IGF CultureWatch

The commenters on Non-bigotry made some very good arguments. Lymis is right on point that the rabbi is a textbook example of someone who is prejudiced (whether or not that is bigotry). In contrast, Pauliji has no doubt the rabbi is a bigot. Joe Perez has a lengthy post at his blog that I think John Corvino is more qualified to respond to than me. I think this topic is worth more time, and I'd like to devote a few posts over the next week to examining arguments made by some specific people who oppose marriage equality.

Senator Paul Sarlo was the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and was a No vote from the start. However, he ran the very controversial hearing well, and the explanation of his vote is respectful:

Yes, I am opposed to the bill at this point in time, but their (Garden State Equality) advocacy has come a long way, and I am quite certain some time in the near future, I believe the tide has turned a little bit, and they will win with their issue. I am still opposed personally because of my religious beliefs as a Roman Catholic, and as senator of the 36th District, which is mostly made up of Irish and Italian Catholics, and Orthodox Jews.

Two things seem important to me about this statement. First, while I can't speak for New Jersey's legislature, I have worked in and with California's for over a decade. It is rare here for any legislator voting in a public hearing to cite his or her religion as the (or even a) reason for their vote. While particular religious arguments may be made (biblical passages about charity, for example, to support public welfare programs), outside of gay rights (and the very rare bill these days in California about abortion) an individual's religious beliefs are simply not used as a political argument. That is a consistent anomaly in the debate over gay rights.

Sen. Sarlo's concern about the religious beliefs of his constituents is a slightly different matter, but actually intensifies the inherent problem. While the Orthodox Jews in his district would probably strongly support his vote, only about half of his fellow Catholics would, if they are like Catholics in the rest of the nation. And I assume he has Jewish voters in his district who are not orthodox and support same-sex marriage. Moreover, this explicit appeal to specific groups quite obviously leaves out all of his constituents who are nonreligious, or belong to other religions. This may not be a political problem in his district, but as a general public policy matter, it is certainly unfair, if not unwise.

But he says something else that is even more telling. He is sure that "they" (Garden State Equality and by extension, lesbians and gay men) will win "their" issue. Equality is certainly our issue by virtue of the fact that we don't have it and must fight for it. But the concept is a constitutional one, and as such, it does not "belong" to any minority, but to all citizens. "Equal Justice Under Law" is carved into the entrance to the United States Supreme Court, not for any particular "us," but as a guiding principle for the laws that apply to the nation we all share.

Sen. Sarlo separates himself from this foundation when he assigns the fight for equal laws to us. The stunning success of the gay rights movement has been to help heterosexuals see exactly this point. They have as much stake in honoring the constitution as we have battling not to be excluded from it.

To be fair, Sen. Sarlo does understand this. His state's supreme court ruled that same-sex couples did not have equal rights in New Jersey, and told the legislature they must resolve that discrepancy. Sarlo believes that comprehensive civil unions satisfy the command of equality. But the religion he cites as authority for opposing our equal marriage does not support laws that grant us civil unions. He does not explain how he resolves that inconsistency.

I don't think Sen. Sarlo is a bigot. Unlike some of our most vocal opponents, he is comfortable articulating that we are entitled to equality, and differs only on the means of achieving that. That seems to me an important factor in deciding whether to level a charge of bigotry. What do you think?

The extraordinary Frank Kameny, whose stubborn activism in the face of fierce repression did so much for gay rights, emails movingly about his attendance at the swearing-in of David Huebner, the new openly gay ambassador to New Zealand Samoa. Excerpted with Frank's permission...

I was invited by the White House, and attended, a ceremony on Friday afternoon December 4, which, at the time and even more so in retrospect, left me feeling deeply touched, satisfied and comforted. On two major levels this would have been so utterly beyond even being imagined when I became involved a half-century ago that I felt that comment would be in order. And so I thought I might share it. Unlike the Salahis, I WAS invited by the White House and my name WAS on the guest lists at the doors.

The occasion was the swearing in of David Huebner as Ambassador to New Zealand and Samoa. Huebner is a 49-year-old prestigious, very openly gay attorney. He is white. His partner of some 20 years, Duane McWaine is a medical doctor-psychiatrist. He is black. Numerous members of both Huebner's and McWaine's extended families were present and visibly cheerfully comingled.

