IGF CultureWatch

Updated November 10, 2008

California, Florida and Arizona banned same-sex marriage; Arkansas banned adoptions by gay couples. Kevin Ivers, blogging over at Citizen Crain, hits the nail on the head:

The 2008 election was, in fact, a disaster for gays.... When I learned on Facebook this morning that dear gay friends of mine in New York were dancing in Times Square, and other friends in Washington were celebrating in front of the White House and actually comparing the experience to the fall of the Berlin Wall-while gay marriage was going down the toilet in California-it was astounding to me....

The gay movement used to be about thinking outside the box, including the one we ourselves might be in, and taking nothing for granted. But something happened over the last several years that changed all that. Now it's just…a gigantic co-opting of our energies by a political party that does nothing in return. Besides a whole lot of fundraising.

As one of his readers comments:

I briefly showed up a Stonewall "Victory" party in Sacramento which I THOUGHT was focused on Prop 8. Turns out it was more of a Democratic Party victory party with little emphasis on Prop 8.... By about 9:00 pm, as Obama was giving his victory speech, the results for Prop 8 started trickling in and showed an early lead for "YES." But no one seemed to notice or care.... By the ebullient atmosphere, you'd think Prop 8 was some new dog licensing statute.... I left after only a few minutes-heartsick, disgusted, and angry at the return numbers and also at peoples' dispassionate reaction.

And here's another first-hand account by a volunteer on the "No on 8" campaign, who describes the "No" campaign as "the most poorly put together effort I have ever seen."

The banner headline in the Nov. 7 Washington Blade blares "'Change' Has Come to America" with a huge, reverential photo of Obama, arm raised to accept the adulation of his adoring masses. It overshadows a smaller boxed article, "Voters in Calif., Fla. and Ariz. Ban Same-Sex Marriage." In an era in which gay activism has become a wholly owned fundraising subsidy of the Democratic National Committeee, that's the change we can believe in.

More. Over at Slate, Farhad Manjoo examines the impact of African-American Obama supporters, 70% of whom voted for Prop 8, and concludes: "Had black turnout matched levels of previous elections, the vote on the gay-marriage ban-which trailed in the polls for much of the summer-would have been much closer. It might even have failed."

The same could be said of Florida, where a hugh black turnout for Obama helped to pass an amendment banning not just same-sex marriage but legal recognition of "substantially similar" partnerships that might bestow the benefits of marriage.

Furthermore. You might think major outreach to black voters, making the case to oppose these anti-gay amendments, would have been a priority for LGBT political organizers this year. It wasn't, perhaps because mostly white LGBT activists are told they have no business telling blacks how to vote, and they believe it.

Of course, this might have helped.

More Still. The Obama-quoting pro Prop 8 robocall. This deserves much more attention, but that wouldn't serve the Obamist cause, would it.

Digesting the bitter Prop 8 news, I'm disappointed and sad to have lost gay marriage in California. The adoption of a constitutional ban there has set back the cause by years. What's more frustrating, though, is what I'm hearing from people on our side. "This just shows why civil rights shouldn't be put up for a vote." Or: "We lost this one, but there are other courts to try." To me this translates as: "We're determined not to learn from defeat."

Not just one defeat. On gay marriage, we're now zero for 30 on state constitutional bans. Think about that. Has any other political movement in the history of the United States compiled such an unblemished record of total electoral annihilation? An introspective movement should be doing some fundamental rethinking at this point.

My suggestion: Rethink, first, the wisdom of mindlessly pushing lawsuits through the courts without adequately preparing the public. The result is gay marriage in two states-one of which, Connecticut, would soon have had it anyway-at the cost of a backlash which has made the climb much steeper in dozens of other states, and which, in some states, has banned even civil unions. The California debacle is particularly stinging. We already had civil unions there, and we were only one Democratic governor away from seeing those converted legislatively, hence less controversially, to marriages. First rule of politics: if you're winning anyway, don't kick it away.

Rethink, second, the strategy of telling the public that we're entitled to marriage by right and that anyone who disagrees is a discriminator or, by implication, a bigot. Some portion of the public, let's call it a third, agrees with that proposition, but a third isn't enough. As Dale Carpenter points out, another, let's say, third loaths homosexuality, but they're not winnable. The key is the middle group, people who oppose anti-gay discrimination but see gender as part of the definition of marriage, not as a discriminatory detail. We're going to have to persuade these people that gay marriage is a good idea. We're going to have to talk about gay marriage instead of changing the subject to discrimination. Bludgeoning them with civil-rights rhetoric isn't going to work. Not if it failed in the country's bluest state in a bright-blue year.

