IGF CultureWatch

All-Male Social Clubs Verboten. A Senate panel has approved the nomination of Circuit Court nominee Judge D. Brooks Smith, with three Democrats defying their colleagues" contention that the candidate be defeated because he was a member of an all-male rod-and-gun club. I don't know a thing about Judge Smith, although he did receive the highest rating -- "well qualified" -- from the liberal American Bar Association, but reading the attacks on him for belonging to a men's club makes me red with anger. The club in question, it should be noted, was not some fancy country club with swimming pool or golf course or tennis courts. No, just a club house. And a group of guys who wanted to associate together in an all-male environment.

But no, that's too much freedom of association for the ever-more revolting Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and committee chairperson. Turns out Judge Smith actually resigned from the odious all-male association, just not fast enough for inquisitor Leahy, who declared Smith "should have resigned from the "country club" -- when he first told the committee of his membership. Judge Smith also said he would resign but did not do so until 1999." For shame! Bellowed Sen. Edward Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, "No one should be on the court if they give the slightest [hint] of discrimination." Chimed in Sen. Russell Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, Judge Smith "has not demonstrated good judgment on certain ethical issues" and is "plagued by an ethical cloud."

Sen. Orrin Hatch, Utah Republican, responded:

Given the bipartisan support Judge Smith enjoys from the people who know him best, and his stellar record, I find it most difficult to accept that the opposition to him has centered on his belonging to an all-male, family-oriented fishing club where his father first taught him to fly fish."

Hatch warned that "if this is the kind of thing that this committee uses as an excuse for thwarting the president's judicial nominations, then the American people will have a big laugh at our expense, and rightly so." If only it were so. But the right of men to associate socially with men has now been cast as an offense akin to racial exclusion (women's clubs, on the other hand, get a free pass). Any gay man who supports these smug political clowns should be forced to cruise a co-gender sex club!

Scholarly Fundies? The Regent University Law Review (yes, Pat Robertson's own Regent University publishes a law review!) has devoted its Spring 2002 issue to what it calls "a series of scholarly discussions of homosexuality." According to comments by Lou Sheldon posted on the Web site of the Traditional Values Coalition (kindred spirits of Robertson), one article looks at "The Selling of Homosexuality to America," by a Regent University doctoral student (yes, Regent University has doctoral students!). It describes:

a carefully designed marketing strategy developed by homosexual activists more than 15 years ago. The key marketers in this campaign to normalize homosexuality are Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, authors of the 1989 book "After the Ball: How America will conquer its fear & hatred of Gays in the "90s."

"After the Ball" has been the marketing strategy book used by homosexual activists in government, in the media, and in other power centers.

I vaguely remember this book from my years as a GLAAD committee chair in New York (before being pushed out for raising objections to the group's unctuous political correctness). I recall that "After the Ball" did make a good case for a mainstream gay rights movement that focused on placing the normality of our lives before the American public -- and using professional PR strategies to accomplish this. But the book didn't generate much buzz among the lefty lesbigay activists at the helm of "the movement" and certainly was never adopted as any kind of a blueprint. Today it's all but forgotten. To suggest that this book is and has been driving a "gay agenda" is bizarre to say the least. How gullible are these people?

Follow Up. F. Brian Chase, an attorney and friend of IGF, writes:

I used to work for a group in Florida that followed Hunter & Madsen and even published some of their proposed ads. The group was uniformly criticized by the other gay rights groups in the area for not being inclusive enough and for trying to sanitize gay life to suit hetero tastes. As I recall, Hunter & Madsen were viewed as sell-outs by most of the GLBT etc. groups of the day.

Oh well it's still worth reading that press release thing just for the laugh value of seeing "scholarly" and "Regent University" used in the same sentence.

Yes, indeed!

