IGF CultureWatch

The Washington Post's "God in Government" blog takes note of the dismissive response from LGBT activists to former VP Dick Cheney's recently voiced support for same-sex marriage:

The Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group, welcomed Cheney's comments through gritted teeth.

"It is unfortunate that it took the former vice president two terms in office, two terms that were the most anti-LGBT in history, before he decided to stand up for equality," said Joe Solmonese, president of the HRC. "That being said, we welcome his voice to the table on this issue and hope the remaining right-wing opponents of marriage equality see how completely out of touch they have become."

Of course, it might have been a more effective response in terms of swaying "remaining right-wing opponents" if Solmonese had been able to restrain himself from denigrating Cheney while welcoming his support.

And by the way, was the Bush-Cheney administration really the "most anti-LGBT in history?" Bush supported a federal amendment against gay marriage that failed to pass (Cheney broke with Bush and didn't support the amendment). But Bill Clinton signed the odious Defense of Marriage Act and bragged about it in campaign ads that ran in the South. Clinton also signed legislation to ban gays from openly serving in the military ("don't ask, don't tell"); previously, the ban on homosexuals had been military policy but not federal law.

More. Reader "Bobby" comments on whether Bush/Cheney was the most anti-gay administration ever, as Solmonese claims:

Here's what Concerned Women of America (an anti-gay group) has to say:
"In his first 100 days as President, Mr. Bush:
* appointed a homosexual activist to head the White House office on AIDS;
* failed to overturn a single Clinton executive order dealing with homosexuality;
* continued the Clinton policy of issuing U.S. Department of Defense regulations to combat "anti-gay harassment" in a military that is required by law to keep homosexuals out of the armed forces;
* presided over the appointment of a liberal homosexual activist and "gays"-in the-military crusader to oversee the choice of civilian personnel at the Pentagon. ...

Is there any doubt that Solmonese is engaging in Big Lie partisanship at the expense of creating a greater bi-partisan constituency for gay legal equality? And why is the "LGBT community" generously funding him in order to do so?

The vestry at All Saints Episcopal church in Pasadena has just announced that its clergy will no longer sign California marriage certificates for any couples that it marries in a religious ceremony. They are doing this as a response to the discrimination Prop. 8 added to California's constitution. According to the vestry resolution, they wish to avoid "active participation in the discriminatory system of civil marriage," which they believe 'is inconsistent with Jesus' call to strive for justice and peace among all people."

For over twenty years now, All Saints has been a national leader in the struggle for inclusion of lesbians and gay men, and particularly same-sex couples in church life. A church like All Saints has both a sacramental obligation and a moral imperative to treat homosexuals and heterosexuals equally, even if the law does not.

And this action illustrates how churches benefit by keeping church and state separate. As Timothy Hulsey once told me with the common sense that is so obvious it is often missed, same-sex marriage is, in fact, available today in all fifty states. No state does, or could, prohibit any church from marrying any two people in a religious ceremony that falls within its belief system. Whether a particular state views that marriage as legal is a matter for the state to determine. If the marriage violates criminal law related to, for example, the age of consent, the state can prosecute the crime; but criminal sanctions no longer apply to voluntary adult homosexual relationships. If a church in Virginia wishes to marry a same-sex couple, Virginia can constitutionally do nothing to stop it. Virginia can pass all the laws it wants to ignore or discourage that relationship in the civil society, but in the church's eyes that couple is as holy as any opposite-sex couple it chooses to bless.

Heterosexual couples married at All Saints will have to suffer the inconvenience of getting a secular signature on their California marriage certificate. But in return, they will have the assurance that, in the eyes of God, their marriage is on the same moral foundation as their homosexual brothers and sisters.

San Jose (CA) Representative Mike Honda has introduced the Reuniting Families Act to allow the permanent partners of same-sex couples the same naturalization rights current law gives to married couples of the opposite sex - and it's about time. But he is running into the traditional circular reasoning that characterizes the debate over same-sex couples: some people just don't believe they're part of one another's family, and then ignore laws that recognize their relationships.

Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, states the public policy difficulty: "Our whole immigration system is based on documents," she said -- documents like a marriage certificate. Without that, how can immigration officials know who is or is not a member of someone's family and who is trying to defraud the government?

That is a legitimate question - but it has an answer today for same-sex couples that it used to lack: getting married. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it, and this key part of the debate over Honda's bill is not a new one.

The fight over including same-sex couples within the definition of "family" got its national debut when the Carter administration convened its White House Conference on the Family in 1978. Carter soon found himself in the middle of a fight because gay rights advocates joined with others to rename it the White House Conference on Families. At the time, the formal definition of "family" was people related to one another by blood, marriage or adoption, none of which included, or reasonably could include same-sex couples. Use of the plural would avoid a complete exclusion of same-sex couples from the discussion. But the emerging religious right fought the proposed nomenclature. . . and lost. It is a loss they never got over.

Today, there are plenty of same-sex couples who have a marriage certificate. Many more have documentation from their states showing they are domestic partners or have a civil union. And that's not counting the ones whose employers provide them with domestic partner benefits and have the documentation to prove it. And some of them include a partner who could take advantage of U.S. law that applies to spouses -- but for DOMA.

It is clear that some religious groups oppose Honda's bill for its inclusion of same-sex couples. Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, calls the gay issue "a death knell" for the bill, definitively adding, "We won't support legislation - period - that includes the Honda same-sex component." But that's no longer because people aren't sure same-sex couples are one another's family, it's because folks like Rev. Rodriguez would rather have no legislation at all than a bill that treats same-sex couples like human beings.

Republicans are getting better at talking about gay rights rather than talking around them. But you can still see a deep-seated discomfort in their stilted vocabulary.

Michael Steele, chair of the Republican National Committee, had this to say about Dick Cheney's recent sort-of comments about gay marriage, or same-sex relationships, or something along those lines:

Well, I think the vice president brings a very personal perspective to this issue and to the question of gay marriage and gay unions. And I think his comments are appropriate reflection of his family and a situation with his daughter.

You know? My view, personal view is, you know, marriage is between a man and a woman, very much in line with what the president has said. And I think that this battle should be appropriately worked out at the state level.

The states are the ones that are defining the question of marriage, and so they will be the ultimate arbiters, I think, of what constitutes marriage in a given state. So it is the appropriate reflection of the attitude and the culture of a particular community for that debate to take place. And I think the vice president has a legitimate point there.

The "legitimate point" seems to be that the GOP doesn't need to directly oppose state efforts to recognize same-sex relationships, and that is a huge step forward.

But can we stop for a second and ponder what Steele refers to as Dick Cheney's "situation with his daughter"? The situation, for those not in the know, is that Cheney's daughter is a lesbian. She has a similarly lesbian partner, and they live together, as people who have long-term relationships tend to do. My bet is they have sex sometimes. This is not "a situation," it's their life.

This is not as bad as Jeff Sessions talking about people with homosexual "tendencies," nor Cheney's inability to publicly mention gay marriage or civil unions when he intends everyone to understand those are what he is talking about. And all of these are better than George W. Bush's eight years as president -- during the 21st Century -- barely uttering the words "gay" or "lesbian," most notably absent as he was promoting an anti-gay marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The GOP is ever-so-slowly coming out of the vocabulary closet, and I wish them well. Perhaps they'll finally see how antique their arguments look when they finally phrase them in the actual words everyone else is using.