The actual formal swearing-in was done by Vice President Biden. I had been assigned a seat in the front row center. As he came by, Biden recognized me from previous encounters, greeted me effusively, and told the mothers what I was "an important person."

Biden then gave a very nice speech, emphasizing diversity as doubly manifested by Huebner and McWaine. In the course of it, he suggested that since McWaine, like ambassadorial spouses generally, was going to have to put his own professional practice on hold while he accompanied Huebner, perhaps a compensatory salary ought to be paid to ambassadors' spouses.

On both counts - racial and gay - this would have been totally beyond inagining back in the 1960s, when I began agitating. So while we have a way to go - all is certainly not yet aright - we have certainly come a very, very, very long way in what, from an historical standpoint, is a rather short time. I'm sure that I won't be around to see the final resolution of these issues - if they are ever totally resolved, -- but many of you will certainly see us even closer to resolution than we are now. Work hard and be persistent and patient.

Gay IS Good. And the only race is the Human Race. Pound away at those and never compromise, however slightly.

I thought a lot about John Corvino's piece on bigotry while listening to the New Jersey Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on same-sex marriage yesterday. I deeply agree with John that the word "bigot" should be used sparingly so that its very strong condemnatory force is not diluted. Many people who don't support same-sex marriage are not bigots, and it does not help us to use the epithet promiscuously.

John tries to tease out a more helpful definition of "bigot" than dictionaries provide, and moves the ball downfield a bit. But he sets himself a hard task.

That struck home for me when a rabbi (whose name I did not catch) testified against the New Jersey bill, and asked the legislators to think about the fate of an "innocent lonely child" who is adopted by a same-sex married couple. His testimony is at the 8:18 mark in Blue Jersey's live blog. The unadorned words do not capture the rabbi's deep, fearful concern for this hypothetical child.

I obviously can't speak about what moved this man. But listening to him, it is tragically clear that there is no room at all in his world for the simple possibility that such a child might not be lonely in a loving home headed by a gay couple, or that the child could thrive and have a wonderful life. The irony is that by eliminating such a possibility from his imagination, he may be preventing some real child that tangible benefit.

It is this moral editing - this internal censorship of good possibilities - that exempts some people from being called bigots. I can't really imagine how anyone could do that - suppress from their consciousness a fellow human being's decency or happiness or value. But it is something necessary (if not sufficient) for prejudice to prevail. I don't think this rabbi wishes us harm; but it is just not within him to see us as blessed. His cramped view of the world takes something essential away from us.

That is a blindness, but I don't think it is necessarily blameworthy. To my mind, it not as condemnable as the actions of those who can (and do) see us in our ordinary lives, yet intentionally exploit the bias against us for political advantage. The harm to our equality is the same in either case, but there is a moral difference that we should acknowledge.

It is possible this learned man falls into the latter category. But until we know for sure, I don't think we can call him a bigot. We can, though, wish him to see us more generously.

Officials in Uganda may be responding to our rhetoric rather than our rationale. Box Turtle Bulletin notes that amendments to the anti-homosexuality bill could replace the death penalty for "aggravated homosexuality" with a life sentence. That may be why BTB is now only referring to the bill as the "Anti-Gay Bill" rather than the "Kill Gays Bill."

But this is exactly why I was originally troubled by our inflammatory rhetoric that seemed to focus more on the penalty than the problem.

The death penalty is the ultimate government-sponsored punishment, and reveals the vicious and inhuman impulse behind the legislation. But even if the bill included only fixed prison terms, it is every bit as retrograde and malicious. It explicitly carves out homosexuality from the moral and legal universe. It establishes a civil world in which lesbians and gay men have no place; worse than that, it makes us criminals, and attempts to make even our supporters complicit in the crime of our mere existence. Citizens may not even speak favorably of homosexuality, or write affirmingly about equality without criminal sanction.

But to the extent America has any moral high ground on this issue, it is only a matter of degree. Both DOMA and DADT do implicitly what this bill is proud to say it does - invoke the force of the law to treat homosexuals as a different kind of being from heterosexuals, and draw specific rules that apply only to homosexuals, with entirely different rules applicable to heterosexuals. For any heterosexuals reading this, try to imagine a law that would result in your dismissal if you mentioned your spouse. Then imagine what it might be like if you could not publicly even testify before Congress about that law's unfairness, because even that would have the same result. And try to imagine what a law to allow you the qualified ability to speak might look like. Finally, imagine someone telling you this whole scheme is not a violation of your right to free speech.