The gay marriage issue is not going to be decided over the heads of the American people, and no amount of comparing it to Brown vs. Board of Education or any other dubiously relevant precedent will change that. Too many gay heads are too strategically locked into a litigation-based mindset that has become counterproductive. Too many people forget that Martin Luther King was a persuader, not a litigator, and that the real breakthroughs came through Congress, not courts.

Addendum: A useful emendation here. In a perverse way, it cheers me up a bit to know that, pre-Prop 8, California was not as close to SSM as I thought.

More: A silver lining in Arizona, courtesy of commenter Throbert...

Updated Nov. 7

The get out the vote for Obama campaign, to which the LGBT beltway bandits contributed mightily, achieved its goal of bringing out record numbers of black and Hispanic voters, who heavily supported the anti-gay marriage amendments that will constitutionally bar same-sex marriages in Florida and Arizona (and, even worse, roll back marriage equality in a state where it now exists, California. Also, Arkansas voters banned gay couples from adopting children.

From Reuters, California Stops Gay Marriage Amid Obama Victory. That state's anti-gay marriage Prop 8 passed with exit polls showing 51% of whites opposing the amendment but 70% of African-Americans supporting it, and 75% of African-American women voting to ban our marriages. But what price is losing marriage equality when we now have the light bearer to reign over us?

In early October, we posted one volunteer's warning cry:

"Being behind in the polls wasn't inevitable-we were ahead for a long time-but now...their side has out fund-raised us by $10 million. ...

"Gays have a third choice in 2008; say to hell with the presidential election-Obama is no savior for the gays, and McCain no threat-and get 100% behind the No on 8 campaign. But no-our national organizations had to pretend the presidential election mattered for us this year, and for that, we might just all pay dearly, for a long time to come.

Then, on the eve of the election, Obama reiterated that " 'marriage is between a man and a woman." Yes, he said he was against Prop 8 and amending state constitutions, but everything else he said could have been used in a pro-Prop 8 ad. [update: And it was! A pro-prop 8 robocall used Obama's anti-gay marriage remarks.] The message wasn't lost on the faithful. And, of course, Obama had previously explained that only male-female marriage is a divinely ordained sacred union to be enshrined by law.

Don't expect Obama or the Democratic congress to take steps to modify much less revoke the odious Clinton-era Defense of Marriage Act. The LGBT Obamist cadres will be explaining shortly that such a move wouldn't be expedient, after all, in terms of the greater goal of enacting their sweepingly "progressive" redistributionist agenda.

More. McCain received an historic 27% of the self-identified gay vote, according to CNN's exit poll. But to the LGBT media, we're virtually invisible. And as far as the beltway bandits at Human Rights Campaign are concerned, we don't exist.

But what if the money HRC raised to get out the vote for Obama and help secure their own sinecures in the Obama bureaucracies had gone to fighting these initiatives instead?

Let the celebrations begin. And through inauguration and the "first 100 days" enthusiasm will be high, and LGBT Democratic activists will tell us that a new dawn is upon us, led by the one for whom we have been waiting and his chosen party. They will be insufferable.

But sometime early in 2009, the country will come to some inconvenient truths, as will gay voters. Obama has pledged to introduce legislation that attempts to provide tax credits to all earning less than $250,000 while simultaneously using the federal troth to send checks to those who don't pay income taxes, while also providing subsidized health care and college tuition, plus trillions more in new pork-barrel spending to fulfill the promises Obama has made unto the masses.

The struggling economy won't react well to raising capital gains and dividends taxes as a matter of "fairness," and hugely increasing income and social security taxes on "the rich," along with the many regulatory overreach steps that the Democrats will quickly pass. Add to the mix anti-trade protectionism, the rapid elimination of secret ballots for union elections, and unleashing the trial lawyers to bring suit against corporate America without even modest restraints (the new "pay equity" act will allow the plaintiffs' bar to reach back over 20 years to find discrimination and sue sue sue). Growth will stagnate, unemployment will rise, incomes will fall, and Obama and congressional Democrats will only be able to blame the Bush administration for so long, though they will try mightily.

On foreign policy, let's take Joe Biden at his word and expect the worst.

On the LGBT front, some Obama loyalists at the Human Rights Campaign and elsewhere will be awarded mid-level positions in Washington's alphabet bureaucracies. They will use these posts to defend Obama from critiques that he is not delivering on his promises to the LGBT community, much as Clinton's LGBT appointments defended his support of the Defense of Marriage Act and "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

There will be quick passage of a "hate crimes" bill federalizing prosecution of crimes committed with animus against select Democratic-voting constituencies. There will be the Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which even John McCain said he was willing to consider signing. It will not, however, include a "GENDA" component that prohibits employers from discriminating against crossdressers -- and that will split LGBT activists who have made the "T" a litmus test for progressivism (think National Gay & Lesbian Task Force) from the LGBT Obamist apologists (think Human Rights Campaign). It won't be pretty. And if the intramural fighting gets ugly enough, there won't be any ENDA at all.