ADDENDUM: A commenter has raised the very good point about how Log Cabin Republicans fit into this. I think Steele's comments show both the magnitude of the problem Log Cabin has long faced, and the success they have had over the years. They are, in the end, trying to get better results from Republicans on gay issues, and that effort is now bearing fruit. It is, I admit, a bit churlish to criticize Republicans too much for the awkwardness with which they are -- grudgingly -- beginning to support gay equality. But that's kind of my point: the failure to use the ordinary vocubulary that the rest of the nation uses regularly to discuss gay equality -- including the word "equality" -- is what makes the GOP look so pitiful on this issue. I admire and respect Log Cabin for getting some GOPers to move away from direct opposition of state efforts toward equal rights. That's why I think these linguistic swerves and curlicues are less threatening than they have been in the past, and should be subject to a bit of ribbing.

And, to be fair, there are still enough Democrats (I'm looking at you, New York) who have the desire and the power to prevent equality in words that are pretty straightforward.

With New Hampshire now on board, there are 6 1/2 states that have (or will have by fall) lawful gay marriage. Of course I include California, where same-sex marriage is unconstitutional except for the 18,000 marriages that were entered into between the time of the Supreme Court's opinion in In Re Marriage Cases and the passage of Proposition 8.

In fact, we probably have more same-sex marriages in a state that prohibits them than even the reigning champion, Massachusetts -- and that's true even if you assume that a full 25% of our marriages were of out-of-state couples, an extremely generous margin.

To quote Shakespeare, "The course of true love never did run smooth," and the legal recognition of same-sex partners is following as erratic and meandering a path as any comic plot Shakespeare could have devised or stolen. The blessing is that we now have good reason to believe these preposterous incongruities are worth laughing about, rather than crying over.

I'm not sure why Dick Cheney is getting as much credit as he does for being to the left of Obama on gay marriage. I certainly appreciate the fact that he has spoken up about the subject, but after reading and listening to his words, I'm still not entirely sure what he said.

Here is his latest comment, which repeats a theme using words he has articulated for years:

"I think that freedom means freedom for everyone. As many of you know, one of my daughters is gay and it is something we have lived with for a long time in our family. I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish. Any kind of arrangement they wish. The question of whether or not there ought to be a federal statute to protect this, I don't support. I do believe that the historically the way marriage has been regulated is at the state level. It has always been a state issue and I think that is the way it ought to be handled, on a state-by-state basis. . . . But I don't have any problem with that. People ought to get a shot at that."

It's clear he means to (and does) support some kind of state recognition of same-sex marriage. Or does he? What he supports is a right for couples to "enter into any kind of union they wish." He doesn't "have any problem with that" (though he clearly does not support any federal equality for this "kind of union.") Still, "freedom means freedom for everyone."

So he won't be advocating for any state to pass a gay marriage bill, or a civil unions bill or pretty much anything. He'd be happy, it seems, if states simply enforced existing contract law that would allow his daughter and her partner to "enter into" some kind of partnership. If states want to do more than that, he wouldn't object.

The absence of opposition is certainly progress for a national, conservative Republican, but only because the bar is so impossibly low. While Cheney's statements are regularly reported as showing his support for same-sex marriage, I don't believe I've ever heard him use the phrase "same-sex marriage," much less "support for same-sex marriage." I'd be pleasantly surprised if he's ever said he supports civil unions, using the word "support" right next to "civil unions," in conjunction with some kind of first-person pronoun.

To his credit, he is able to use the word "gay," unlike some of his fellow Republicans who are still referring to people with "tendencies." And lord knows I wouldn't ask Cheney (or anyone) to get comfortable with lingo like "LGBTQ." But, given the fact that he and his family have "lived with" this issue for years, is it really too much to ask whether he can actually say whether he supports same-sex marriage or civil unions, using the terms that most high-school students today are comfortable with? Or to ask him whether he supports equality rather than just freedom? Because those are two very different things.

