IGF CultureWatch

The New Reality. I don't intend to go on and on about the election -- others do that far better than I, and there are other issues of interest. But there are a few things still worth noting.

Democrats who engaged in gay-baiting against their GOP opponents tended to lose -- in the Senate race in South Carolina, the gubernatorial race in Hawaii, and a couple of House races (the exception was sleazy Sen. Max Baucus, who won easily in Montana). Welcomed losers included Democratic Rep. David Phelps in Illinois, who had introduced an anti-gay marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution (it went nowhere) and leafleted cars at church services noting that his opponent, John Shimkus, was endorsed by the Log Cabin Republicans and was pro-gay rights! Shimkus won, hurrah!

On the GOP side, the good news is that we won't have Sen. Jesse Helms and Rep. Bob Barr -- the two most vehement homophobes in Congress -- to kick around anymore. Helms retired and Barr was defeated in his primary race.

I see some are warning that if social conservatives were to introduce anti-gay bills, without a Democratic majority we could be in trouble. First, I don't think contentious "red meat" social issues are going to be brought up, given the President's enunciated agenda. But if they should, Republicans still lack the 60 vote "supermajority" necessary to overcome a Democratic filibuster under Senate rules. The Democrats will not be shy about using the filibuster to block or eviscerate pro-business legislation such as tort reform, so if they don't filibuster to block anti-gay measures (if any) it speaks to the extent to which they take their gay support for granted.

And there's another matter worth pondering. Earlier this year, it appeared that the Senate Democrats were poised to introduce the Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) outlawing anti-gay discrimination in private-sector employment. They didn't do so. Yes, the fact that the House was likely to vote it down was a factor. But that was known all along, and it had seemed that the Democrats" strategy was to bring up ENDA and pass it in the Senate in order to mobilize their gay bloc and liberal supporters. Apparently, however, a lot of Democratic senators decided they didn't want to go on record voting for ENDA, or on record opposing it for that matter, and it was simply dropped.

HRC adapts? Finally, the Washington-based Human Rights Campaign has issued a statement coming to terms with the post-election reality:

"The time has come to consider the myriad federal issues regarding sexual orientation and gender identity and expression to move strategically forward -- not just on protection in employment and hate crimes, but on a whole range of economic benefits issues, such as taxation, pension and retirement benefits, immigration and hospital visitation rights," said [HRC leader Elizabeth] Birch. "While yesterday was a significant defeat for Democrats, our long experience tells us that GLBT issues will continue to move forward for human as well as partisan reasons."

This seems sensible, and perhaps where HRC and others should have been focusing their attention all along -- on possibly achievable measures that would clear away discriminatory aspects of law as regards gays and lesbians. But given the penchant of gay groups to focus on sweepingly broad legislation with little chance of passage, and to give primacy to pursuing the wide left-liberal agenda (and the election of those who support it), we"ll have to wait and see what road the movement actually winds up taking over the coming years.

The Day After. The Republicans have now taken back control of the Senate and expanded their House majority. For those of us who tend to be socially libertarian and fiscally conservative, it's always a mixed bag. But there is no doubt that the movement for gay equality must be pursued through both major parties, and that the arch partisanship of so many gay groups, both local and national, who seem more interested in being part of an increasingly anachronistic Grand Coalition of the Liberal-Left than in securing equal treatment for gays and lesbians, is more suspect than ever.

Here's a "day after" statement from the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force:

Democrats have traditionally been very supportive on GLBT issues -- the projected Republican Senate and House majority leaves GLBT constituents in jeopardy of seeing more anti-GLBT legislation introduced. "The projected outcomes in this election now allows the party of the 'compassionate conservative' to show how truly compassionate they are," said [NGLTF leader Lorri] Jean. "NGLTF calls on both House and Senate Republicans to work toward eliminating discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity."

Well, you can't suddenly call on Republicans to work with you after demonizing them year after year. More to the point, given a conservative majority, the idea that anti-discrimination law should remain the single top priority is short-sighted.