Don't look for action on the military gay ban, either. Obama has said (though the LGBT press passed over it) that he's going to go slow and rely on the military's advice here. Gen. Colin Powell, newly minted Obamist and one of the fathers (with former Sen. Sam Nunn) of "don't ask, don't tell" (i.e., "lie and hide") will provide him with cover.

The Democrats will control all the reins for two years. As their mask of moderation falls away and their contradictory promises work out in favor of traditional big government, big labor, anti-growth statism, support will wither. They will loss Congress in 2010.

GOP at the Crossroads

The Republican party has a choice. If John McCain turns out to be the last GOP presidential nominee willing to forsake gay bashing and oppose amending the U.S. Constitution to ban marriage for committed, loving same-sex couples, then the party will tread backwards. And if our only choice in the years to come is between a redistributionist regulatory state and reactionary social conservatism, America's future will be bleak.

(I've bumped up into a new post my observations on the win for state marriage bans that had been here.)

GOP Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky is no supporter of gay equality, although he's not been an anti-gay demagogue, either. But a radio ad attacking McConnell, by AFSCME, the government-workers union, traffics in nasty homophobic innuendo in order to help elect his Democratic opponent.

Via the New York Times:

Several gay friends and wealthy gay donors to Senator Barack Obama have asked him over the years why, as a matter of logic and fairness, he opposes same-sex marriage even though he has condemned old miscegenation laws that would have barred his black father from marrying his white mother.

The difference, Mr. Obama has told them, is religion.

As a Christian - he is a member of the United Church of Christ - Mr. Obama believes that marriage is a sacred union, a blessing from God, and one that is intended for a man and a woman exclusively.

Comments "Instapundit" Glenn Reynolds: "My guess is that the reason he's not getting more flak on this is that lots of people who'd be upset by it just don't believe him. What will they say if it turns out he's telling the truth?"

More. Or just a socialist?

Furthermore. Apparently, only the anti-gay marriage side in California is willing to run an ad featuring a (supposed) gay couple at home with their child, in What Is Marriage For? Given his clear public statements that only man-woman marriage is a sacred union, how could Obama possibly disagree with this message?

In the wake of Michigan's passage of an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment, John Corvino wrote:

It was a classic bait-and-switch. When gay-rights opponents sought to amend Michigan's constitution to prohibit, not only same-sex marriage, but also "similar union[s] for any purpose," they told us that the amendment was not about taking away employment benefits. They told us that in their speeches. They told us that in their campaign literature. They told us that in their commercials.

They lied.

The initiative passed, the constitution was amended, and before the ink was dry the opponents changed their tune and demanded that municipalities and state universities revoke health-insurance benefits for same-sex domestic partners.

A similar scenario is being played out, now, in Florida. The Sunshine State's Amendment 2 appears on the state ballot as follows:

"This amendment protects marriage as the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife and provides that no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized." (emphasis added)

Supporters of Amendment 2 are claiming no existing rights will be taken away:

Amendment 2 does nothing new. It merely protects something longstanding, something precious, something beautiful - natural marriage between a man and a woman.

But, as we know from Michigan, that's not what they'll be saying the day after the amendment passes. And, while unlike California, the Florida amendment requires 60 percent of the vote to enshrine anti-gay animus in the state constitution, defeating it remains an uphill battle.

Where's Obama? The Washington Blade takes note of Obama's silence on California's anti-gay marriage Proposition 8, and as we've pointed out, observes that:

...black support for Prop 8 could be the key to its approval. A new poll conducted by SurveyUSA shows overwhelming black support for Prop 8. Likely black voters favor it, 58-38 percent. That's a daunting and disappointing margin, especially considering black turnout is expected to be at record-breaking levels thanks to Obama's historic candidacy.

Likewise, in Florida (which, unlike California, is very much a swing state up for grabs), the Obama campaign is making registration of Caribbean-Americans and Democratic-leaning Hispanics (of which there are a growing number) a key priority. These groups are heavily anti-gay, and anti-gay marriage. Let us applaud the self-sacrifice being made by LBGT organizations, whose donations to the Democrats' "get out the vote" efforts may elect Obama, even if it means passing anti-gay state consitutional amendments.

Bait and switch, anyone?

In the close Mississippi race for Trent Lott's Senate seat, Republican Roger Wicker ran this ad accusing Democrat Ronnie Musgrove of taking money from "the largest gay rights group in the country," as well as from pro-choice groups and other liberal lobbies. However, the Advocate looked into the matter and reports:

...the [Human Rights Campaign and other mentioned] political action committees have never sent money directly to Musgrove, according to the candidate's Federal Election Commission disclosure report. And...neither NARAL, HRC, nor Friends of Hillary have endorsed Musgrove, whom the blog Talking Points Memo describes as being a socially conservative, economically populist Democrat.