To be sure, ours are only civil sanctions, not criminal ones, and the penalties are economic, psychological and social. That makes it easier for many heterosexuals to invoke a plausible deniability about the segregation the laws impose. No prison time here.

But irrespective of the kind of penalty, this is the most craven and degraded use of law. Fortunately, after many decades of work, we have the social and constitutional structure in the U.S. to minimize the damage, and fight for something better. I don't see anything like that to protect the homosexual citizens of Uganda.

While there is no shortage of anger about the result of yesterday's vote in the New York State Senate on gay marriage, there is ample praise for the civil and respectful floor debate. I would agree, except for one thing.

What debate?

A debate requires at least two sides, some exchange and (in a perfect world) maybe even a bit of ground-shifting. But what happened yesterday shows that our opponents have nothing but politics and prejudice on their side, and don't even feel the need to defend them anymore.

Only a single senator, Ruben Diaz, Sr., stood up to champion a No vote. Everyone else on his side was silent in the chamber. Diaz's oratorical contribution did not bother to include any explanation of what might be wrong with equality. The first six minutes of his speech were an appeal to Republicans. He is a Democrat, and wanted to stir up resentment among his colleagues on the other side who don't get much gay support (e.g., in Diaz's pretty naked words, money). He then launched into a lengthy recitation of the obvious fact that there are religions that oppose homosexuality, and offered a complete roll call of the 31 states that voted gay marriage down. Finally, Diaz urged his fellow popularly elected senators not to "do away with the people's will."

Amidst all of this, there was no argument against same-sex marriage (procreation, preserving the state's economic resources, supporting heterosexual families), and it is telling that Diaz felt no need to do so. As Senator Tom Libous (another No vote) said afterward, "I just don't think the majority care too much about [gay marriage] at this time. . . " If you can rely on the majority not caring much about the rights of a minority, why go out of your way to stir the pot?

Yes, Republicans should feel grieved that gays support democrats (who support them), and yes, there is a long and storied history of religious persecution of gay people, and yes, a majority of Americans still continue to oppose gay marriage. The question before the house was "Why?" Why is it good or fair, or sound public policy to favor heterosexuals over homosexual couples?

Compare that to the speeches - pretty much all of them - in support of equal marriage rights. While some of them did invoke political tropes, they all actually engaged the issue before them: should gay people be treated differently under the law than straight people? If not, why not? They came at the question in different ways, but all of them actually addressed the public policy issue. I loved the speeches of Diane Savino and Ruth Hassell-Thompson, myself, but there are a lot of fine, substantive speeches to choose from.

The silence in the senate reaffirms how the tide is shifting. It used to be us who had to remain in the shadows. Now, we and our supporters can take pride in publicly articulating our arguments, while the other side - whether it's in the New York Senate or the precincts of Washington state - seem a little bit embarrassed at their lack of real, civic, credible arguments, and just want to be left alone.

Because existing law already incorporates anti-gay discrimination, our opponents have the considerable force of inertia on their side. But just because you have a majority doesn't mean you have an argument.

***

And I have to add this (kind of) snarky note: Washington's comprehensive domestic partnership law goes into effect today.

I mean, if Californians are serious about protecting marriage, why stop at banning gay marriage?

An activist calls their bluff with a satirical initiative campaign that just might get on the ballot.

And the ad is funny.

James Oaksun, a Maine-based libertarian activist and analyst, has published what strikes me as an astute analysis of what went wrong for same-sex marriage advocates in Maine. It's available, in PDF format, here.

Like me and others, he argues that the pro-gay-marriage side must get beyond defensiveness and evasion on the schools issue, and he offers an interesting suggestion for taking the bull by the horns."Perhaps the framing is to talk about what modern society asks the schools to do. Educate, yes. But also prepare the leaders of tomorrow to function collaboratively in a diverse society. The reality of life is, yes, there are gay people and they are not going away."

Not bad. My own first-cut thought about a non-defensive message was "teaching kids that discrimination is wrong and that everyone deserves a family."

Time for some focus-group research?