No Generalization Intended? In my last posting, I commented on a Stanley Kurtz column in National Review Online that managed to blame the Catholic Church's escalating sexual-abuse scandal on efforts to allow gays to marry! In the days following, IGF contributor Andrew Sullivan, whose advocacy of same-sex marriage and the right to serve in the military were noted by Kurtz, responded on his blog (www.andrewsullivan.com -- scroll down to the May 21 posting). Responding to Sullivan's response on May 22, Kurtz protested in a posting titled "Contradictory Desires":

"Sullivan mischaracterizes my fundamental premise. I do not believe that 'all homosexuals are alike,' nor do I believe that all, or even most, homosexuals are child abusers."

He then goes on to state:

"Gays take vows of priestly celibacy, yet also discard those vows, and call for the overthrow of the Church's teaching on sexuality." ...

"So one lesson of this scandal is that the integration of homosexual and heterosexual men in the same living areas can in fact break down 'unit cohesion,' thereby causing institutional disruption -- military take note." ...

"...Homosexuals will always feel like outsiders, no matter how much approval society offers.... Because of this inevitable alienation, homosexuals will always be disproportionately rebellious on sexual issues."

What would Kurtz have concluded if he DID believe "all homosexuals are alike"? And do lesbians fit into his worldview of gays and societal subversion at all?

Gay "Subversives." A perfectly ridiculous piece by anti-gay writer Stanley Kurtz titled Gay Priests and Gay Marriage, at nationalreview.com, blames the Catholic Church's sex-abuse scandals on, well, us. Announcing ominously that "the greatest lesson of this scandal has yet to be drawn," Kurtz declares the uproar over priestly sexual abuse "offers spectacular confirmation of nearly every warning ever issued by the opponents of gay marriage." It seems that in battling for the right to wed, gays are managing to "subvert the monogamous ethos of traditional marriage." Yes, it's our "subversive subculture" at work, just as allowing gays to serve in the priesthood resulted in weakening the moral fiber of Holy Mother Church.

IGF's own Jonathan Rauch and Andrew Sullivan bear their share of them blame for this tragic situation, it seems. For as Kurtz explains:

"Although both Sullivan and Rauch have honorably and ably defended same-sex marriage as the best way to "domesticate" sexually promiscuous gays, the priesthood scandal is powerful proof that just about every one of their fundamental assumptions is mistaken."

As Kurtz spells it out, just as gay priests (which he simply equates with pedophile priests) undermined clerical celibacy in the worst possible way, so will allowing gays to marry subvert and destroy marital fidelity.

I believe strongly in engaging the anti-gay right (and the illiberal gay left) in open and forthright debate, so I generally don't favor a dismissive response to arguments against gay equality. But honestly, could anyone read Kurtz and be persuaded by his fatuous and circular reasoning? If this is what's passing as vanguard thought by our opponents, then without doubt they"re in pretty serious trouble.

A New World? Congressman Bob Barr (R-Ga.) was the lead sponsor of the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars the federal government from recognizing gay unions (and which, after obtaining Bill Clinton's support, was signed into law by gay Democrats" favorite president). Now, Barr has done something surprising. He has come out against a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. According to a report in the Washington Blade, Barr said during an appearance on MS-NBC that the proposed amendment would infringe on the right of states to decide whether to allow same-sex couples legal recognition, and that states should have the right to legalize gay marriage if they choose to do so through the legislative process. This isn't exactly repudiating the Defense of Marriage Act (which didn't ban states from passing gay marriage, just federal recognition of those unions), but it is still a marked departure for the old anti-gay warrior.

What gives? It seems Barr, finding himself in a tough primary fight against another, more temperate incumbent GOP congressman, in a redrawn suburban Atlanta district, is moving to the center. Whatever the reason, if Bob Barr can reinvent himself as a relative moderate on gay issues, than, once again, the times they are a"changing.

In the News. Here's a roundup of some interesting pieces.

From Reuters:

Murdered populist Pim Fortuyn's upstart party stormed to second place in Dutch elections as the ruling center-left was routed in the latest example of Europe's dramatic shift to the right."Formed in March by the openly gay, shaven-headed former academic, Fortuyn's anti-immigrant party gasped at its own success in the most astonishing Dutch election in living memory. "It's a wonderful result but there is no real joy. Today we feel like orphans. We've lost our teacher," LPF [List Pim Fortyn] spokesman Mat Herben told supporters in a chic hotel in The Hague, standing by a framed portrait of Fortuyn and his two pet spaniels. "If Pim had lived, we would have been the biggest party."" An animal rights activist has been charged with killing Fortuyn".