Conservatism in America is very much a mixture of the intolerant religious right (actually very much a minority in comparison to mainstream conservatives), pro-growth forces that oppose excessive taxation and business over-regulation, proponents of a strong national defense, and -- more generally -- those who speak and understand the language of freedom from government interference and who traditionally favor a right to be left alone. That's why the Log Cabin Republicans and the Republican Unity Coalition are correct that working within the GOP, despite its failure to support gay equality, is far wiser than refusing to challenge anti-gay religious conservatives on their own complex political turf.

There are good conservatives and bad conservatives, and building a dialogue with those who understand the goal of "equality before the law" will be key to the continued advancement of our liberty.
--Stephen H. Miller

The Partisan's Quandary. IGF contributor Dale Carpenter has written an ever-so-timely column titled What's a Gay Republican To Do? Rejecting both simplistic rah-rah partisanship and single (gay) issue myopia, he observes that:

As politically progressive gays tirelessly remind us, "gay" issues are not the only issues that matter. Good citizens must be concerned about other things too, like national defense and the economy. A candidate may be terrific on gay issues but terrible on just about everything else important to a responsible voter. Voting is a matter of balancing candidates" overall pluses against their overall minuses".

But there are circumstances in which the candidates" stands on gay issues should weigh more heavily, and perhaps be decisive, for a gay Republican. First, there are some public policy positions that strike so fundamentally at the core of gays" full citizenship that no politician advocating them should get our votes.

This, I concur, is a sensible approach. Oppose candidates of whichever party if they seek to deny us our fundamental liberties as citizens. On the other hand, don't fall into the zealot's trap of giving primacy to feel-good rhetoric over everything else of critical importance to our well-being as Americans.
--Stephen H. Miller

Fun in the Hawaiian Sun. On Hawaii's gubernatorial election, the Hawaii Reporter website related the following:

Yesterday, Hawaii Reporter talked to a handful of people outside the Republican Party who had direct knowledge of a new secret whispering campaign against Republican Gubernatorial Candidate Linda Lingle. Apparently a woman claiming to be the former lover of Lingle is calling targeted Republicans as a part of a smear campaign against Lingle. Lingle says she is not gay and in fact has been married twice.

Lingle supporters says smear mongers are hoping to distract voters from the real issues like the fact that the state has hit rock bottom in almost every category -- education, business, social problems, importation of drugs, domestic violence, theft -- because of poor political leadership.

Democrats tried this same smear in 1998 against Lingle when she ran for governor against incumbent Benjamin Cayetano and against some of their own candidates in years prior who weren't the "chosen" party candidates, including a Democrat candidate for mayor and a Democrat candidate for governor.

And then there's this, as reported by the Washington Times:

When [Lingle] denied lesbian rumors, Democratic Gov. Benjamin J. Cayetano, who is term-limited, said that her denial suggested she felt that homosexuality is "something to be ashamed of" and therefore she was "denigrating gays."

She says her opponents have falsely accused her of everything from wanting to privatize the whole state government to wanting to cancel Christmas as a state holiday.

She says they have lied about her favoring the legalization of same-sex "marriage" and physician-assisted suicides and making Hawaii a right-to-work state.

So first her opponents spread a gay rumor to hurt her, and when she denies the rumor they call her homophobic. No wonder people hate politics.

(Note: The Hawaii Reporter story was first noted on the blogsphere by David Hogberg's Cornfield Commentary site and andrewsullivan.com)

Destructive Therapy. A sad but interesting piece ran in the San Jose Mercury News about the self-destructive behavior and ultimate brutal murder of transsexual teen Gwen/Eddie Araujo. Of particular interest is the following:

People offered Eddie their help, including Linda Skerbec, a therapist associated with the Focus on the Family ministry who had known the family for years and saw Araujo between the ages of 14 and 16. She said she was on the verge of persuading Araujo to "move beyond the label" of transgender and "claim the sexual identity that matched his anatomy."

We"re also told, however:

This would have been Araujo's senior year at Crossroads High School, but he never showed up".Araujo's behavior grew more self-destructive, and his mother concedes now that she "never understood the magnitude of his pain."" Aaraujo attempted suicide and drank more frequently. He had no job and wasn't studying. Friends told police he traded sex for beer and marijuana. Last month, Araujo was found unconscious"passed out after a night of drinking. But it wasn't unusual. He often wouldn't come home at night.