In any case, it's good to see recognition spreading that, like it or not, we can't talk about same-sex marriage without also talking about teaching same-sex marriage.

Memo to the anti-SSM right: having picked this fight on education, be prepared to lose it. Sooner or later, teaching about gay marriage won't seem so scary. Your ads may even help normalize it.

Equality lost in the New York Senate 38-24. It wasn't even close.

Again, I hope our folks back there know what they're doing. Perhaps the Senate would reject even domestic partnership rights. But we don't know because, here on the verge of 2010, they've never even tried.

And in the meantime, New York state's same-sex couples have pretty much nothing.

I feel a bit guilty about focusing on Adam Lambert and music and marriage and other local issues when there is a real threat to gay rights in Uganda. "Gay rights" sounds almost quaint in this context, given that the proposed law is the closest thing I've seen in my lifetime to the Nuremberg Laws.

American bloggers seem to have coalesced around calling it the "Kill Gays" bill, and I obviously agree that if it were enacted, it would ultimately lead to that. In its present version, the death penalty would apply to "aggravated homosexuality," which includes sex with a minor or a disability, or someone with AIDS.

This is bad enough. But by focusing on the limited circumstances in which the law would impose state-sanctioned death, I think we run the risk of missing the far broader and more dangerous part of the text: the part that establishes "The offence of homosexuality."

That was implicit in America's ancient sodomy laws, which were sometimes no more specific than prohibiting "the crime against nature." That could be any of a million things, but most people understood it to be homosexuality in some form. Those laws are now a thing of the past, both here and in other civilized nations.

Uganda is determined to uncivilize itself and head straight into a new Dark Age by formally and explicitly criminalizing an offense they call homosexuality. In fact, the bill, itself, says that current law is defective because it ". . .has no comprehensive provision catering for [sic] anti homosexuality."

The bill's single-minded focus on punishing homosexuality is breathtaking. The mere intention to commit homosexuality will expose the offender to life imprisonment. The law also prohibits and punishes speaking publicly in favor of gay rights in any form. Don't Ask, Don't Tell is a progressive dream by comparison.

But even that is not enough for this thuggish piece of aggression. Anyone who even knows about someone who is gay has an obligation to turn them in - whether it's a family member, a dear friend or a stranger. Failure to do that is also a punishable offense.

All of this arises from the premise that homosexuality, by itself, is an "offence." Once that is established in the law, everything else flows from it. The power of the state to protect citizens from danger is called into play in all its majesty and force, up to and including making sure that citizens who are not themselves homosexual must report to the authorities any real or suspected violations. This is how genocides start.

Calling the bill "retrograde" seems wildly inadequate. The modern world has come so far on gay equality, and this detestable and gruesome scheme looks like a sick joke.

But it is not. Its proponents have put it forward in all seriousness. Its vile assumptions and loathsome, inevitable consequences deserve to be condemned explicitly. Box Turtle Bulletin has done a thorough and excellent job of covering this story, and its archives are a primary source for anyone who is interested.

Lots of gay news sites and blogs, and not just the skanky ones, have recently been repeating rumors that a certain seventeen-year-old movie hunk is gay. Rolling Stone Magazine practically badgered the kid about his sexual orientation in an interview.

Am I the only person who thinks this is reprehensible? This is a kid we are talking about. Yes, he looks like he just stepped out of an Abercrombie and Fitch campaign, but he is still a kid. He is probably living with his parents, he is dealing all of the drama that comes with being a star, and I am fairly certain he would rather not have to deal with this.

We are not talking about the famous middle-aged socialite son of a renowned designer who invites the press to cover every element of his life but inexplicably refuses to answer simple straightforward questions about whether or not he is gay, giving rise to the implication that being gay is a deep, dark, shameful thing (as a purely hypothetical example). We are talking about a seventeen-year-old.

To the actor's credit, he dealt with Rolling Stone's obnoxious inquires really well. There were no freaked-out denials or feigned indignation. He pretty much just ignored the questioner, which was a classier response than was deserved.

Gay people should know better than to indulge in this sort of thing. We all had to deal with coming out. We know how traumatic it is. If the actor is gay, this is just the kind of thing that makes coming out more difficult. Any gay blogger or journalist who tries to drive up traffic with this "story" should be ashamed.