So Republican Wicker is pretty scummy. But as Radley Balko, at Reason magazine's Hit and Run, blogs, Musgrove is not someone to cheer, either:

Democrat Ronnie Musgrove promptly denounced the ad, though not because of the ridiculous gay stereotypes. Rather, he wants to assure the voters of Mississippi that he dislikes those gays as much as anyone. From his campaign's press release:

"In March 2000, Musgrove supported a ban on adoption by homosexuals or same-sex couples. The ban not only pertained to adoptions in Mississippi, but also ensured that Mississippi would not recognize adoptions by gay individuals or couples from other states if the parents moved to Mississippi."

Musgrove pledges to not only stop Mississippi from recognizing gay adoptions, but to see to it that if gay couples arrive in his state with their adopted kids, Mississippi won't recognize any parental relationship.

Despite the real progress that's been made in much of America, our advances are still subject to setbacks (after November, gay marriage may no longer be legal in California). Even worse, there are regions where, as far as the treatment of gay people is concerned, it's still 1950.

The Washington Post's "On Faith" forum looks at anti- and pro-gay rights boycotts. Note that the initial post claims a McDonald's caved-in to the religious right, but that a commenter who called the McCorp HQ got a very different response.

I think it all goes to show that, these days, boycotts are basically a fund-raising tactic by both sides, directed more at their members/donors than anyone else. They almost never (or, make that just "never") have any real economic impact. Sometimes a corporation will initially get scared and announce a retreat, only to then receive a barrage of complaints and boycott threats from the other side. By now, U.S. businesses have basically figured this out.

But the whole game does give the boycotters (on both sides) the emotional satisfaction of believing that they are following in the footsteps of Gandhi and King.

I've just read the opinions in the Connecticut gay marriage case (available here). I'm sorry to say the dissent, or at least the smart dissent (never mind Justice Zarella's ramble about procreation), has a compelling argument-and that the Connecticut Supreme Court has done us no favors.

Basically Connecticut reruns the May California decision imposing same-sex marriage. The majority in Connecticut finds that gays are a "quasi-suspect class," a disadvantaged minority which needs court protection. This means that laws disadvantaging gays receive heightened scrutiny. Discriminating against gay couples by denying them the right to marry does not survive heightened scrutiny. So gay marriage is required by the state constitution.

It's a defensible analysis. But here's the thing: like California, and very much unlike Massachusetts in 2004, when that state's Supreme Court ordered SSM, Connecticut was not proposing to give gay couples nothing as an alternative to marriage. To the contrary: in 2005, the state legislature enacted civil unions, granting every state right and responsibility of marriage, and withholding only the designation "marriage" itself.

As the smart dissent, by Justice Borden (joined by Justice Vertefeiulle), notes, most political observers in Connecticut agreed that the conversion of civil unions to marriage was just a matter of time, and "sooner rather than later." The state's steady stream of pro-gay legislation, topped off by civil unions, makes the idea that gays need the court's protection from a hostile majority seem obsolete. So says the dissent, and I'd add that, as a political matter, we ought to be maturing beyond official victim status, not welcoming it.

Second, the issue before the court was: Is man-plus-woman a discriminatory restriction on marriage, or is it part of the very definition of marriage? I, and probably most visitors to this site, hold the former view; but it's foolish to pretend that the notion of same-sex marriage isn't newfangled. If the people of Connecticut aren't quite ready to go all the way to changing what many regard as the core definition of marriage, should it be unconstitutional for them to compromise on civil unions while catching their breath? In effect, what the court has done here is to make patience illegal.

Back in May, commenting on the California decision ("Hold the Champagne"), I called this kind of all-or-nothing thinking "legal totalism", which,

it seems to me, is tailor-made to rule out any kind of accommodation, even if that accommodation gives gay couples most of what we need with the promise of more to come (soon). I think SSM is a better policy than civil unions. And I think denial of marriage to gay couples is discriminatory. But to make even a well-intentioned compromise ILLEGAL strikes me as a step too far, and a good example of how culture wars escalate.

And now, once again, a court pulls the rug out from under a compromise that gives us 95 percent of what we want uncontroversially. Once again, other states are put on notice that they'd better not enact civil unions unless they want to get SSM instead. And could the judges' timing possibly have been worse? This may cost us California, which is voting next month on whether to retain SSM. It may also cost us Arizona and/or Florida, which are voting on anti-SSM propositions.

I hope I'm wrong. But at the moment I wish nothing more than that our side would recognize the court-driven SSM strategy for what it has become: exhausted and counterproductive.

More: Here's a contrasting view, courtesy of Paul Varnell.