IGF CultureWatch

I was obviously -- and happily -- wrong in worrying about Charlotte. Despite some troubling rhetoric from religious leaders, the gay pride event there went off without a hitch. About 500 believers prayed peacefully, even mingled with the crowd of about 10,000. This shows how people of contrasting beliefs should be able to interact. The Christians, in their red shirts, believe God has "A Better Way" for us, and just like anyone else who is trying to sell us something, whether it's a car, a life insurance policy or a religious way of life, we should respond to their pitch with some measure of the politeness in which it is offered, and any credibility we think is warranted. If and when we give them a clear signal of No Sale, everyone should be able to continue on their way.

Which led me to thinking about a customer they were able to close the deal with: Alan Chambers. He's just published a book called Leaving Homosexuality, about his struggle with unwanted homosexual attraction. An interview with him at CitizenLink fascinated me because, even more pointedly than the protesters in Charlotte, he seems to be able to draw a line between his religious beliefs and the civil society. He seems quite candid in admitting he finds other men sexually appealing. But in his view, acting on that attraction is sinful:

The key thought here is the opposite of homosexuality isn't heterosexuality. It's holiness. There are people who are conflicted with their sexuality, involved with homosexuality, and there is a way out for those who want it. But it doesn't say that they're going into heterosexuality, because that's not the point. The point is that people can leave whatever it is that God calls less than His best and move into something that is His best, becoming more like He is.

That strikes me as getting it just about right. If you hold his religious belief (which interestingly implies that God is heterosexual, something I don't think I've heard before), then you should probably avoid that particular sin. Plenty of religions are questioning that premise right now, but not the one Chambers belongs to.

An awful lot of us, though, are accepting of our homosexual orientation. And Chambers acknowledges that his path is only "for those who want it." The rest of us live in the secular world, governed by secular laws and (in part) by our human desires and affections. Chambers and the Charlotte protesters can try to talk us out of those, but they can't force us to believe something we don't. That's something the First Amendment -- both in the religion clauses and in the free speech clause -- got exactly right. Neither religion nor government can demand belief. Yet that is the knot at the heart of the religious opposition to homosexuality. Because they cannot enforce belief, they are trying to use the law to corral acceptance, but acceptance is, itself, a belief -- and one that is growing.

As we learn every day from the rest of the world, living with people who hold contrasting or inconsistent beliefs is the only alternative to civil unrest and even violence. The Charlotte protest and the Chambers interview show a civility -- and a clear separation of religion from the law -- that I think is admirable. I thought someone should say that.

I'm on the record as being in favor of kisses, as well as kiss-ins. I'm Pro-Kiss.

So I was paying attention to the latest kiss-in in Southern California, outside the LDS temple in La Jolla. It was a small rally, but the quality of the kissing seemed above average, and the point was made: Kissing is really not that big a deal.

But this local news report had something in it I don't think I've ever seen before -- certainly not on local news. A shot of two women kissing pans to reveal a couple of kids playing, with the reporter saying "This, taking place in front of children roaming on church property." My reflexive cringe turned into amazement, though, when the report cuts to one of the kissers being interviewed: "What if those children grow up and they are gay? I don't want them to think it's a bad thing."

That is close to an encapsulation of the entire gay rights movement in two short sentences. The report was able to get past the immediate and natural fear people have for children in general, and offer an opportunity for the audience to think about the world as gay children might experience it. In other words, it actually imagined, for a moment, that all gay people really were, themselves, children at some point. Why should they grow up in a world of images where straight kissing is good but gay kissing is bad? What effect would that have on them?

That leap of imagination -- of empathy -- is the one more and more heterosexuals are able to make. I don't want to make too big a deal of out this one TV news report, but as much as some of the best kisses I've ever had, it took my breath away.

I'm not sure what to make of the proposal by Pentacostal evangelists to "surround" the Charlotte, NC gay pride festival this Saturday with worshippers. Jim Burroway has a very good backgrounder on the cast of characters behind this at the increasingly invaluable site, Box Turtle Bulletin.

The first amendment permits public protest, and this seems to fall well into that fundamental protection. Our nation couldn't survive in its present form without allowing people this necessary freedom. While I disagree profoundly with the beliefs of these protesters, they certainly must have the right to have their say in public.

But what do they mean when they say they have a plan to "surround the gay pride event in Charlotte"? (The quote is toward the end of the embedded video) If this is metaphorical -- and that is entirely possible -- then I see no problem. They may intend to surround the event with what they believe is the love of God, and if that is peaceful and nonviolent, I couldn't object -- though I'd certainly want to check in with God about whether that is the sort of love he had in mind.

But if they are speaking literally -- and have the ability to physically surround the entire area (though I have no idea whether that's possible), it raises what seems to me to be a serious problem. If the presence of protesters interferes with the ability of attendees to enter and exit the grounds, there would obviously be a very intense possibility of physical confrontations. This is the clear meaning of the other phrase the leader of the protest, Michael Brown, is using to describe what he wants to create: a "flash point" in the struggle for gay rights.