Viva Pim! But much of the press is still characterizing Fortuyn as a right-wing extremist who is "anti-immigrant" (rather than anti-immigration). His murderer, a vegan eco-radical animal rights zealot, is simply "an activist." Of course.

From the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force:

Action Alert: Oppose HR 4700, Bush Welfare Reauthorization Bill

TELL YOUR REPRESENTATIVE TO VOTE NO ON HR 470, THE WELFARE REAUTHORIZATION BILL!! The House is expected to vote on welfare reauthorization this week. ... The problems with this bill are numerous. Specifically for GLBT people, it would provide funds for "healthy marriage promotion activities" and "fatherhood programs." It would continue to provide funding for abstinence-only education.

What really goads the lesbigay left is that welfare reform, which ended the permanent dole for those able to work, has been such a success. Supporting marriage is the new sin. It either takes two paychecks to raise a child, or generous taxpayer-funded subsidies. Guess which NGLTF prefers.

From the Log Cabin Republicans:

A coalition of largely African American leaders joined a Mississippi Democratic Member of Congress today to announce the introduction of a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.
Congressman Ronnie Shows (D-MS) joined leaders of the "Alliance for Marriage" at a Capitol Hill press conference to announce the introduction as its lead sponsor. The group boasted of "strong bipartisan support" for the measure, however it was announced that the measure has six co-sponsors -- three Democrats and three Republicans.

The anti-gays want a constitutional amendment to forbid same-sex couples from marrying, even though same-sex marriage is not legal in any state, and the Defense of Marriage Act that Bill Clinton signed already bars federal recognition of gay unions. Let's see, NGLTF opposes supporting straight marriages, while the Alliance for Marriage opposed gay marriages. Hmmm.

I'd wager that those who oppose gay marriage also favor the Bush administration's initiative to champion marriage (for heterosexuals). So they"d have the government working to both promote and forbid couples from marrying. Very confusing, indeed.

IGF's Mike Airhart shares this item from zwire.com:

A plumber with a grudge against the local newspaper smashed his van into the lobby of the Kernersville News in North Carolina. Publisher John Owensby said the attack could serve as a wake-up call for journalists. "This could be called terrorism or a hate crime, but there is no law to protect us," he said.

Guess we"ll now be called on to support a federal hate crimes bill to protect journalists!

Finally, IGF's Jonathan Rauch recommends an article from the Washington Monthly, on "The Rise of the Creative Class: Why cities without gays and rock bands are losing the economic development race." It notes:

The key to economic growth lies not just in the ability to attract the creative class, but to translate that underlying advantage into creative economic outcomes in the form of new ideas, new high-tech businesses and regional growth.... Talented people seek an environment open to differences. Many highly creative people, regardless of ethnic background or sexual orientation, grew up feeling like outsiders, different in some way from most of their schoolmates. When they are sizing up a new company and community, acceptance of diversity and of gays in particular is a sign that reads "non-standard people welcome here."

Gays aren't only hip, but we"re a key economic driver as well. Cool.

Roomies. Gay college students are demanding that opposite-sex students be allowed to share dorm rooms, according to an article by Tamar Lewin in last Saturday's New York Times.

"The policy here is less about sex than about sexual politics -- and the increasingly powerful presence of gay and lesbian groups on campus," writes Lewin. "At Swarthmore, where coeducational rooming began in a few housing units last fall, and nearby Haverford College, where it started the previous year, the push came not from dating couples wanting to live together, but from gay groups that said it was "heterosexist" to require roommates to be of the same sex."

