IGF CultureWatch

On her world tour, adored gay icon Madonna shows a video that juxtaposes images equating John McCain with Adolf Hitler and Robert Mugabe, while she compares Obama to John Lennon, Al Gore and Gandhi. What's worse, so many of her fans, including one must suppose her legions of gay fans, robotically clap their hands and hoot their approval.

Over at Overlawyered.com, in No conscience clause for California fertility doctors IGF contributing author Walter Olson questions a recent California Supreme Court ruling that would require the fertility doctors in question, against their religious convictions, to inseminate (artificially) a lesbian patient. (Just why the lesbian patient wants to force the fundie doctors to do this when San Diego isn't lacking alternative fertility services appears more a matter of bile than babies.) Olson writes:

The ruling also allows doctors to excuse themselves on the basis of religious scruples if there is a second doctor within the same practice-but not, apparently, a doctor across town at a different practice-willing to perform the work in question. And of course the legislature in Sacramento could readily help bring peace to the culture war by inserting into the law a generously drafted conscience clause-if it wanted to.

But then, how would that stick it to the 'phobes?

More. In certain respects this case brings to mind the suit brought by a lesbian couple who wanted the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights to order the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association of the United Methodist Church to rent their seaside pavilion for the couple's commitment ceremony. Or the Canadian pastor ordered by a government Human Rights Commission to apology and pay $1000 in fines for his anti-gay letter published in an Alberta newspaper.

Across the page, IGF contributing author John Corvino argues in When Tolerance Isn't Enough that acceptance, rather than tolerance (or, I assume, mere legal equality) should be our goal. But expressions of acceptance must be voluntary and achieved via convincing arguments and moving examples, not coerced through threat of punishment by the state.

The Federalist Society, "a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order," hosted an online debate about same-sex marriage featuring IGF contributing author Dale Carpenter. What jumps out at you about this exchange is just how obviously weak the anti-gay marriage arguments are. Gay marriage advocates, including Dale and IGF co-managing editor Jonathan Rauch, among others, have done a masterful job of developing arguments in favor of marriage equality that are based on conservative, even "Burkean," perspectives (basically, same-sex marriage strengthens marriage as an institution and thus society as a whole).

Social conservatives have a hard time countering that. Gays on the left side of the spectrum, in contrast, too often merely assert that they should have the benefits of marriage (or even, as in the "Beyond Marriage" manifesto, marriage benefits for whatever sorts of loose domestic relationships they may choose to enter). That's not going to win any arguments with those whose greatest fear is that substantively changing the social order can have destabilizing and destructive consequences.

To me, the most striking moment in the Federalist Society's online debate is when Amy Wax, a law prof who argues that gay promiscuity will undermine the norm of monogamy in marriage, backs herself into a corner where she says this:

One also has to ask -- why is same-sex marriage so unpopular with voters? I think they see that once we start redefining, all bets are off. And I actually think that all bets ARE off. In the end, marriage is arbitrary, a construct, and a restrictive one. So why have it at all?

In context, it's fairly clear she doesn't mean the question rhetorically. She doesn't know the answer and she doubts there is one.

So marriage is arbitrary. It stands on nothing but blind acceptance of tradition. No moorings at all. Thus do conservatives, in their determination to put marriage on a slippery slope, join radical egalitarians in pooh-poohing the idea that it has any coherent rationale. Rad-egals say, "Marriage is arbitrary so let's change it." Conservatives, "Marriage is arbitrary so we can't touch it." Take yer pick; we're all deconstructionists now.

With friends like that, it's no wonder marriage is in such precarious shape.

Thus spake the candidates:

Though the candidates came down on opposite sides of the California initiative that would ban gay marriage, both stressed that they opposed same-sex marriage. Obama called marriage "a sacred union," drawing applause when he added, "God is in the mix."

Sen. McCain, despite his praiseworthy opposition to the anti-gay federal marriage amendment (on which Sen. Obama was mostly silent), gets demerits for supporting the California anti-gay initiative. But really, wouldn't an objective observer have deep doubts about both, rather than singling one out for near-reverential praise and the other for abject demonization?

More. Reader "Timothy" writes (in response to our Aug. 17 post):

I have noticed during this political season that some purportedly gay websites have dedicated themselves to be anti-McCain sites. They aren't even as pro-Obama as they are anti-McCain.

And I would have to say that about 80% of the time the attacks on McCain have nothing whatsoever to do with sexual orientation or gay equality whatsoever.

