IGF CultureWatch

Everyone, and by that I mean every person in the United States if not the world, should read this seminal speech given by Frank Kameny in 1969. It surfaced recently among his papers in the Library of Congress and constitutes his statement on behalf of a gay man, Benning Wentworth, who was appealing the denial of a security clearance by the Defense Department.

We throw down the gauntlet, clearly, unequivocally and unambiguously. We state for the world, as we have stated for the public, we state for the record and, if the Department forces us to carry the case that far, we state for the courts that Mr. Wentworth, being a healthy, unmarried, homosexual male, 35 years old, has lived and does live a suitable homosexual life, in parallel with the suitable active heterosexual sexual life lived by 75 percent of our healthy, unmarried, heterosexual males holding security clearances; and he intends to continue to do so indefinitely into the future. And please underline starting with the word "and intends to do so into the future". Underline that, please, Mr. Stenographer.

To read this visionary speech and realize that not even 40 years have passed is to marvel at this country of ours. And at our good fortune in having Frank Kameny among us.

I'm told, by the way, that Benning Wentworth is still alive and well. Hats off to him, too. Imagine the courage it took for an open homosexual to stand up to the Defense Department in 1969.

The AP reports: "Top evangelical resigns after backing gay unions." Recent comments by Rev. Richard Cizik, vice president of governmental affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals, triggered an uproar that led to his stepping down. He's taken a number of trendy left-leaning views, such as buying into global warming alarmism full throttle. But it was his remarks in support of same-sex civil unions, and an acknowledgment he's "shifting" on gay marriage, that led to his being ousted.

In November, businessman Jared Polis (D-Colo.) became the first openly gay man elected to the House as a freshman. But his op-ed in Wednesday's Wall Street Journal is likely to give many of his party's "progressives" fits. Polis says a better way to help revive the U.S. auto industry is to rely on private funding by cutting capital gains taxes for car makers, and that "if it works in this particular case to incentivize additional risk-taking through a capital-gains tax exemption, it may indeed work in other cases or, I dare say, across the entire U.S. economy." He goes on to note that "Any pretension of a government bailout [of auto makers] being a good deal for taxpayers should be abandoned for the insincere (or perhaps ignorant) rhetoric that it is."

He's the anti-Barney Frank!

The Mormons play the victim card, accusing LGBT demonstrators of "violence" against Latter Day Saints. At issue, of course, are the ongoing protests, some in front of Mormon churches, following the LDS's massive fundraising effort on behalf of California's Prop 8, whose passage now bans same-sex marriage in the Golden State.

As others have noted, the ad makes no mention of, say, the actual violence that gay people encounter at the hands of those stoked full of hate by supposed Christians who've turned the gospel message of love inside out.

Relatedly, "Prop 8 The Musical" is making the rounds. I appreciate the passion, but doubt that careening so close to blasphemy is going to sway those indoctrinated to view gay people as unworthy of legal equality. But I'm told that God loves a good joke, and this one is pretty funny.

More. I don't think arguing in favor of lowering the bar for cohabitation rights is particularly helfpul. On the other hand, a federal civil unions law, as Chris Crain discusses, could act as an important step toward eventual marriage equality.

After November's sweeping electoral defeats for gay legal equality-especially the roll back of marriage equality in California-caution is in the air. Reports the New York Times, N.Y. Democrats May Skip Gay Marriage Vote:

After a pledge from New York Democratic leaders that their party would legalize same-sex marriage if they won control of the State Senate this year, money from gay rights supporters poured in from across the country, helping cinch a Democratic victory.

But now, party leaders have sent strong signals that they may not take up the issue during the 2009 legislative session. Some of them suggest it may be wise to wait until 2011 before considering it, in hopes that Democrats can pick up more Senate seats and Gov. David A. Paterson, a strong backer of gay rights, would then be safely into a second term.

In other words, although Democrats finally now control the governorship and both houses of the state legislature, gay marriage is too contentious to bring up, probably until after the next election cycle. But what if the Republicans retake the governorship or the state senate in 2010?

That's also the problem with recent signals from the incoming Obama administration that it won't raise repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy anytime soon. And if they wait more than a year, don't count on any action too close to the next congessional elections in 2010. But what if Republicans then retake the Senate (and even the House) in Washington?

Caution is understandable, and the Democratic politicians now advocating going slow until there is more popular support for our cause may have a point. That is, if in the meantime a real, concerted effort is made to build a consensus for, say, advancing marriage equality for gay people.

That challenge also is behind the debate over whether the Washington, D.C. city council should pass a same-sex marriage bill. Although the city's electorate is overwhelmingly Democratic, there are "issues." As the Washington Blade reports, Black activists urge caution on D.C. marriage bill:

With blacks making up nearly 57 percent of the population in D.C., black gay activists said gay marriage supporters must redouble their efforts to reach out to blacks and other minorities in the District.

