted by social conservatives for "flaunting" his relationship with his partner. Hormel, a gay liberal philanthropist and Democratic Party contributor, was Bill Clinton's recess appointment to be ambassador to Luxembourg -- a far less important post.

Fodder for Conspiracy Buffs?

Some good news for gay Republicans:

The Republican Unity Coalition, a gay-straight alliance working to make sexual orientation a "non-issue" in the GOP, announced that financier David Rockefeller is joining the group's advisory board, on which former president Gerald Ford also serves, as reported in this Washington Post item (scroll down). Rockefeller, by the way, is a founder of The Trilateral Commission, which both far right and far left "wingnuts" accuse of trying to foster a shadow world government. Well, as long as it's a gay-inclusive conspiracy, count me in!

The Face of Hate.

Eric Robert Rudolph, charged with bombing the 1996 Olympics Park, abortion clinics, and a gay nighclub, has finally been caught. The sad part is that at least some residents of the North Carolina hills were apparently helping him evade capture, reports the New York Times, believing that he was doing the Lord's work. Sorry, folks, but Jesus actually wasn't a terrorist.

The Next Pope?

Speaking of those who take bigotry as their gospel, looks as if a likely candidate to become the next pope is virulently anti-gay. He's
Cardinal Francis Arinze, a Nigerian prelate who presides over the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue at the Vatican. At Georegtown University's commencement, he told the grads that the family is "mocked by homosexuality." Prejudice, alas, comes in all colors.
--Stephen H. Miller

Recent Postings

05/25/03 - 05/31/03

Big-tent conservative activist David Horowitz responds to his critics, who accused him of attacking Christians when he criticized the religious right's demand that the GOP condemn homosexuality as immoral and support its criminalization. Writes Horowitz:

Would [anti-gay activist] Robert Knight like the government to investigate every American to determine whether they are homosexual or not and then compel those who are to undergo conversion therapy - or else? This is a prescription for a totalitarian state. No conservative should want any part of it. But this is how Robert Knight sums up the political agenda of social conservatives. Those who agree with him should think again.

Horowitz also scores when he objects to:

the systematic confusion of ethnic, gender, or sexual groups with leftwing political agendas. All blacks are not leftists; all women are not leftists; and all homosexuals are not leftists. To condemn them as such is both intolerant and politically stupid. ...

As a veteran of leftist revolutions, I know the difference between a leftist gay activist and a Log Cabin Republican, and so should Robert Knight. It is not a fiction that homosexuals -- as politically active citizens -- can help Republicans win elections. It is a fact.

After all, he observes, "a higher percentage of homosexuals voted Republican than did blacks, Jews or Hispanics."

Another View of Foley.

Miami Herald columnist Jim DeFede is more critical of Rep. Mark Foley for refusing to discuss his private life -- or, more to the point, the way in which he framed his refusal to discuss his private life -- than was the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund (see yesterday's item).
--Stephen H. Miller