Sounds like the fundametalist, homophobic "therapy" was of great help, right? Shouldn't this quackery be considered a form of child abuse?

[Update: Read Ms. Skerbec's letter to us, stating that the allegations against her were false.]

Speaking of ex-gay quackery, here's a not-too-bad piece on the re-emergence of ex-gay activist John Paulk, from the conservative Washington Times.
--Stephen H. Miller

Partisan Grave Diggers. Glad I wasn't the only one who found the televised stadium rally, ahem "memorial service," for Paul Wellstone deeply offensive. No wonder the organizers told Vice President Cheney not to come.

They"ve Surrendered! Not quite, but the recent lament from syndicated columnist Cal Thomas, a Christian conservative who once worked for the Moral Majority, is revealing. Writes Thomas in his column titled The Gay Rights War is Over and We Lost:

Let's be honest. The battle over so-called "gay rights" is over. Politicians, the media, and the medical and psychological professions -- everyone is completely on board. It's simply a matter of time -- weeks, months, but not more than a few years-- before homosexual "marriage" and child adoption are made completely legal.

New York Republican Governor George Pataki has pushed his state senate to pass gay rights legislation in December. -- When Republicans -- the "family values" party -- start signing off on this stuff, you know the war is officially over.

More Democrats Behaving Badly. The Wall Street Journal's opinionjournal.com - Best of the Web column on Monday included the following item, titled "If He Were A Republican, This Would Be Hate Speech," with a link to a story from Columbia, South Carolina's The State newspaper, and this summary:

Alex Sanders, the Democratic nominee for Senate in South Carolina, is blasting his Republican opponent, Rep. Lindsey Graham, for running an ad featuring an endorsement from former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, the Columbia State reports. "He's an ultraliberal," Sanders said of Giuliani during a debate Friday. "His wife kicked him out and he moved in with two gay men and a Shih Tzu. Is that South Carolina values? I don't think so."

Nice, huh. Coming on top of Montana Sen. Max Baucus's sleazy "Not in Our State!" ads, those who argue all we need is a one-party movement have some spinning to do.

Iraq a Gay Issue? This weekend saw another rally in our nation's capital opposing military action to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. On this matter, IGF contributor Rick Rosendall has a timely column in the Washington Blade taking issue with those, such as gay Muslim activist Faisal Alam, who argue gay groups should oppose the war, in Rosendall's words

"without showing the slightest awareness of which side actually treats gays better. (Hint: It's the one that allows gay Muslims to organize and publish op-eds.)"

Also of interest is syndicated columnist Hastings Wyman's recent roundup of where gay movement organizations stand in relation to the question -- and the not surprising fact that many on the LGBT left favor joining the alliance opposing action to free the Iraqi people, and the world, from this monster.

Sen. Wellstone, in Perspective. The tragic death of Sen. Paul Wellstone, perhaps the Senate's most left-leaning lawmaker, is being noted by the Human Rights Campaign, which issued a statement that lauds him as "a hero of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender movement," as well as "a powerfully eloquent and passionate voice for fairness today," whose death represents "a devastating loss to our community." And, indeed, Wellstone was a leading advocate for the proposed Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), a federal bill that would forbid private companies from discriminating against gays and lesbians.

But it's also important to remember this, as reported by the Associated Press:

Labeled by a magazine, Mother Jones, as "the first 1960s radical elected to the U.S. Senate," Wellstone still managed to disappoint liberal followers on occasion. In 1996, he angered gay rights supporters by voting for the "Defense of Marriage" bill, which allowed states to withhold legal recognition of same-sex unions from other states [and bars the federal government from recognizing such unions].

HRC considers ENDA, which the group carefully crafted and which it promotes to contributors as its chief product, as the most important issue on the gay agenda (so to speak). Many of us feel that the denial of gay marriage and government discrimination toward gays in the military -- the nation's single largest employer -- impact more gay lives to a far greater degree than private-sector employment discrimination, given that surprisingly few cases can truly be documented, that a rapidly growing number of companies are formally adding gays to their non-discrimination policies on their own despite the lack of government decree, and that a libertarian case can be made that employers should be entitled to hire the workers they choose, and that ENDA paves the way for both baseless lawsuits (profiting trial lawyers, if no one else) while creating an incentive not to hire open gays (for fear that you could never fire them).