Dick Cheney "takes a position that places him at a more progressive tilt than President Obama" regarding same-sex marriage, according to Sam Stein at the left-liberal Huffington Post. Cheney supports allowing states to let gay couples wed, which Obama opposes, although Obama supports civil unions. As Stein observes:

Cheney has made similar arguments in support of gay marriage in the past, including during the run-up to the 2004 election. But his current comments come at a moment when the Republican Party and conservative movement is increasingly split on the issue. Bush recount lawyer Ted Olsen and John McCain campaign manager Steve Schmidt have both argued in favor of gay marriage. The religious right, as expected, remains opposed.

Those who think the Republican Party is hopeless are wrong, but repeated declarations by LGBT Democratic operatives that we MUST support, and only support, their party is a strategy bent on ensuring that the GOP remains the hand-maiden of the religious right, while assuring Obama that he need do only the most minimal in order to maintain the unconditional support of national LGBT fundraising fronts (since he is, after all, busy with far more important tasks such as nationalizing the economy, spending us into generational mega-debt and regulating how we sit at our desks).

And counting... Per the Washington Examiner, by one report, 218 gay service members have been discharged under the "don't ask, don't tell" (lie and hide) policy since Obama and the overwhelmingly Democratic Congress took office. But if they end the ban, what would they promise LGBT activists - again - in 2010...and 2012?

Furthermore. A revealing comment from reader "SStocky":

Every time I'm solicited for Equality Florida I ask for information on what they're doing with Republicans who control the state government - who have they met with lately, what potential allies are they grooming, who's their contact in the governor's office? No answers are forthcoming and, of course, my wallet stays closed. Let's face it, no major civil rights legislation has ever passed without significant bipartisan support, yet the professional gay activists would have us believe putting all our eggs in the Democratic-liberal, left basket is the path to victory.

When will the community wake up and see they're being taken? When will serious efforts be made to reach out to all reasonable people of both parties and independents rather than continually playing the insider Democrat game? I hope it will be in my lifetime, but I'm not holding my breath.

When both parties were unwelcoming, we had a more or less bipartisan movement. Since the Democrats learned to use inclusive rhetoric and toss in a few (very few) bones, "LGBT" fundraising has been taken over by Democratic operatives whose allegiance is to serving their party. Like this reader, I'm not overly optimistic that things will change soon.

Yesterday, California met in the middle of the state - the primarily agricultural city of Fresno - to begin the next phase of the Prop. 8 battle: no lawsuits, no academic theories, no manifestos and not an elected official in sight. We have only one job left: to win votes, and there is a large crop of them to be harvested in California's Central Valley. A huge number of Fresno's voters - about 70% -- voted for Prop. 8. We came to Fresno to let the 30% know we've got their back, and want to build on their good will.

The most striking thing about the rally was the sheer quality of the new generation of leaders who have taken their places naturally. The event was the brainchild of Fresno mom Robin McGehee, who was kicked out of her child's Catholic School PTA for speaking out about gay marriage. She sold the idea to some of California's gay rights organizations, and put about $15,000 of her own (borrowed) money on the line to make it happen. She was especially moving when she directly addressed President Obama about his promises to the gay community. "Show me you have the courage," she said.

Lt. Dan Choi spoke, and is proving himself to be a formidable and inspirational leader. He began his speech quoting - in Arabic - a poem from Kahlil Gibran about love. It is a sin against this country that Lt. Choi's power, intelligence and eloquence have been so casually rejected by our national leaders. But the loss to the nation's defense is the gay movement's gain. It is no mystery to me that the President will not so much as address Lt. Choi. I can think of no one who could more properly shame the President in a face-to-face meeting than the man he is responsible for firing.

Since this is California, Hollywood stars are required to be present at any public event, and while Will & Grace's Eric McCormack was fine, it was T.R. Knight from Gray's Anatomy who was most impressive. After pointing out that the Supreme Court's decision had divided California into three groups for marital purposes: heterosexuals, the 18,000 homosexual couples who are married, and the remainder of homosexuals who aren't, and can't be - he said that while it was bad enough before the decision being a second class citizen, as an unmarried Californian he'd be damned if he'd settle for being third class.