"I don't know if we can obtain the allies to help us defeat a referendum in the District," said Carlene Cheatam, one of the founding members of the D.C. Coalition of Black Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Men & Women. "I'm not worried about our elected city government," Cheatam said. "They are all supportive because they equate marriage rights with civil rights. It's the general population that I'm concerned about."

Cheatam and other black leaders say coalitions and alliances would have to be built between gays and black community institutions, including historic black churches, "to educate the community on why the right to marry is a civil right." (More on outreach to black voters is offered in this New York Times op-ed by Charles M. Bow.)

The danger is that November's electoral disaster will be used to bury efforts to advance gay equality, and that delaying efforts until after the next election cycle means that, once again, our issues can be used to solicit gay dollars for Democrats and their LGBT fundraising fronts in 2010 with the promise that sometime afterward our rights will be addressed by our elected representatives. We've heard that song before, too.

"What's next for the GLBT community," asks Washington, D.C.'s MetroWeekly, which approached "the leaders of a number of national GLBT and HIV/AIDS organizations" for their thoughts on the new administration and "what the community can achieve." Some of those interviewed are "GLBT" Obamists upholding the party line, but outgoing Log Cabin Republican chief Patrick Sammon offers some clear-headed observations.

On expectations for the Obama administration, Sammon remarks:

My concern is that the Democrats are going to treat the gays likes a constituency, that we're going to get one bone thrown our way, one little reward, and then they expect us to be quiet. I hope that reward isn't hate crimes. While that's good legislation, I don't think anyone believes that passing the hate-crimes bill as it's currently written is going to have this transformative effect on the lives of gay and lesbian people.

And on the success of the anti-gay marriage initiatives, especially the roll back in California, Sammon risks accusations of "racial scape-goating" when he notes:

It doesn't mean we're pointing fingers at anyone, but you have to acknowledge the numbers. The fact is Sen. Obama's presence on the ballot increased turnout - four years ago, African Americans were 6 percent of the electorate in California, this year they were 10 percent and they voted in huge margins [for Proposition 8]. So let's figure out as a community how we can do better to engage people of color and really have a comprehensive strategy to gain allies for equality among African Americans.

Or "the community" could just go on doing what it's been doing (or, more to the point, not doing) and expect that whatever Obama deems to provide is what we deserve.

Should companies run by individuals who donated to efforts to pass anti-gay marriage initiatives be boycotted? What about businesses that contract with a service provider whose chief executive supported an anti-gay marriage initiative? The L.A. Times looks at the dispute between holding those accountable who work to denys us equal rights vs. punishing individuals for exercising their rights to free speech and to support political causes that reflect their personal values.

The story asks, "Should there be boycotts, blacklists, firings or de facto shunning of those who supported [California's] Proposition 8?" Given that many of the examples involve the film industry and California-based arts organizations, the question alludes to the belief among Hollywood liberals that refusing to hire people who defended and provided agitprop on behalf of Stalin during the height of the Gulag shall forever remain an unpardonable offense. Or was it that they just felt the government had no right to inquire about and make public one's membership in the Communist Party? Tricky questions, these.

Added: Okay, I'll be less namby-pamby and take a stand: Given a choice, I'd avoid purchasing from, or otherwise doing business with, a company whose top executive wrote a personal check to support an anti-gay initiative. Even if they are not owners of privately held firms, their compensation is tied to the company's revenues and profits; when my dollars go to their competitors, they ultimately have fewer cents to donate to causes that seek to deny us equal treatment by the state. That these companies might internally treat gay workers on par with nongay workers doesn't sway me.

Law Suits that Over-Reach

Another item in the news doesn't concern a boycott but a discrimination suit that forced eHarmony.com to provide services to gays seeking same-sex matches. The fact that the suit succeeded is no cause for joy; it opens the door to all sorts of mischief via the misuse of the American legal system.

What about forcing gay-exclusive dating services to provide matches for heterosexuals? Or using the power of the state to force a service that specializes in matches among Jewish people to go non-denominational?

As David Bernstein, who teaches constitutional law at George Mason Univeristy, tells the Wall Street Journal, the discrimination claim "seems like quite a stretch." Morever, we ought to be wary of giving social conservatives justification for denouncing the LGBT movement as authoritarian. It's one thing, after all, to make a decision to boycott, or even to organize a boycott, and quite another to enlist the state to remake private businesses to conform to a governmental model of engineered social equality.

When rights are in conflict, erring on the side of liberty over "equality" is always a good bet.

Calif. Supreme Court to take up gay marriage ban. Gay couples should be entitled to equal justice under the law. The fear, however, is that if the court does overturn the popular vote to ban gays from marrying, what would the voters do next? Recall state justices? Eventually, the popular will has to be confronted. As Jon Rauch, John Corvino and other have eloquently explained, you have to win the moral argument (and a majority of hearts and minds) at some point, or keep facing an ever worsening backlash to unpopular judicial decrees.