I"m not among those who oppose ENDA; on the whole, it would be a nice symbolic statement. But discrimination sanctioned and practiced by our government, especially denial of the right to marry, should be our main focus, and it's not. And it certainly wasn't for Paul Wellstone, and it isn't for HRC, NGLTF, and many other movement leaders.
--Stephen H. Miller

The Political Zoo. If I don't often focus on the bad stuff coming out of the GOP camp, it's because mindless Republican-bashing is the heart of most gay websites, which obscures the real progress that's been made as of late. But as it is campaign season, there are plenty of instances of Republicans behaving badly that can, in fact, be noted. And some examples where they"re getting a bad rap as well. Among the transgressors, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush disgraced himself in a recent debate with Democratic challenger Bill McBride, who quite rightly called Florida's law prohibiting gay couples from adopting children discriminatory and ''not the American way.'' Bush the younger defended the ban, saying that children should find permanent homes only with couples who are ''a man and a wife.'' He added, for good measure, ''It's the law of the land, but I believe it personally.''

Sadly, Bush is on target about most issues in this campaign. For instance, McBride thinks the school problem can be solved be shoveling still more money down the system's bureaucratic rat hole, while his backers at the teachers" unions oppose the sort of real reforms that could, finally, make schools accountable for their wretched performance. Too bad Jeb is combining his support for innovation and enterprise with subservience to the religious right on an important matter of equality and fairness. If I were a Floridian, I might vote Libertarian in this race.

As an international aside, the British have also been debating the adoption question, and Lady Thatcher made a special appearance at the House of Lords to take part in "heated exchanges" and drive a stake through the heart of Tony Blair's bill to allow gay and unmarried partners to adopt. Of course, if gays could marry then the matter wouldn't be confused by throwing unmarried heterosexuals (who can, but don't , make the commitment) into the mix. But it's not like conservatives are supporting that idea, either.

One of the most bizarre cases of reactionary Republicanism comes from Houston, Texas, where a GOP candidate for justice of the peace, who also happens to be openly gay and president of the Houston chapter of the Log Cabin Republicans, is being attacked by a GOP political activist who sent his party's voters an automated telephone message telling them not to vote the straight Republican ticket because, as the
Houston Chronicle paraphrased it, "If you vote straight, you vote gay." It's just a wacko case, but shows how deep the hatred is among the unreconstructed right.

The Other Side. On the other hand, there are some happier examples of Republicans behaving well. For instance, New York's Gov. George Pataki is successfully pushing a resistant Republican-controlled state senate to pass a gay rights bill, which he promises to sign. Regardless of the merits of such bills, his support indicates a more generally enlightened attitude towards inclusiveness. Pataki has also backed post-9/11 survivors benefits for gay partners.

Finally, there's an instance where a Republican may be getting a raw deal. In the Massachusetts gubernatorial race, the GOP's Mitt Romney has pledged: "As Governor, I will introduce legislation to establish a domestic partnership law in Massachusetts, and I support any city, medical facility or business that chooses to extend these rights and benefits to their employees." So of course he's being denounced as a homophobe. A Mormon, Romney endowed a management school with a $1 million donation to Brigham Young University, a Church school with clearly antigay policies (he is not on the board or otherwise affiliated with BYU). As the executive who ran the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics, gay groups praised Romney's outreach to gays and lesbians.
(A Human Rights Campaign press release from last January stated: "Our community's level of participation is unprecedented, thanks to the Salt Lake Olympic Organizing Committee's inclusive policies that respect all residents who want to help make this the most successful Olympics ever").

For a highly visible Mormon to support gay rights and domestic-partner benefits is a Big Deal, and perhaps of more value than support from a liberal, or even an ex-Mormon (which is what Romney would be if he took on his Church's anti-gay policies directly). If gay activists truly believe in the separation of Church and State, they might cut Romney a little slack on this one.
--Stephen H. Miller

Baucus Unbowed. Sen. Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, continues to dish out more "Not in Our State" slime, at least in the view of one anti-Baucus website .

