IGF CultureWatch

Ever since writing this article in 1996, I've been concerned that G&L people might demand marriage but then neglect it. More recently, some SSM opponents have claimed this is exactly what happens. From the Williams Institute at UCLA, here's welcome evidence that they're wrong (PDF format), at least so far. Study co-author Gary Gates summarizes:

We analyze data from states that have extended legal recognition to same-sex couples. We show that same-sex couples want and use these new legal statuses. Furthermore, they react more enthusiastically when marriage is possible. More than 40% of same-sex couples have formed legal unions in states where such recognition is available. Same-sex couples prefer marriage over civil unions or domestic partnerships. In the first year that marriage was offered in Massachusetts, 37% of same-sex couples there married. In states that offered civil unions, only 12% of same-sex couples took advantage of this status in the first year and only 10% did so in states with domestic partnership registries.

It takes generations to establish a culture of marriage in a social milieu where marriage has always been not just illegal but inconceivable. Low take-up rates, by themselves, would not vitiate the case for SSM. But it is good to know that gay culture is already responding to this powerfully life-enhancing institution.

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa pulled out as keynote speaker for a major Human Rights Campaign fundraising event following demands from transgender activists angry about HRC's embrace of political reality.

HRC, for those who haven't followed the ongoing saga of transgendered activism holding gay rights hostage, dared to support a version of the Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) that the House passed last fall, and which would bar workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation. HRC did so after congressional Democrats made clear that the bill would have no chance whatsoever if it also covered transgendered behavior (including, it's presumed-although the vagueness of the provision gives rise to debate- cross-dressing at work). HRC has long supported transgendered rights legislation and reportedly agreed to delay further action on ENDA this year (the Senate has been silent) in the hope (unlikely, in my view) that a transgendered-inclusive bill might pass next year.

Nevertheless, transgendered activists have waged war against HRC, in part to fill their own fundraising coffers, and certainly to further their own power within the "progressive" LGBT movement. And apparently Villaraigosa, who hopes to be elected California's governor in the not too distant future, has agreed that transgendered activists will be calling the shots when it comes to gay rights, as do "many prominent gay rights leaders [who] already had agreed not to attend the event," as MSNBC reports.

Note: As I've written before, I'm ENDA-neutral, but still appalled at the pc genuflection to transgendered activism. As for ENDA, gay libertarians are firmly against it, opposing all laws telling private-sector employers who they can or can't hire. I see ENDA as less intrusive than other anti-discrimination measures-i.e., no assumed "disparate impact" requirement that hiring reflect regional racial/ethnic breakdowns (leading to de facto race-based hiring mandates), or that drug addicts be kept on the payroll because they have a disability. ENDA advocates overstate what it will accomplish, but I believe it would, as a spillover effect, help put the nail in the coffin of governmental discrimination against gays, which would certainly be a good thing.

More. Reader "avee" comments:

Many post-op transgendered individuals get married to (what are now) opposite-sex partners in states that prohibit same-sex marriage, and their marriages are recognized by the federal government. Maybe they should boycott marriage as long as it's denied to gays and lesbians, since they are demanding that gays and lesbians boycott equal rights protections that don't include them.

That seems fair.

ABC's John Stossel looks at police sting operations against adult consensual sex in semi-public (and sometimes, in actuality, private) spaces, and the possibly tragic consequences. Excerpt (the man arrested says he's straight and was arrested while answering nature's call while out jogging):

The park was the site of a police crackdown on gay men using the park for sex. But the police went beyond arrests. Before anyone was convicted, they posted the names, addresses and photos of the men.

Giles's wife saw his picture on the news. Then his employer fired him. "When I lost my job ... my wife was so upset that she had a ... a major heart attack." Another man named by the police killed himself.

It's unknown how many innocents get swooped up in these actions, but there's little question that even for those who arguably are violating public propriety, the government's "sting" (a cheap and easy way to meet arrest quotas) is often devastating, and sometimes deadly.