Of course, the court could nullify the vote for Prop. 8 - thus restoring marriage equality in the Golden State - and everything might work out well in the end. But let's not pretend that there's no risk here.

More. From The Advocate:

People from both inside and outside the [No on Prop 8] campaign are pointing fingers at the small clique of California LGBT leaders who directed the campaign - Lorri Jean of the L.A. Gay and Lesbian Center, Geoff Kors of Equality California, the National Center for Lesbian Rights' Kate Kendell, Delores Jacobs of the San Diego LGBT Community Center, and Michael Fleming of the David Bohnett Foundation - charging that their insularity and inexperience with the humongous task at hand turned what should have been a difficult victory into a painful loss.

"They just didn't want to hear from people," says one Democratic Party insider, whose repeated offers to connect the campaign with powerful donors went ignored. "They just were asleep, and they were talking [only] to each other."

Meanwhile, national LGBT fundraising fronts were to a great extent missing in action, consumed with the all important task of getting out the vote for Obama.

Another observation: Nurtured on campus leftwing politics, it's my personal experience that many career LGBT activists are absurdly focused on process, not prgamatism. They wouldn't last long in the business world, which is perhaps why they're not there.

The Washington Blade reports:

Terry Leftgoff, a gay California-based political consultant who worked on previous campaigns against anti-gay initiatives, said the "No on 8" campaign had "a slow, mismanaged campaign strategy that was a series of blunders."

"It was clear there was a minimal ground operation and an extremely ineffective media campaign, both of which are vital to any campaign's success," he said. ...

"Numerous volunteers were turned away by 'No on Prop 8' on Election Day because there was no real [get out the vote] strategy," he said. ...

Leftgoff also criticized the "No on 8" campaign for its limited outreach to black and Latino voters.

As we've noted, LGBT dollars and activism on behalf of the Obama campaign dwarfed efforts to fight the anti-gay marriage props in California, Florida and Arizona, and the successful initiative to ban adoptions by gay couples in Arkansas.

Exit polls showed about 70 percent of black voters approved of California's Prop 8, and one of the best observations in the Blade piece is from author/activist Robin Tyler:

"Coalition politics does not mean we get to fight for your rights and you get to vote our civil rights away," she said. "That's not coalition politics - that's prejudice and fear and discrimination."

In the wake of the California defeat, there have been ongoing protests against the Mormons for funding pro-Prop 8 ads and get out the vote efforts. Rick Warren's evangelical Saddleback (mega) Church was also targeted. For the most part, that's understandable and positive (although certainly not the infantile mailing of faux white powder pretend terrorism, if indeed that was done by angry gays, which has not been demonstrated).

But LGBT leaders (such as they are) seem at a loss when it comes to anti-gay African Americans. Having failed to reach out to such a resolutely Democratic voting constituency, which turned out in record-breaking number to support Obama, activists have avoided (as far as I can see) organizing protests against anti-gay African American churches.

Protesting against Mormons, after all, doesn't raise those difficult politically correct issues - especially when LGBT progressives (black and white) seem quick to attribute criticism of black voters to gay white racism. (For another critical view of the gay protests and "the vile and sickening displays of racism displayed by gay demonstrators," check out this post over at the Classical Values blog.)

More. The Obama-quoting pro Prop 8 robocall. This deserves much more attention.

Furthermore. I guess Candorville is just another example of "racial scape-goating."

In California, spontaneous protests over the passage of Prop 8 continue to swell. Now there's talk of a national protest, though whether this amounts to anything remains to be seen. This is starting to look important.

I share some of Dale Carpenter's reservations about the optics of protesting against churches. But I wonder, hopefully, whether we're seeing a gay political awakening on the gay-marriage front.

For one reason, I'm so very, very tired of hearing from our opponents that gay folks don't really care much about marriage anyway. For another, the civil-rights era in the marriage struggle is ending.

The civil-rights model tried to separate marriage from the political process, because we didn't have nearly enough straight support to win. That left our opponents with the political field to themselves while we busied ourselves in the courts. Not any more. We now have enough straight allies to win, long-term, in the political arena.

To judge from the protests, that's where we'll be going. Goodbye Thurgood Marshall, hello Martin Luther King. Goodbye Lambda Legal, hello ACT-UP. Sure, more love, less anger than in the AIDS days. But the protests, provided they are peaceful and don't turn hateful or anti-religious, point the way forward.

A friend in California writes:

The battle now is purely one in the culture. Against every instinct of our framers, we now have to fight for our rights (or this one, at least) in the political arena itself. That means the protests are the leading edge now, not the courts.

If more gay people in California and elsewhere draw that lesson from Prop 8, our loss won't have been in vain.