Although the article says that the new policy is being used mostly by heterosexual students who, allegedly, are not engaging in hanky panky, there may in fact reasons why gay students (all guys, apparently) would favor this option. Lewin notes that some gay males, for instance, don't want to deal with the "sexual tension" of having a gay same-sex roommate, and are also against sharing quarters a heterosexual male. She reports:

"Straight men who live together often have a kind of locker-room mentality, with a lot of discussion about dating girls, having sex with girls, saying which girls are attractive," said Josh Andrix, a 2000 Haverford graduate who started the campaign for coeducational housing there. "Introducing a homosexual into that environment is uncomfortable. When I looked for housing, all the people it made sense for me to live with were women."

One is tempted to say, "Get over it; this is the world and you"d better learn to handle the straight guys, "cause there are a whole lot of "em out there." Or, alternatively, it's time to discover that there are gay men with whom you won't have any desire to have sex (there are a whole lot of those guys out there, too).

Be that as it may, there could be Will & Grace situations that make sense for gay youth ensconced in our institutions of higher learning. What rankles is the language, the knee-jerk denunciation of "heterosexism" as if the argument for such arrangements is only legitimate if it can be premised on an "ism" to be condemned. This, sadly, is the level of discourse that our elite colleges have bequeathed to the up and coming generation, straight and gay.

Couldn't You Guess. Alas, the Wall Street Journal's May 13 opinionjournal.com picked up on Lewin's New York Times report. Referencing, in particular, the blockquote presented above, the Journal comments: "This seems reasonable. It also seems like a pretty good argument against homosexuals in the military." Unfair, of course, because gay men who want to serve in the military are a far cry from the Ivy Leaguers who blanch at "locker room talk" about dating gals. But you can see how the nature of the activists" argument gave the anti-gay right an opening.

Condemnation, Yes! Debate, No! The Log Cabin Republicans have come under fire from the mainstream (read: Democratic) gay movement types for raising concerns about ENDA -- the proposed Employee Non-Discrimination Act to prohibit private business from discriminating against gays in hiring and promotion -- or at least suggesting that there be an open dialog about legislative priorities. The Washington Blade ran a scathing article and editorial taking aim at the group. In response, LCR leader Rich Tafel asserts on the lcr.org website that:

"Challenging the status quo and questioning strategy are crucial to the success of any movement. Our community needs more, not less discussion and questioning of our strategies and goals. The Liberty Education Forum (LCR's nonprofit arm) hosts such a discussion every year, and held one again in April here in Washington. Elizabeth Birch of [the Human Rights Campaign] and Chris Crain [the editor] of the Blade were both invited to it. HRC refused to participate. Crain never responded until hours before the event. Despite this, it was a diverse and fascinating discussion, including a variety of different voices and topics from the left, right and center, including about the purpose of civil rights laws. The transcript of this discussion is available online at http://www.libertyeducationforum.org.

"So I'll try again. I'd like to invite Elizabeth Birch and Chris Crain join me and other community leaders in a town hall meeting to discuss our community's priorities. ... Not a stage show or a 'gotcha' fest, but a real give and take."

Sounds like a good idea, considering that many on the left also have taken pot shots an ENDA (whose sin, in their eyes, is its failure to include workplace protections for transsexuals).

Speaking for myself, I agree with those who argue that private-sector discrimination is not the number one priority for gay people. The ability to marry, and to achieve both the legitimacy and legal benefits of that institution, is far more relevant. The right to serve in the military would end the most widespread case of employment discrimination gay people face. Short of marriage, lobbying for workplace domestic partner benefits (which ENDA would not provide) is high on the list of what we need. Ending sodomy laws and the legal discrimination they foster against (one example) gay parents seeking custody, trumps ENDA. And, yes, police stings, especially those in private commercial sex establishments such as adult bookstore arcades, have caused much more suffering among far more gay men than the small number of private-sector discrimination cases that activists have managed to find and publicize.

I"d add that ENDA is currently being promoted not in a good faith effort to secure passage, but as a political tool to mobilize gay Democrats for the fall elections.

But to date, as Tafel notes, the gay establishment goes bonkers at the very thought of re-examining whether ENDA makes sense as the number one movement goal. That alone should indicate that their position, frozen in time for the last decade, is now deeply problematic.