Why Gays Hate (some) Republicans. Pennsylvania's GOP gubernatorial candidate Mike Fisher boasted he would veto any bill attempting to give state employees domestic partners insurance or other benefits, saying "I think it's even more important to protect Pennsylvania's traditional family values.'' Democratic front-runner Edward G. Rendell signed such a measure as mayor of Philadelphia, but it was struck down by the courts. As the AP story reports, Libertarian Ken Krawchuk "provided the biggest of several laughs of the evening" when he observed, "I think what's good for the goose and the gander is good for the goose and the goose, and the gander and the gander."

Down the Drain. Transgendered and gay students at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, calling themselves Restroom Revolution, have launched a petition drive and "mass mobilization" to create coed dorm bathrooms, the Boston Globe reports:

"Transgendered students have nowhere to go to the bathroom on campus," said Mitch Boucher, 33, a PhD candidate organizing the campaign". About 30 Restroom Revolution activists, including leaders of gay and transgendered advocacy groups, met earlier this month and announced their new focus". But at UMass-Amherst the prospects remain uncertain. Efforts to raise awareness of transgendered concerns led to sensitivity training sessions for adult dorm staff and student residential assistants this past summer that will now be conducted annually". But Stephen Pereira, assistant director of the Stonewall Center, a campus resource facility for gay, bisexual, and transgendered students, believes that until the campus community learns more about transgendered students, mobilizing broad-based support may be difficult.

This actually may be a real issue for politicized transgendered students, but it seems to me it's the one issue most likely to arouse primal opposition among those who prefer their public, multi-stall restrooms to be sex-segregated.

Certainly the transgendered, outside of the halls of ivy, face greater issues -- like not being murdered, as highlighted by the recent, awful killing of Eddie/Gwn Araujo, a 17-year-old beaten and strangled recently in California. As the AP reports, stories of attacks are familiar to cross-dressers, and rather transcend trendy on-campus restroom "mobilizations." Making straights use coed johns isn't going to improve matters in this regard.

Unexpected Source. The conservative, and typically very gay-negative, CNSNews.com ran a odd piece titled "Pink Pistols Say Media's Sniper Reporting Off-Target," about the gay and lesbian group that defends the right to bear arms. The story focused on firearms, not sexuality, and never used the words gay or lesbian. Still, it noted:

In addition to defending the Second Amendment, the Pink Pistols also advocates the "rights of consenting adults to love each other how they wish, however they wish."

"We are dedicated to the legal, safe, and responsible use of firearms for self-defense of the sexual-minority community," says a statement on the group's website, which carries the motto, "Pick on someone your own caliber."

Being treated as a legitimate source by the right-wing media is some evidence of progress, I think. It certainly goes against the usual stereotype!

Gay Media Myopia. A report in the Boston Globe quotes attempted shoebomber Richard Reid explaining his motivation as follows:

"This is a war between Islam and democracy," he e-mailed his mother. A society that permits homosexuality and sex outside marriage (and that is marred by alcoholism and drug addiction) also violates God's will, he believed.

It's now undeniable that Islamic extremists would seek to exterminate us, given the chance. Yet there's still a politically correct queasiness about saying so. The current issue of the Washington Blade, one of the nation's largest circulation gay papers, ran (several weeks after the fact) a short article on the stabbing of the openly gay mayor of Paris, Bertrand Delanoe, and simply neglected to report that the attacker was at least to some extent motivated by Islamic homo-hatred. The story simple states: "Azedine Berkane, 39, has told investigators that he committed the crime out of dislike of gays and politicians" But as I noted in an earlier posting, the AP reported that he also explained to police that he was a devout Muslin, which is the context for his beliefs. I repeat, yet again: can you imagine how completely different the story would have been reported in the gay press if the perpetrator had been a Christian fundamentalist? Demented multiculturalism, holding that only Western Civilization and Judeo-Christianity are worthy of criticism, is Orwellian indeed.