If the protesters are able to fully enclose the event at any point during the day, there is real danger, I think This sounds more to me like a near-military strategy of containing the enemy than like the airing of a public grievance. That is where it differs from what I understand to be the reasonable range of public protest. And it strikes me as naturally leading to violence.

I may be overreading what, exactly, the protesters intend, or are capable of. But if this shapes up the way Brown is describing it, it is cause for serious concern.

Celebrated attorney David Boies (he led Gore's Florida recount legal team in 2000) explains in the Wall Street Journal why he and Ted Olson (who led Bush's recount effort) have now come together and brought a lawsuit asking the courts to declare unconstitutional California's Prop. 8, which limits marriage to couples of the opposite sex. Writes Boies:

"We acted together because of our mutual commitment to the importance of this cause, and to emphasize that this is not a Republican or Democratic issue, not a liberal or conservative issue, but an issue of enforcing our Constitution's guarantee of equal protection and due process to all citizens."

Meanwhile, some LGBT groups are upset that a conservative lawyer is part of an effort to strike down laws that treat gays unequally, as Mother Jones reports. Well, maybe the case is mistimed and misdirected. But it also seems clear that these groups are really upset over (1) not calling all the shots here (as this Washington Blade story suggests), and (2) the fact that a conservative (albeit a limited government one) is not playing his assigned role of anti-gay demon. Just how, they must be wondering, could that possibly aid the advancement of the greater progressive agenda under the leadership of the one true party?

Compare Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz's pro-family reasoning, quoted by Jon below, to that of Sen. Jeff Sessions. Chaffetz can't abide giving committed same-sex couples who work for the federal government equal employment benefits because the proposal doesn't include unmarried straight couples. In contrast, Sen. Sessions predicts the demise of Rep. Mike Honda's bill to provide recognition to the noncitizen partner in committed same-sex relationships (the recognition immigration law now automatically grants to a heterosexual spouse) because it "would be creating a special preference and benefit for a category of immigrants based on a relationship that's not recognized by federal law and overwhelmingly by most states."

So Sen. Sessions views gay equality as a "special preference" while Chaffetz doesn't see gay equality at all, only straight equality.

Let's review the bidding, then. Same-sex couples can't have their relationships recognized by the federal government because of DOMA, and shouldn't be asking for any "special" rights, such as treatment equal (or even roughly equal) to what heterosexuals expect. And if gays do ask for any benefits for their relationships, heterosexuals should expect, not only the benefits they now recieve for being married, but benefits for not being married, so that they'll be treated equally to a group that any reasonable person can see are now treated unequally.

All of this arises because of the GOP's fundamental inability to aknowledge that same-sex couples are not treated equally, or fairly, under current federal law. That increasingly obvious blind spot leads to all of their incoherence.

I just got back from a meeting at a Sacramento church, co-sponsored by Marriage Equality USA, on the subject of whether the community wants to go forward with a Prop. 8 repeal in 2010 or 2012 -- or even later. And I can confidently say this: the politicalization of gay marriage in California is now in full swing. Not many in the gay community wanted it this way, but California's voters decided that the only way we'll get marriage equality here is to persuade the voters we should have it, so we now have to figure out how to do just that.

The pollsters are polling and the consultants are consulting, and if the voters ever heard any of what I just did, a lot of them might want to take back their votes for Prop. 8. Experts galore are slicing and dicing their way through Caifornia's demographics with obsessive fineness. Someone developed a Weekly Workload Estimate of how many voters per week would need to have their minds changed for us to win 51% support in 2010 (7,036 per week) or 2012 (3,171 per week). We were shown some strategies for changing minds, discussed current door-to-door efforts, given tips from Gandhi and MLK on not alienating people, and shown enough statistics to gladden the hearts of the entire graduating class of the Kennedy School of Government.

It was clear, from the early mention of George Lakoff, that the left is still firmly in control of the ride, and that the rest of us should keep our arms and legs inside the conveyance. No surprise there. But the overwhelming feeling in the room wasn't leftist cant, it was raw political calculation. We were informed that we would need to change "hearts and minds" in the tone of a chemistry professor instructing students about combining elements in a beaker.

That, of course, is the way consultants and professionals know how to run campaigns. But it really brought home for me how the science and practice of politics can suck the blood out a humane, enthusiastic and honorable movement for simple fairness. That fairness was built into our state constitution, but a majority of our voters took it out. We now have to live our lives in permanent campaign mode, have to see everything and everyone in terms of political strategy, in order to restore our equality. That will be a big enough job for us, but I even feel a bit sorry for the many heterosexuals who, having had their demographics pored over, will be the "targets" of our missions. That, however, is what the voters have asked of us, and of themselves, by making marriage the subject of constitutional scope. God and Gandhi help us all.

National Journal has a story (online for subscribers only) on legislation, now moving in Congress and supported by the Obama Administration, "that would give gay and lesbian federal employees the same benefits now offered to married heterosexual workers"-a bill which Republican Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah opposes.