More from the Mail Bag. I"ve gotten several letters of late. Some offer positive comments, some beg to differ, and some are resolutely critical. We"re debating whether it's practical to start posting correspondence in a special section (with author approval). But for now, here are excerpts from three recent letters, and brief responses. While this is just a sampling, thanks for all who"ve written in to share your thoughts.

"Thank you for pointing out the flaws in the radical left's anti-Israeli bias. And as for that group QUIT [Queers Undermining Israeli Terrorism], yes, I think it is very queer indeed that a group of gays and lesbians (I hate the term 'queer' as a description for gay people) would support the foundation of another anti-gay Middle Eastern dictatorship, and consider a rather progressive Middle East country to be terroristic. -- Apparently the radical left's tendency to root for the underdog, even if they are NOT in the right, made them ignore that."

My, what an astute letter writer!

"Since Sept. 11th, IGF has become stupidly knee-jerk conservative. I used to be able to rely on the IGF for informed, critical opinion. Now it's just conservative blathering and thoughtless rhetoric. How sad! The point for which to take the QUIT group to task is that they insist on making their Palestinian protest a gay issue, even though I agree with them. In the past, that would be the angle that IGF would take. Why make all gay people believe, especially the closet cases, that in order to be gay they must take on a particular political stance or adopt certain moral values? How wrong, indeed."

For starters, I"m not the voice of IGF; I"m just one contributor who volunteered to write a blog a couple of times a week.

I agree with the principle that a self-identified gay group shouldn't get involved in all manner of "Gays Against..." causes. But I can't hold my criticism of QUIT to that point alone, not when I believe that its stance is immoral. I'm not going to debate the issue here, but I do want to suggest that a romanticizing of the Palestinian fighters (including the suicide killers), akin to the past romanticizing of both Fidel Castro's Cuba, and of the Vietnamese communists, has now taken hold -- especially on college campuses. Like Fidel and Uncle Ho (or Mumia, for that matter), Yasser becomes the embodiment of the freedom-seeker unjustly put down by the U.S. and its supposed puppet. It's all so predictable, and so completely wrong headed.

As for your point about conservative blathering, hey, it's my blog. You don't agree, fine. But I"m not going to temper my views so as to not possibly offend anyone.

"I, like most of the demonstrators [at the anti-globalization rally in Washington, D.C.] am not willing to ignore the effects of "free trade" in poorer nations like you and other like-minded people would. I refuse to just sit idly while our country reaps the benefits of "free-trade." Not only was there a diversity in economic background [among the protesters], but also in race, religion, political affiliation, and value systems. More importantly, I find it ironic that you attempt to lump a group of people in one category when gays and lesbians have been victims of that practice so many times themselves."

There are generalizations, and then there are generalizations. I"ve observed enough anti-globalization protesters to draw some rational conclusions. Yes, not ALL are pampered college students spouting economic nonsense; it's just that most are.

I also got the "how dare you generalize" argument when I discussed examples of the left's (including the gay left"s) penchant to try to silence opponents, rather than argue publicly with them. But hey, enough examples make a trend, and thus support a generalization. Given the preponderance of campus speech codes that label opposing points of view on issues such as affirmative action (and, yes, gay rights) as "hate speech," and the tendeancy of non-left speakers (including libertarians!) to be shouted down with bullhorns, I think my generalizations about censorious conduct are justified.

Pim's Lessons. Here's an excellent piece by columnist Dave Kopel, in the Rocky Mountain News, about the media's bias in reporting about Pim Fortuyn. In taking to task an AP story about Fortuyn which painted him as an extremist, Kopel writes:

"the gay Dutch sociology professor offered complaints about Islam which are quite similar to complaints that some gay American sociology professors (and other American gays) offer about Christianity: anti-gay, sexist, morally imperialist, and premised on the belief that one religion is superior to all others. Now, when American gay activists make such remarks, the AP doesn't work itself into a lather and claim that the remarks reveal "demons" in the American character""