At times the accusations are so far-fetched that if anyone made similar accusations against a gay person many of us would be horrified at the blatant homophobia. It really does go into the hatred category.

And I have to wonder why.

While I don't think McCain is particularly supportive of the gay community and while I think that he "doesn't get it" sometimes, the guy is certainly not a homophobe. He's not even an anti-gay opportunist like Bush, who probably isn't a hater either but is willing to sell out principle for political gain (in my opinion).

He's just some politician who gets nervous around gay questions and wishes he didn't have to address the issue at all. I may not vote for him (I'm waiting for the two Veep picks to decide) but he's not a heinous villian.

And really McCain's gay positions are not all that far from Obama's. If McCain were a Democrat, he'd fall into the "acceptable" category - though there would be some concern over his bumbling of the adoption issue and I think he's flat wrong on DADT (his position is to rely on the advice of the military leaders).

So why the hate?

All I can conclude is that McCain is completely and entirely evil without a single redeaming quality because he has an R in the parentheses after his name.

I think that nails it.

Tom G. Palmer has an interesting post on China's gay scene, its connection to the development of free markets and property rights, and the efforts by U.S. fundamentalists such as Focus on the Family to thwart these new freedoms (they're in China promoting the view that homosexuality is a disease/sin that can be cured/repented). I suppose the fundies would prefer to have China go back to its communist-era anti-gay ways but leave them free to proselytize their hidebound distortion of Christianity.

More. China, of course, is still far from a land of liberty for Chinese gays and for Chinese Christians, as well as for U.S. proselytizers, some of whom may not understand that working against freedom for some results in less freedom for all.

Maryland's Gov. Martin O'Malley is "too busy" to meet with a group of children of gay parents. O'Malley, a Democrat, courted gay votes during his 2006 campaign for governor, including at Pride events, and received support from LGBT activists. But, as the Washington Blade story reports,

after moving to Annapolis, O'Malley last year greeted a court ruling upholding Maryland's ban on same-sex marriages by noting the state shouldn't tell "any faith how to define its sacraments."

Many Maryland LGBTers opposed the re-election of moderate GOP Gov. Bob Ehrlich, citing Ehrlich's lack of support for gay marriage.

More. (Moved up from below) Are Republicans more tolerant of gays than gays are of Republicans? The Politco reports that the board of Manhunt, a gay hookup site, forced its chairman to resign after it became known that he gave $2,300 to John McCain.

Love makes the world go 'round, and the advance of gay unions around the globe (or at least the more civilized parts thereof) is a major shift forward. Note that the link is to a report in the conservative Washington Times, which not very long ago would only refer to gays getting hitched as "homosexual 'marriage'" (with the "m" word in quotes to signify its lack of legitimacy). Changing times, indeed.

Marc Ambinder has the draft of the Dems' 2008 platform, which is still subject to revision. Like the 2004 platform, it supports ENDA, and it more prominently and specifically calls for ending the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" ban on openly gay service (see page 30). In 2004 the platform opposed the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage; in 2008, and in line with Barack Obama's publicly stated position, it goes further by opposing the Defense of Marriage Act.

Here's an interesting change, though.

From 2004:

We support full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation and seek equal responsibilities, benefits, and protections for these families.

And 2008:

We support the full inclusion of all families in the life of our nation, and support equal responsibility, benefits, and protections.

Something went missing there. In fact, if I'm searching correctly, the 2008 platform omits any mention of the words "gay" and "lesbian." Will gay groups raise the issue? Will the platform committee dare to speak our name?

New York State Assembly Republicans who bucked their party leaders and voted to legalize same-sex marriage in New York have been rewarded with an outpouring of donations from gay rights advocates across the nation, according to the New York Sun, which references in particular the efforts of the Gill Action Fund. The paper reports:

The money has flowed in at such a rapid pace that these Republicans have seen more than half of their individual contributions in the latest filing cycle come from donors with addresses outside the state.

I applaud this effort, as it helps break down the vicious cycle: (A) Republicans get money from anti-gay activists and vote against gay legal equality; (B) gay PACs don't give money to Republicans, because (see A). Repeat.

More. Also, it's not necessarily only Democratic Party-linked lobbies that can be allies to gays fighting to protect their constitutional rights.

Furthermore. Are Republicans more tolerant of gays than gays are of Republicans? The Politco reports that the board of Manhunt, a gay hookup site, forced its chairman to resign after it became known that he gave $2,300 to John McCain.