July was a fairly quiet month, but still among other developments:

• President Bush signed a law ending the exclusion of HIV-positive immigrants and visitors.
• Massachusetts repealed a state law banning nonresident same-sex marriages.
• A popular GOP congresswoman in Florida, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, spoke out against that state's ballot initiative to ban same-sex marriage.
• Congressional hearings on the U.S. military's gay ban exposed the weakness of the anti-gay side.
  
  

Onward to August!

More. And then, of course, there was the horrific shooting and deaths at the Unitarian Universalist church in Knoxville, Tennesssee, by an anti-gay lunatic. Media reports have underscored his hatred of liberals, but he was also, more generally, anti-Christian (although you have to go to the blogs to find that angle explored).

In any event, let's hope this tragedy can result in greater general awareness about the potential consequences of anti-gay animus.

Gays working for spiritual integrity within the Church of England and the American Episcopalian Church are this week once again challenging virulently homophobic and hate-minded Anglican leaders, such as Nigerian Bishop Isaac Orama and Archbishop Peter Akinola, at the once-a-decade Lambeth Conference.

Britain's Times Online reports on the continuing moral cowardice of the Archbishop of Canterbury in the face of evil, in contrast to groups such as Integrity:

In spite of attempts by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, to keep homosexuality as low down the agenda as possible, the subject is likely to dominate the conference. Bishop [Gene] Robinson [the openly gay Episcopal bishop of New Hampshire] is not invited to the conference but is in Canterbury attending fringe events. On Wednesday, the US lobby group Integrity will release a video showing real-life stories of African gay Christians.

A report commissioned by the British gay group Stonewall suggests that "Religious people are more positive towards homosexual people than is claimed by conservative faith leaders." Another finding:

Those interviewed for the report said that new legal protections for lesbian and gay people, including civil partnerships, have had a "civilizing effect" on British society. The increased acceptance of gay people on a national and political level has also had a positive impact on attitudes at a local level, they said."

IGF contributing author Deroy Murdock has a fine column in the conservative flagship, National Review, making the case for ending the U.S. military's gay ban. Writes Murdock in Don't Make Sense: A Policy that Deserves a Dishonorable Discharge:

Last year, the Army gave moral waivers to 106 applicants convicted of burglary, 15 of felonious break-ins, 11 of grand-theft-auto, and 8 of arson. It also admitted five rape/sexual-assault convicts, two felony child molesters, two manslaughter convicts, and two felons condemned for "terrorist threats including bomb threats."

"The Army seems to be lowering standards in training to accommodate lower-quality recruits," RAND Corporation researcher Beth Asch observed at a May 12 Heritage Foundation defense-policy seminar in Colorado Springs.

Conversely, expelled military personnel include Arabic linguists and intelligence specialists who help crush America's foes in the War on Terror. "Don't Ask" has ousted at least 58 soldiers who speak Arabic, 50 Korean, 42 Russian, 20 Chinese, nine Farsi, and eight Serbo-Croatian-all trained at the prestigious Defense Language Institute. Al-Qaeda intercepts need translation, and Uncle Sam may need people who can walk around Tehran with open ears. Yet these dedicated gay citizens now are ex-GIs.

Murdock doesn't make any arguments that haven't already been made; it's the venue that matters. He's using his cred as a conservative to speak to other conservatives who would simply dismiss what's said in the lefty "progressive" media. Murdock's referencing of the conservative Heritage Foundation, for this audience, adds still more weight to his case.

Since, apart from the partisan Log Cabin Republicans, the leading national LGBT lobbies have been turned into Democratic party fundraising vehicles, they can hardly be expected to try to sway conservatives. In fact, they're not even interested in trying.