Coverage in the conservative Washington Times notes that last year Fortuyn was thrown out of a left-wing party for condemning a Rotterdam Muslim cleric who had called homosexuals "worse than pigs." Again, criticizing Islamic fundamentalism -- even for its virulent homophobia -- is deemed out of bounds, even after Sept. 11. Clearly, the liberal-left demonization of this man stemmed from his insisting that a point is reached when multiculturalism threatens the basic values of liberal Western culture. If it's true that a leftist environmentalist shot him, then at least it may reveal the extent to which the radical left has truly become a totalitarian anti-Western cult that can't countenance any deviation from its politically correct party line, and the extent to which elite liberalism backs up the leftist worldview (i.e., its willingness to sacrifice gay equality on the alter of anti-Western multiculturalism). That "queer" left groups are clamoring aboard this bandwagon is the ultimate irony -- or revelation of self-loathing.

The Death of Pim. Openly-gay Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn was assassinated Monday while campaigning in the Netherlands. The BBC's website blasted out a headline that read "Dutch Far-Right Leader Shot." But Fortuyn, who was openly and proudly gay and supported the Dutch gay marriage law, was hardly a right winger as we understand the term.

In fact, the former academic seemed to support personal liberties on many fronts. But he was an adamant foe of Islamic immigration into The Netherlands. According to the Financial Times , his view was, "There are 16 million Dutch. This is enough. The country is full."

The Dutch provide immigrants (of whom about 800,000 are Muslims, I'm told) with immediate and generous welfare benefits, whether they show any inclination to become productive residents or not, which complicates the issue -- especially when many immigrants seem to devote themselves to undermining the liberal society the Dutch have created. Fortuyn, in fact, had stated strongly condemned the new immigrants for their fervent opposition to women's equality and to gay rights. Dutch Muslim clerics, for instance, have labeled homosexuality as a "shameless," "scandalous," "intolerable" "sickness" that "could destroy society."

Again, to quote the Financial Times:

"Mr Fortuyn had been campaigning on a ticket of ending immigration and reforming public services. Not only was he openly homosexual, but he made clear his sexual orientation informed his politics. He wanted to halt the arrival of immigrants from Muslim countries because he feared they were eroding the country's tolerance of diversity."

Some "right winger" indeed.

Mail Bag. I received an e-mail commenting on my April 20 posting about the big anti-globalization/anti-Israel rally in DC, which included some contingents from the campus-based "queer" left. The writer took me to task, stating:

"In your article on last weekend's protests, you referred to the demonstrators as being 'anti-American'" What is so 'anti-American' about opposing a state that denies liberties to others; wasn't America founded upon the principle that all men are created equal and ought to be free? Those protesting the occupation in Palestine are 'Pro-American', in that respect."

To that writer, I dedicate the posting below.

Trouble in the Left's Big Tent. I owe the popular blog instapundit, written by Glenn Reynolds, for this item. In his 5/3/2002 postings he links to a page of pictures from and comments about a recent pro-Palestinian rally at UC Berkley. Among those enthralled by the romanticism of suicide killers, and appalled that Israel would dare to defend itself, is a group called QUIT, for Queers Undermining Israeli Terrorism. But, as instapundit notes, if you scroll down to the comments at the bottom of the page, a guy named Sallah writes:

"As a Palestinian, I must protest the inclusion of a homosexual group in this afternoon's rally. Gay people have no place in society, whether in Palestine or in the US."

A little further below, responding to a post taking issue with his comments, Sallah replies,

"We are fighting for self-determination. That means that we wish to live according to our own societal values, not your Western ones. You are a cultural imperialist. I appreciate your concern for our struggle, but WE will decide for ourselves."

Could the blindness of the pro-Palestinian gay left be made any clearer?

Israel, if it needs pointing out, is the only Middle East country that protects by law the civil rights of gays and lesbians. Come to think of it, it's the only Middle East country that protects by law the civil rights of its citizens, period.