Why? Well, partly "because it excludes unmarried heterosexual couples.... Chaffetz said in an interview that if unmarried heterosexual couples were included in the legislation, 'I'd look at it very differently.' "

Right. If the bill included heterosexual couples, it would be using federal dollars and prestige to encourage straight couples to cohabit. Which apparently is better than encouraging gay couples to form stable and committed unions.

There is nothing pro-family about being anti-gay. Thanks, of a sort, to Rep. Chaffetz for helping prove the point.

I don't exactly disagree with Dale's conclusion in his post below on when California should move to repeal Prop. 8. I'm still not convinced one way or the other.

But one of the arguments being articulated misstates a very important point. Prepare to Prevail says this:

Any successful "vote-yes" campaign will require generous support from pro-LGBT institutional donors. These donors give based on evidence of likely success, which for 2010 is filled with grave doubts. It is unlikely that we will be able to raise the necessary funds to undertake an effective electoral campaign until after 2010. . . .

Remember, the original estimates for Prop. 8 spending, in total, were in the range of about $40 million -- for both sides combined. Particularly during extremely heated and close campaigns, people and institutions find resources they wouldn't otherwise have identified. That happened far beyond anyone's expectations during Prop. 8.

It may or may not happen again, whether it's in 2010 or 2012 (I am not waiting for 2014). But whenever it does happen, the campaign will be an extraordinary event. Unless something momentous happens in another state, I expect California will be the first to actually have the voters repeal a constitutional amendment they, themselves, passed banning same-sex marriage. That will certainly draw resources from a lot of places. But I don't think anybody could reasonably be putting that funding into place prior to the election itself -- at least not in the amounts spent during Prop. 8.

Prepare to Prevail's argument strikes me more as an excuse to delay, rather than a sound argument. There are some good reasons to wait until 2012. This isn't one of them.

Plenty of people have weighed in on former President Bill Clinton's newfound support for same-sex marriage, but little can be added to Jamie Kirchick's piece in the Advocate, ripping Clinton a new one -- not that Clinton needs a new one.

In response to Clinton's stirring reply to the question of whether he personally believed in equal marriage rights for same-sex couples: ""Yeah. I personally support people doing what they want to do. I think it's wrong for someone to stop someone else from doing that," Jamie is in fine form:

What eloquence! What moral conviction! Remember that these stirring words come from a man who, prior to the emergence of Barack Obama, was widely considered to be the greatest political communicator alive.

What is it about our equality that reduces the likes of Clinton, and even Obama, to Bush-like grunts and circumlocutions? Even in retirement, is Clinton still so shell-shocked from the nation's last hurricane of homophobia? That was 15 years ago, which is about 45 in gay rights years. Does Obama really believe that any reaction today to his leadership on repeal of Clinton's signature achievements on gay equality, DADT and DOMA, would be worse than what he faced during the campaign over Rev. Jeremiah Wright, palling around with terrorists, or people clinging to guns and religion?

The rhetorical scraps we get from these mighty orators should be compared to the simple eloquence of Meghan McCain, who has no trouble saying, "No matter how politically charged the discussions about marriage equality may get, the question is really a simple one: Do the rights and privileges we offer citizens include everyone in our country, or only some of us?"

McCain isn't a politician, and can articulate her true feelings with more liberty than an elected official. But Rep. Patrick Murphy is sure in politics, and he, too, leaves both Clinton and Obama in the dust when it comes to us. Watch how easily and authoritatively he responds to the charge that open gays in the military would destroy unit cohesion by saying the very notion is an insult to him and to the military.

The lesson here was stated best by a president who didn't have to deal with gay equality. President Clinton, President Obama, when it comes to gay rights, the only thing you have to fear is fear itself.

It appears that some gay activists in California are starting to doubt the wisdom of pushing to repeal Prop 8 in 2010. One group outlines some considerations that make a lot of sense, including these:

Over $81 million was raised and spent by both sides in the Proposition 8 campaign, more than in any previous anti-gay ballot initiative. Many of the LGBT nonprofit organizations doing critical work for our communities have suffered layoffs and cutbacks in services. . . . Major donors, including foundations that provided funding for critical educational campaigns, have endured hits to their portfolios, and many are exercising caution. Any successful "vote-yes" campaign will require generous support from pro-LGBT institutional donors. These donors give based on evidence of likely success, which for 2010 is filled with grave doubts. It is unlikely that we will be able to raise the necessary funds to undertake an effective electoral campaign until after 2010. . . .

The demographics of opinion on marriage equality indicate that natural changes in the state electorate, with new and younger voters replacing older voters, contributes over time to increased support for marriage equality. In weighing the options of presenting a ballot measure on statewide ballots either next year, in 2010, or in a future year, the latter portends a much greater capacity by marriage equality supporters to leverage and benefit from the natural shift in voter opinion.

Some ACLU leaders, including Matt Coles, think even 2012 is too soon (and they may be right). Equality California, which indicated preliminary support for 2010 back in May, is now (re)considering the issue.

The reality of having to get our act together -- in raising money, strategizing, volunteering, campaigning, and winning -- for an election less than a year and a half away is starting to settle in. At least, that's what I'm hoping.