Over at the liberal New Republic's "The Plank" blog, IGF contributing author James Kirchick cast a critical eye at Liberal Silliness on Gay Marriage, which includes those progressives who don't understand why gays want to get married because, in their enlightened view, marriage remains a sexist, racist, oppressive institution. Example: Courtney E. Martin, author of Perfect Girls, Starving Daughters: The Frightening New Normalcy of Hating Your Body, acknowledging that gay couples should have the same legal rights endowed by marriage, yet can't help but wonder:

But do these rights really trump the woman-as-property history and discriminatory present (on a state by state basis, of course)? Why do so many of my gay friends have such faith that they can transform the institution when I'm still so unsure?

Replies Jamie:

I answer a resounding 'Yes' to the first question and don't much care about the second because I don't see how marriage needs to be 'transformed' other than that it should be opened to homosexuals.

Of course, his post elicits some typical responses from offended liberals, including this gem: "Fire Jamie Kirchick. Nobody likes him."

Although John McCain became the certain GOP presidential nominee months ago, James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family, the richest and most powerful of religious right organizations, has refused to endorse him. And by refusing to offer McCain a free ride, he succeeded in pushing him to make concession after concession to social conservatives. That explains, in no small measure, McCain's initial response opposing adoptions by same-sex couples. Having achieved what he wanted, Dobson is now considering, at this late date, providing his endorsement.

In contrast, although Barack Obama opposes same-sex marriage, and for months failed to publicly express opposition to California's same-sex marriage-banning initiative (only doing so on July 1), as soon as he clinched the Democratic nomination he was unconditionally endorsed by the Human Rights Campaign and most other inside the beltway Democratic GLBT fundraising vehicles. And the amount of political capital Obama has pledged to spend on behalf of gay equality even when push comes to shove, as opposed to much feel-good political rhetoric, remains remarkably slim.

Majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents alike now believe it is acceptable for openly gay people to serve in the U.S. armed forces, which they can not do under the military's don't ask, don't tell (DADT) policy, which congress passed (thanks to former Sen. Sam Nunn, Sen. Robert Byrd and others) and Bill Clinton signed into law.

A new Washington Post-ABC poll says 75% of Americans now support allowing gays in the military-compared to 44 percent in 1993. That support cuts across party identification to include a majority of Republicans. Even 57% of white evangelical Protestants now support allowing openly gay service members in the military.

Given the bigger majorities Democrats are certain to enjoy in the Congress that convenes in January 2009, failure to remove this discriminatory measure, which undermines America's ability to defend itself and wage the war on terrorism, is utterly unacceptable. But will a President Obama, coming into office with the poorest presidential relationship with the U.S. military brass since Bill Clinton, be willing to push for it?

I've been traveling all week and will be on the road for another. Jon Rauch is also away, so blogging is going to remain skimpy for awhile. Still, I wanted to take note of the brouhaha over John McCain's thoughtless response to a question about gay adoption as reported in the New York Times:

Mr. McCain, who with his wife, Cindy, has an adopted daughter, said flatly that he opposed allowing gay couples to adopt. "I think that we've proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so, no, I don't believe in gay adoption," he said.

And , after a stinging response from libertarians and limited government, big-tent conservatives (and, of less importance, LGBT Democratic activists), his campaign's statement to Andrew Sullivan revising and extending McCain's comments:

"McCain could have been clearer in the interview in stating that his position on gay adoption is that it is a state issue, just as he made it clear in the interview that marriage is a state issue. He was not endorsing any federal legislation.

McCain's expressed his personal preference for children to be raised by a mother and a father wherever possible. However, as an adoptive father himself, McCain believes children deserve loving and caring home environments, and he recognizes that there are many abandoned children who have yet to find homes. McCain believes that in those situations that caring parental figures are better for the child than the alternative."

(The New York Times story is here.)

McCain's "clarified" position remain intentionally mushy, and if his original intent was to placate the anti-gay religious right, he's now managed to tick them off all the more. But it does represent some sort of progress that he was made to realize his earlier position, which was entirely consistent with the GOP's traditional dismissal of gay citizens and gay voters, in 2008 will no longer fly.