Anita Orange Juice's Hard Times. On a lighter note, the St. Petersburg Times ran this April 28 story about Anita Bryant's filing for bankruptcy, for the second time in five years. Apparently, the anti-gay doyenne has acquired quite a reputation for cheating the employees at her theater in the Tennessee Bible Belt, as well as for not paying her taxes. The story notes that: "In Florida, meanwhile, her name is surfacing once more as lawyers and gay activists try to repeal the state's ban on gay adoptions, blaming Bryant for its passage in 1977." The evil that some people do can have a very long life indeed, but eventually the light must overwhelm the darkness.

UN-Gay. For those who think the U.N. has any relevance whatsoever, it's worth noting that when it's not acting as a megaphone for the propaganda of Jew-hating suicide-killers, or setting up "safe zones" for refugees which it then leaves utterly defenseless, the U.N. is busy bashing gays and lesbians. As reported in a Washington Times article on May 1, Muslim and Catholic countries this week (1) kept the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) from being designated as a consultant nongovernmental organization, charging that the group was soft on pedophilia, and (2) blocked a proposed redefintion of "family" in a U.N. Child Summit document that would have recognized families "in various forms," which critics charged would have opened the door to granting legitimacy to same-sex relationships.

"Altogether, it was a pretty pro-family day," gloated Austin Ruse, of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute. Which I suppose shows that a rightwing Catholic spokesperson can still get away with being the voice of "pro-family" and anti-pedophile policy these days. Maybe the Catholic Church's being soft on pedophilia should keep that suspect group out of the corridors of U.N. power.

This is a bit complicated, but bear with me. Barring ILGA from participating on U.N. committees was justified, said its critics, because the Brussels-based lobby, with 300 member groups in 76 countries, did not document that it had purged pedophile groups such as the North American Man/Boy Love Association, which in years past had enjoyed some traffic with ILGA. ILGA, for its part, said that divulging all its member affiliates could put some in danger, which isn't hard to believe. But nevertheless, ILGA, which is a creature of the political and cultural left, has brought on many of its own troubles. Still, the attack against the group was infused with good, old fashioned, gay-baiting in the name of traditional religious values, both Catholic and Islamic. If those elements of the gay left that support Islamic terrorists had any brains, they could see the hellish nightmare that their new allies would create, if given half a chance.

Interestingly, the Bush administration had supported ILGA's application, arguing in January that ILGA was helpful in the fight against HIV and AIDS. While the U.S. delegation was silent this week in the debate, it voted on the losing side in a procedural vote to send the group's application back to the nongovernmental organizations committee for further investigation, which the Pakistani delegate denounced as a "delaying tactic" to buy another chance for ILGA.

For this, the Bush administration deserves some credit (which of course it won't receive). On the other hand, the U.S. delegation did an about-face and opposed broadening the U.N.'s definition of family. As noted in a previous posting, a senior official at the U.S. Mission has told the Washington Times last week that the Bush administration was backing the redefinition. However, the paper now reports that:

"pro-family and conservative groups that support the "natural" family in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights -- married heterosexual mother and father and their children and other blood relatives -- persuaded the administration of "dangers" in the loose, undefined language proposed by European delegations""

Given the pressure, which the conservative Washington Times helped engender, the administration caved. Hey, it's the U.N. Like it matters.

Guns 'R Us, Too. Here's an interesting article from planetout.com about some unfortunately gay-bashing rhetoric at a recent National Rifle Association confab in Reno. It seems that some of the speakers couldn't resist linking together Rosie O"Donnell's new gay advocacy with her previous anti-Second Amendment activism (how often Rosie keeps coming up, in unexpected contexts!). At the same time Tom Boyer, a representative of the Pink Pistols, the gay and lesbian gun owners group,

...noted that, at a members' forum in Reno on Saturday, he introduced himself as a Pink Pistol and urged the NRA not to mix other social issues into the agenda of the gun-rights organization. Other members supported that comment, he said. "I did have an NRA director come up and actually ask what he could do to help the Pink Pistols," Boyer said. "So there certainly is an outreach effort."

How often it seems that knee-jerk conservative homophobia is real but superficial and thus "counter-able," as opposed to die-hard fundamentalist bigotry.