Academy Award winner Dustin Lance Black, too, is now at the very top of the class of our movement's new leaders. The Mormon Texan who moved to California's Salinas (an agricultural area near the coast, but politically not too different from Fresno), has been a tremendous political asset to us this year, speaking from an experience that lies right at the heart of the people we most need to convince.

Rick Jacobs comes from a more political background than any of these, but his leadership at the Courage Campaign shows that he understands the job we have left to do better than many of California's existing gay leaders. Our incumbent luminaries have nailed down the left in California, but still seem out of their comfort zone when dealing with anyone who doesn't already agree with them politically. Jacobs has that skill. When the crowd booed an insulting remark he quoted from the Prop. 8 campaign, he immediately hushed them, explaining that you get no political payoff from that. He reiterated a thought that had been brilliantly expressed earlier by the teenage daughter of a same-sex couple: "We must do the hard work of not judging the people we need to persuade."

The whole day and issue were summed up for me listening to Frank Sinatra on the drive down. While Sammy Cahn's lyrics have been cited before in this context, they are always worth repeating and thinking about:

Love and marriage, love and marriage
It's an institute you can't disparage
Ask the local gentry
And they will say it's elementary

Try, try, try to separate them
It's an illusion
Try, try, try, and you will only come
To this conclusion

Love and marriage, love and marriage
Go together like a horse and carriage
Dad was told by mother
You can't have one without the other

"Praise for Sotomayor" proclaims the Washington Blade's headline, followed by "Activists 'encouraged' by Supreme Court pick, despite thin record on LGBT issues."

In other words, the Democratic Party loyalists leading our LGBT activist groups are swooning over self-described "wise Latina" Sonia Sotomayor even though her record of ruling on behalf of gay legal equality is nonexistent. In the words of D'Arcy Kemnitz, head of the National LGBT Bar Association, "As LGBT Americans, we are excited to have more diversity on the bench."

And she does, after all, speak for all of us "LGBT Americans," right?

I suppose these left-liberal advocates are heartened by Sotomayor's disrespect for property rights and support for race-based preferential treatment, as part of what Human Rights Campaign leader Joe Solmonese praises as "Judge Sotomayor's record of fair-minded decisions." From this perspective, if you favor expanded government confiscation of private property and support blatant discrimination by government against white males, you are - wait for it - a progressive. And thus you must also be in favor of gay equality.

Well, probably she is, but Supreme Court justices have a way of ruling counter to what many of their early supporters expected, especially when they lack a record on a particular issue. Let's hope that on our particular issue that doesn't turn out to be the case.

More. The Washington Post reports that:

Sotomayor's religion - and her lack of a record on abortion rights cases - has helped spark some concern among liberal interest groups that she may not be sufficiently pro-choice for some of them. The White House on Thursday offered strong, if vague, reassurances that she would support abortion rights.

But apparently, no need to reassure LGBT groups, since they're clearly in the bag.

Though anti-gay-marriage forces won on Prop 8 in California, their victory came at a steep price: the vote served as a wake-up call to millions of straights who are sympathetic to SSM but who, until then, had been content to sit on the sidelines. After Prop 8, straights took ownership of the SSM cause as never before. I think history will show this to have been an important change in the political dynamic, perhaps a landmark.

Now comes more evidence of a whole new level of straight engagement: the lead lawyers in the new federal SSM lawsuit are Ted Olson and David Boies, both straight, and both among the most eminent lawyers in the world.

Like a number of gay groups and fellow blogger David Link (below), I think this suit is likely to be counterproductive. (I'll withhold judgment on the legal merits until briefs are available.) I hope the federal courts will keep their distance and continue to let states go their separate ways.

Even so, the passion with which Olson and Boies make the case for marriage rights at their recent press conference is unmistakable and moving. And it is important in its own right: another sign that the cause of gay marriage has turned a corner among straight Americans.